March 2018 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2018

May 13, 2018

It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that is no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan

7 7

Community OnBoarding Program
by Alan Greenberg April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

We never got to this on the meeting today. I have asked a qualifying question about whether we can have 2 mentees (and one already funded mentor) or only 1 mentee and 1 mentor as prescribed in the program. Hopefully we will have an answer tomorrow and can decide how to proceed. Alan

2 1

KSK Rollover Statement
by Alan Greenberg April 1, 2018

April 1, 2018

Based on discussions during this week's ALAC Meeting, I have posted a final version of the statement to be submitted. I beleive it covers all of the issues raised and makes a number of clear and understandable statements - https://community.icann.org/x/dw28B. The submission deadline is tomorrow so please take a look at it and let me know if there are any errors in it. Alan

10 9

DNSSEC KSK Rollover test
by Alan Greenberg March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

Please take a moment to go to http://dnssec-failed.org. One of two things will happen: 1. You will not be able to reach the site. or 2. You will get a page on Comcast Network Management. If 2 is your result, the DNS resolver you are using is NOT DNSSEC-enabled and the KSK Rollover will be invisible to you. If you will be on the ALAC meeting, please do this before the meeting so you can report your results. Alan

12 14

KSK Rollover on today's ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Here is my last try at summarizing things. What is wrong or missing? ----------------- What I am hearing (extrapolated) is: * Our community understands the need to roll the KSK but is divided on which path to follow at this point. * We want an intense awareness campaign including targetting ISPs, Telcos, Major industries. Use RIRs where they can identify potential DNS providers. * Information packet we can send to our community (ALSes, Individual Members) to get them to prompt their local ISPs or others and which can be similarly used by other constituencies within ICANN. * A holistic review of the situation (including a risk assessment of alternatives) in time for further discussion at ICANN62, including the then current state of whatever data is available and forecast of Sentinal availability. * We would like to better understand under what conditions a rollover date change is possible to avoid doing it at the end of a week.

7 7

Multistakeholder Ethos Award Submission
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

As per the decision of the ALAC today, I have nominated Stephane Van Gelder for the Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Alan ===================== 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANN Stakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; >Stephane was the classic example someone who was from one particular >constituency within ICANN, but clearly believed that all voices must >be heard and given due consideration. The discussion and e-mail >traffic within At-Large and the ALAC discussing the possibility for >this submission was truly amazing. People who one would have thought >would have had no contact with Stephane all had stories of how they >collaborated with him in some way over the years. 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; >As Chair of the GNSO Counsel and later Chair of the Nominating >Committee, Stephane had ample opportunity to deal with difficult and >contentious situations. Based on the reports of all who have worked >with him in both environments, he tirelessly met the challenge with >his characteristic aplomb showing even-handedness, intelligence, >sensitivity, positive attitude and of course, humor. 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. >Stephane served in a wide variety of roles in ICANN for almost 20 >year. No matter how much one cares about the Internet and ICANN and >one's business interests, to do that for such a period of time >signals a very high level of devotion. The submission is being made in my capacity of Chair of the ALAC based on a formal decision of the ALAC. However, I would like to add a personal note. I do so with some concern, since as a past member of the Ethos Award Panel, I have questioned whether panelists should submit candidates (and several have over the years). This is an exceptional case. The submission was of course triggered by Stephane's untimely death yesterday. But there are few people in ICANN who I believe merit this award as much as Stephane did and does. I worked with Stephane when I was ALAC Liaison to the GNSO and he was Chair. His ability to make me feel a true part of the Council and not an interloper is something for which I am very grateful.

3 2

ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation
by Maureen Hilyard March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Hi everyone I have put the first draft of the Fellowship Consultation <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79441341> online. Please identify any typos for me and add any further comments you think might be helpful You have until the end of Saturday to comment before it is finalised and submitted to Ergys. Regards Maureen

2 1

URGENT: Proposal for a motion for the ALAC
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear Alan, the European At-Large Organisation (EURALO) has held its call a moment ago and after holding a 1 minute silence in memory of Stéphane van Gelder who has left us in tragic circumstances, participants on the call fully supported the proposal of a motion to be made by an ALAC member, for the ALAC to decide to nominate Stéphane van Gelder for the ICANN Ethos Award. The Ethos Award nomination period has been extended to 28 March 2018, so any vote of support should take place today. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-20-en In the meantime, I am also sending a 24H consensus call for support of this motion to the EURALO mailing list. Stéphane was a EURALO individual member and will be greatly missed. Please be so kind to consider this motion even though it is arriving at such short notice before the ALAC call. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Chair

8 7

GDPR on today's ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Attached and in the body of this message are the notes for today's discussion of GDPR on the ALAC Call. ----------------------------- ALAC Meeting 27 March 2018 GDPR Discussion The ALAC and At-Large are divided on whether the proposed Interim Model meets the requirements of the GDPR and specifically whether the rationales for collecting various data items are specified in sufficient detail and are sufficiently compelling. There are also differing views on whether the transport of data to Registries in compliance with "thick WHOIS" rules is GDPR compliant. In the absence of concerns over privacy, ICANN has previously determined that the thick WHOIS model is the one that should be used and we should not re-litigate that here. We have similarly decided that single points of failure must be avoided and all data must be escrowed in case of any of multiple forms of failure. All data items have proven useful in the past (that was the result of ICANN's earlier work). Whether it can be justified in the current situation is the question. All of these issues will need to be judged by DPAs and to the extent that they make clear statements, we will have to abide by them. The ALAC has the responsibility to look at all issues from and end-user perspective. We also have concerns for registrant issues, but where they differ we support users. 1. Must registrars continue to collect the contact details for administrative and technical contacts and transmit them to the registry and escrow provider? 2. Should anonymized e-mail addresses should be substituted for the e-mail addresses for registrant, administrative, and technical contacts in public WHOIS? 3. Should registries and registries be permitted to optionally apply the model on a global basis? 4. Should the model apply to contact details supplied by registrants who are legal persons? 5. Which elements of WHOIS data should be published in public WHOIS while an accreditation program for layered/tiered access is being developed? 6. How many levels should the "tiered" access mechanism support? 7. Bulk access should it be allowed?

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Stephane van Gelder
by Vanda Scartezini March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

I support too. It was a tragic destiny and his memory deserves some recognition from the community he had served for so many years. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of wafa DAHMANI <wafa(a)ati.tn> Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 16:52 To: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Stephane van Gelder Dear all, He definitely deserves it, I strongly support the idea RIP Stephane ________________________________ De: "Barrack Otieno" <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> À: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Cc: "ICANN ALAC list" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Mardi 27 Mars 2018 20:45:16 Objet: Re: [ALAC] Stephane van Gelder Hi Evan, hi colleagues, Indeed he deserves the Multi Stakeholder Ethos award albeit posthumously. Regards On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: +1. He was a good man. Had a minute of conversation at SJU, even taking the time to encourage me to consider NomCom. May he RIP. I support his nomination for the Ethos award, especially for reasons outlined by Evan. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: Hello all, I am informed that Stephane died last weekend in a traffic accident. Stephane had been active in the GNSO and Nominating Committee and is was Chair of the GNSO during my time as ALAC Vice-Chair. While we didn't agree on everything, Stephane was one of the few members of the domain industry who had both the interest and capacity to work towards broad consensus. His presence at ICANN will be clearly missed. I have been aware of growing interest in the GNSO to support Stephane's posthumous nomination for the ICANN ethos award. I would support this. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Stephane van Gelder
by Evan Leibovitch March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Hello all, I am informed that Stephane died last weekend in a traffic accident. Stephane had been active in the GNSO and Nominating Committee and is was Chair of the GNSO during my time as ALAC Vice-Chair. While we didn't agree on everything, Stephane was one of the few members of the domain industry who had both the interest and capacity to work towards broad consensus. His presence at ICANN will be clearly missed. I have been aware of growing interest in the GNSO to support Stephane's posthumous nomination for the ICANN ethos award. I would support this. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto, Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

6 5

Fellowship on today's ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Attached and in the body of this message are the notes for today's discussion of the Fellowship on the ALAC Call. ----------------------------- ALAC Meeting 27 March 2018 Fellowship Questionnaire Program Goals and Vision 1. What does your group believe should be the objective of the Fellowship Program? How would the success of this objective be measured? > Integration of "graduates" into the > various constituent parts of ICANN as active participants in ICANN activities 2. The Fellowship Program was established to provide access to ICANN meetings to individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities. In your groups opinion, how effective is the Fellowship Program at fulfilling its current goal? > It is moderately effective in getting > people to know about ICANN. Although there have > been a number of notable successes, it is more > effective at raising awareness than in generating workers. 3. In your groups opinion, is this goal still a priority for ICANN, given the new bylaws? If not, what new goals would your group propose for the program? > Yes, it must still be a goal but with > a target of measurable success as measured by the AC/SOs. Assessment of Program Impact on your SO/AC group 4. Have Fellows contributed to the work of your group? If so, where do you think they have added the most value? What might be changed about the Fellowship Program to enhance participation of Fellows in your group? > At-Large has had a number of great > successes with Fellowship alumni. The greatest > value has come from the relatively few who have > chosen to devote time and energy to ICANN post-Fellowship. 5. Does your group make efforts to involve, educate, and/or inform Fellows about your work? If so, please describe these efforts. > Yes, but it is rather haphazard. We > engage at ICANN meetings, but there is no > concerted effort to draw people into our activities. 6. How willing would your group (SO/AC/SG/C) be to participate and take ownership for selecting and developing fellows, including giving them assignments, assigning mentors, etc? > We are willing to participate. Mentors > are possible, but that would presume filtering > candidates who have a particular interest in our areas. Selection Processes 7. Are you aware of the Fellowship selection process? What changes, if any, would you suggest for the selection process? > Yes, we are willing. Returning Fellows > should come with a specific AC/SO/Const in mind > and these must be balanced over the > organization. This shouldbe accompanied by the > identification of coaches from the appropriate group. > > The effectiveness of fellows returning > as mentors and coaches should be evaluated. > > Prospective fellows must be willing to > take intro courses on ICANN Learn. If there are > not suitable courses there that will provide > the needed background, they should be created. > > It should be clear that this is not > tourism, but a path towards active engagement. > > One of the problems may be the > categories used in the selection process. > At-Large fits best into "civil society" but we > do not comfortably fit into the typical model of "civil society". > > And lastly, as long as we still have > fellows at the public meeting asking questions > why ICANN doing nothing to regulate dangerous > content, we are clearly not getting the selection/preparation right. 8. An individual can be awarded a Fellowship up to three times. Do you suggest retaining or revising this number? Why? >We would like to see a study of who (and with >how many trips) actually becomes active in ICANN >on an ongoing basis prior to addressing this. 9. For Policy Forum Meetings, currently only Fellowship Alums can apply. Do you support continuing with this approach? If not, what changes would you suggest? >We support it IF there is data to demonstrate >that these people participate in the policy >activities and do so across the community. Program Size 10. Considering your responses to previous questions, would you suggest making the program larger, smaller, or maintaining the current size? >30 was a very effective group and At-Large >supported increasing it. It may be that 60 was >overreaching and there are not sufficient >available resources (throughout the community) to integrate them. 11. If the program were to be reduced in size, what would your group deem as the priorities for the program with a smaller cohort? >Migration of Fellows to active participation. >This is too expensive a program to use it as >purely dissemination of information about ICANN. Program Structure 12. When you interact with Fellows at an ICANN Meeting, do you find that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about ICANN? If not, what skills or areas of knowledge would you suggest increasing focus on for pre-Meeting preparation? > It depends on whether they are new or have been to prior meetings. 13. Do you think that Fellows spend sufficient time in working sessions with your group during the course of an ICANN meeting? If not, what would changes would your group propose? > No, but it would be good to have us > submit a list of sessions that would prove useful to them. 14. Do you feel that you have enough time to engage with Fellows at an ICANN meeting? > Sadly, no. Information Available on Program 15. Is the information currently available clear and sufficient for your community members to understand the Fellowship Program? If not, which elements could be improved and how? > A presentation either via > teleconference or at an ICANN meeting would be a good start. 16. Are your community members aware of the differences between the Fellowship and NextGen@ICANN Programs? If not, please state what type of clarification would be useful. > Yes, I believe so. General Questions 17. The Fellowship Program seeks to engage participants who will go on to participate actively in the ICANN community. What skills, attributes and backgrounds have provided the most successful and active participation in your SO/AC/SG/C? What skillsets and backgrounds would your group see as desirable for candidates for the Fellowship Program? > At-Large focuses on issues that impact > end-users. A passionate consideration for > end-users, those without the knowledge of ICANN, is the key. 18. With which elements of the Fellowship Program is your group most satisfied? What changes or improvements would your group most want to see implemented to the program? > We are most satisfied with the > relatively small number of people who have gone > on to make At-Large their home and productively > work with us. We would like to see more! 19. Do you have any other questions or comments about the Fellowship Program?

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Onboarding Pilot Program Call for Nominations by SOs/ACs
by Judith Hellerstein March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

3 2

ALAC NomCom delegates
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Selections/elections are coming soon. There has been a lot of individual discussion recently about exactly what characteristics we are looking for in the delegates we send to the NomCom. This year, I think we need to be VERY clear in what we are looking for. I would like to put together a small drafting team of people who have NomCom and related experience to propose such a statement. Please contact me privately if you are interested in participating. The deadline for having such a statement for inclusion in the call for volunteers is mid-April. Alan

1 0

SSR2 RT
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

For your information, appended here is a letter sent from the SO/AC Chairs to the OEC and the SSR2-RT last week (slightly modified to reflect a wording that was confusing in the original message). I have asked our RT members for their thoughts on this plan and for confirmation that they will be staying on the RT. Alan >Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:08:40 -0400 >To: Khaled Koubaa <khaled.koubaa(a)board.icann.org> >Cc: Board Calendaring <board-caucus-ssr2(a)icann.org>, > SO-AC Chairs List <soac-chairs(a)icann.org>, ssr2-review(a)icann.org >Subject: SSR2-RT > >Dear Khaled, > >Thank you for your reply on behalf of the Board OEC to our request >for support in the appointment of an external facilitator to enable >the re-start of SSR2-RT. In this message, while ICANN61 is underway, >we hope to answer the questions you have raised to make tangible >progress during this meeting and immediately provide the RT members >and the broader community with much-needed action and clarity. In >short, to the extent that a procure process is necessary, we ask >that it commence immediately. The appointment of the facilitator and >all new members (already in progress within the SO/ACs) will signal >the formal "un-pause" or "re-start" of the SSR2-RT. > >Our overarching aim is to empower the RT members to come together as >a group and progress their work. To that end, it is absolutely >imperative that the RT members be involved in this discussion. Our >responses here should be interpreted as guidance from the community >rather than a top-down mandate. We therefore have included the RT >members in this reply, and ask that going forward our communications >include them, and that they contribute to these recommendations. > >To guide the procurement process (specific details for which are set >out below) we wish to explain in more detail the intended role of >the facilitator. Our email of 15 February stated: "The primary aim >of the external facilitator would be to facilitate this transition >process, with a view to winding facilitation down when RT members >and leaders consider that issues are satisfactorily resolved to >continue their work." We consider the role of the facilitator to be >a) onboarding new members who have joined since the "pause" and >agreeing on leadership from within the then current membership; b) >helping the group to work through concerns around membership and >scope as identified in a confidential survey conducted by the SO/AC >Chairs shortly after the pause; and c) helping the RT to identify >ways to reach consensus. Specifically in response to the procurement practice: > * Skill set requirements: To most effectively fulfil a), b) and > c) above, the facilitator should be external to ICANN, with > expertise in group dynamics and empowering group members with > divergent views and experience to coalesce around a common goal. > The SO/AC Chairs will provide the confidential responses received > to the survey conducted following ICANN60 which sought RT member > input on issues relating to membership and scope, and which > generated quite divergent responses. The facilitator must therefore > establish a safe space in which the broad range of views on > membership and scope can be discussed and common positions > identified, with agreement on moving forward in an agreed statement > of scope and list of members. > * Experience requirements: As appropriate to meet skill set > requirements above > * Scope of work: a) helping the group to coalesce around > leadership and onboarding new members who have joined since the > "pause"; b) helping the group to work through concerns around > membership and scope as identified in a confidential survey > conducted by the SO/AC Chairs shortly after the pause; c) helping > the RT to identify ways to reach consensus. > * Timing and duration: Facilitation ends when all expected > deliverables (below) are completed. > * Expected deliverables: a) confirmation of membership list of > RT going forward, with chair/s identified; b) an agreed statement > of scope; and c) if considered necessary by the RT members, a > request from the RT for additional or different resources (ie, more > members with particular skills, refinements to staff support), with > a clear statement as to how any such request is necessary to and > directly supportive of the RT's work. >We appreciate your positive response to our initial request, and are >prepared to respond promptly to any further questions this week, in >order that the procurement process can commence immediately. We ask >further that this be prioritised by the OEC so that the >facilitator's appointment - and thus the re-start of SSR2-RT - can >take place as soon as possible, and no later than 1 May for >scheduling to take full advantage of face to face time at ICANN62. > >Kind regards, on behalf of, > >SO/AC Chairs

1 0

ALAC Meeting next week
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

The main focus of the ALAC meeting on Tuesday will be to come to closure on: - KSK Rollover Statement (https://community.icann.org/x/dw28B) - Issues to raise in the GDPR statement (https://community.icann.org/x/Ay68B) - Fellowship statement (https://community.icann.org/x/vS28B) PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS/THOUGHTS BY THE END OF SUNDAY so they can be summarized for discussion on Tuesday. Alan

1 0

URGENT: ICANN Fellowship Program Community Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 21, 2018

March 21, 2018

A review of the Fellowship Program was announced on 31 January 2018. For no obvious reason, it seems to have not been acted on by me, Staff, RALO leaders and perhaps ALAC Vice-Chairs (not sure if they are on the list as they should be). The formal deadline is 30 March, but we have been granted a one week extension. A Wiki page will be created shortly. If you value the Fellowship Program, please contribute. Comments should include both what the program has (in your mind), done well and less well. Alan At 31/01/2018 12:15 PM, David Olive wrote: >Dear Community Leaders: > >We're launching a community-wide consultation on the Fellowship >Program to help inform its future direction. > >The attached paper provides an overview of the program, including a >breakdown of the data available on the Fellows, a questionnaire, and >other details about the consultation process. > >We anticipate that there will be interest in further discussing this >process and our team will be available to speak with community >groups about the current Fellowship Program and the questionnaire at >ICANN61 or remotely. Questions about the program and responses to >the questionnaire should be sent to ><mailto:fellowshipconsultation@icann.org>fellowshipconsultation(a)icann.org >by 30 March 2018. > >Grateful if you could share this information so that each community >group is aware of and has the opportunity to participate in the consultation. > >Best, > >Ergys Ramaj >Sr. Director, Public Responsibility Support, ICANN

4 4

At-Large workspaces
by Maureen Hilyard March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

Hi staff As new At-Large workspaces are created could they please be added to the Workspaces listed on the left of the At-Large Dashboard.and with current workspaces listed at the top - especially if we are trying to encourage At-Large members to access policy workspaces? It would make it a lot easier to locate and access our own workspaces rather than using the search engine which usually lists every other constituency's workspace of a similar name, even if you add "at-large". Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] "Policy" t4ravel slots for Panama
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

I agree that this is NOT the slot for a "newbie". As the main criteria says, it is for someone who already is actively involved but would not otherwise be able to attend. Examples that come to mind are Daniel Nanghaka, Justine Chew and Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong. Alan At 19/03/2018 09:22 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >The policy meeting is usually for policy work, I don't think we >should have newbie for that. I however suggest that those who have >not attended ICANN meeting before but have been participating >remotely should be given priority. > >Regards > >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 1:49 AM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >We have a short time to do the call for travellers for the "policy slots". >Last time, the criteria were summarized in the call for expressions >of interest as: > >There are two travel slots that will be allocated to At-Large >participants who are ACTIVELY involved in some ICANN policy >activity, or those with a strong history of such involvement in the >past and an interest to restart. Those include gNSO or ccNSO PDPs, >CCWGs, ALAC support Working Groups and the At-Large Review (with a >lesser emphasis on the latter). Other slots may be opened due to >other travellers not being able to attend or not requiring full funding. > >During the selection, we decided that to the extent practical, we >should also tried to select people who had not been previously >selected. I an recommending doing that again, and also, to the >extent possible, try to identify people who will best benefit from >the extensive policy discussions we expect in Panama. >Are there other criteria that we should consider. >As in the past, the selection will be done by the RALO chairs and >me, to best identify local talent who need to be favoured. >The call needs to be made very soon, so please contact me quickly if >you have input. >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

7 7

"Policy" t4ravel slots for Panama
by Alan Greenberg March 19, 2018

March 19, 2018

We have a short time to do the call for travellers for the "policy slots". Last time, the criteria were summarized in the call for expressions of interest as: There are two travel slots that will be allocated to At-Large participants who are ACTIVELY involved in some ICANN policy activity, or those with a strong history of such involvement in the past and an interest to restart. Those include gNSO or ccNSO PDPs, CCWGs, ALAC support Working Groups and the At-Large Review (with a lesser emphasis on the latter). Other slots may be opened due to other travellers not being able to attend or not requiring full funding. During the selection, we decided that to the extent practical, we should also tried to select people who had not been previously selected. I an recommending doing that again, and also, to the extent possible, try to identify people who will best benefit from the extensive policy discussions we expect in Panama. Are there other criteria that we should consider. As in the past, the selection will be done by the RALO chairs and me, to best identify local talent who need to be favoured. The call needs to be made very soon, so please contact me quickly if you have input. Alan

12 15

Re: [ALAC] "Policy" t4ravel slots for Panama
by Alan Greenberg March 19, 2018

March 19, 2018

It means people who previously were VERY active in policy issues, stopped for a while for some reason, and are now saying that they will be restarting. Alan At 18/03/2018 09:56 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano wrote: >Dear Alan, > >What does it means: "strong history of such involvement in the past"? > >Regards, > >Maritza > >Enviado desde mi iPhone > >El 18 mar. 2018, a las 21:20, Eduardo Diaz ><<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > >>Ok with me. >> >>-ed >> >>- >> >>On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 9:18 PM Satish Babu >><<mailto:sb.inapp@gmail.com>sb.inapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Thanks Alan. >> >>I've no specific suggestions, but would be >>happy to discuss any new criteria that you may want to propose. >> >> >> >> >>satish >> >> >>On Mon, Mar 19, 2018, 06:26 Humberto Carrasco >><<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Dear Alan, >> >>Thanks a lot for this email. We have 2 slots and 5 RALOS. >> >>Will There be any other criteria to select these 2 slots? >> >> >>Regards >> >> >>Humberto Carrasco Blanc >>Abogado >>Profesor Asociado Derecho EconÃ³mico - Comercial >>Universidad CatÃ³lica del Norte - Coquimbo >>LLM Queen Mary University of London >>PhD University of Edinburgh >> >> >> >> >>>El 18-03-2018, a las 17:15, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> escribiÃ³: >>> >>>We have a short time to do the call for travellers for the "policy slots". >>> >>>Last time, the criteria were summarized in the >>>call for expressions of interest as: >>> >>>There are two travel slots that will be >>>allocated to At-Large participants who are >>>ACTIVELY involved in some ICANN policy >>>activity, or those with a strong history of >>>such involvement in the past and an interest >>>to restart. Those include gNSO or ccNSO PDPs, >>>CCWGs, ALAC support Working Groups and the >>>At-Large Review (with a lesser emphasis on the >>>latter). Other slots may be opened due to >>>other travellers not being able to attend or not requiring full funding. >>> >>>During the selection, we decided that to the >>>extent practical, we should also tried to >>>select people who had not been previously >>>selected. I an recommending doing that again, >>>and also, to the extent possible, try to >>>identify people who will best benefit from the >>>extensive policy discussions we expect in Panama. >>> >>>Are there other criteria that we should consider. >>> >>>As in the past, the selection will be done by >>>the RALO chairs and me, to best identify local talent who need to be favoured. >>> >>>The call needs to be made very soon, so please >>>contact me quickly if you have input. >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >>-- >>NOTICE: This email may contain information >>which is confidential and/or subject to legal >>privilege, and is intended for the use of the >>named addressee only. If you are not the >>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose >>or copy any part of this email. If you have >>received this email by mistake, please notify >>the sender and delete this message immediately. >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Travelers] PLEASE READ - NEW SESSION INFORMATION ICANN61
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 14, 2018

March 14, 2018

Dear Gisella, as the TTF has tested out using ZOOM and set it up with local tech staff, will the other meetings of the At-Large be using Zoom rooms? Will agendas be amended accordingly for people to be able to attend remotely? How will remote participants be informed of the Zoom Room that they need to go into? Kindest regards, Olivier On 14/03/2018 07:40, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Due to security difficulties, (see Goran’s blog here[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…>) > the Adobe Connect room facilities will no longer be available to > ICANN61 participants. In order to minimize disruption, we have the > following steps we encourage you to follow: > > > > 1. *TO JOIN THE AUDIO* > > * Audio streaming will be available for all open, public meetings. > Links can be find on the ICANN61 schedule meeting pages: > https://61.schedule.icann.org/[61.schedule.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_…> > * The audio bridge is available for those who would like to ask > questions or comment over the telephone. *Dial in details for the > At-Large sessions are:* > o *ADIGO Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann* > o *Conference ID: 1638* > > > > 2. *TO ACCESS THE PRESENTATIONS* > > * *All presentations will be on our At-Large ICANN61 wiki pages. For > today, Wednesday 14 March: https://community.icann.org/x/bAm8B* > * *Presentations and documents will also be circulated via email on > demand* > * All presentations and documents which were to be shown in the AC > room will be uploaded to the corresponding page on the ICANN61 > schedule meeting pages: > https://61.schedule.icann.org/[61.schedule.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_…> > > > > 3. *ASKING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTING IN WRITTEN FORMAT* > > These will be handed *via live management of email*comments and > questions by the Remote Participation Manager. Please see list of > meeting room email addresses here: > > > > * https://61.schedule.icann.org/pages/2350[61.schedule.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_…> > > > > > We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We encourage participants > who have not already done so to download the ICANN61 mobile app by > searching for “ICANN61” in your app stores. Please do not hesitate to > email us at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > if you need a dial out specifying which meeting you would like to join > and your preferred contact number. > > > > Thank you > > Kind regards, > > Gisella > > > > —————— > > Gisella Gruber > > Manager, Operations Support, ALAC-At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Email: gisella.gruber(a)icann.org <mailto:gisella.gruber@icann.org> > > Tel: +44 7545 334 360 <tel:+44%207545%20334360> > > Skype ID: gisella.gw[gisella.gw] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gisella.gw&d=DwMFaQ&c=F…> > > > > /One World, One Internet/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Travelers mailing list > Travelers(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/travelers -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

News from the GAC meeting
by Yrjö Länsipuro March 10, 2018

March 10, 2018

Dear all, At the GAC session at ICANN61 today, the representative of Brazil reported on the moves to solve the .amazon issue after Amazon presented its compromise proposal at ICANN60. Soon after, the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (OCTA) decided to consider Amazon's proposal. An OCTA working group asked Amazon additional questions, and the replies were received on 5 March. They are now being analyzed by the working group, which hopes to to present its report to OCTA before mid-April. OCTA consists of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. The Board had inquired whether the GAC wanted to give it any additional information on the .amazon matter. In view of the ongoing contacts between OCTA goverments and Amazon, the GAC decided to reply that at this time it has none. So there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. Best, Yrjö

2 1

SSAC Liaison
by Alan Greenberg March 10, 2018

March 10, 2018

I was informed this weekend that the SSAC has accepted Andrei Kolesnikov as a full Member of the SSAC. In December 2017, the ALAC decided by consensus to ratify Andrei Kolesnikov as the candidate for position of ALAC Liaison to the SSAC and, if he is accepted by the SSAC, to be appointed as the ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. Accordingly, it is with great pleasure that I can announce that Andrei is now the ALAC's new Liaison to the SSAC! I'm sure you will all join me in offering our congratulations. Technically Andrei still needs to be formally appointed to the SSAC by the Board, but he is already welcome to attend SSAC meetings. As Liaison, his SSAC responsibilities take precedence over his ALAC Member duties, but I am sure we will see him regularly throughout the week. It also with some regret that I note that Julie will no longer be acting as our Liaison. Given her new role as Vice-Chair of the SSAC, I suspect we may hear a sigh of relief if only because of time conflicts. I do not have the words to fully express my gratitude for how she has fulfilled the role of our SSAC Liaison. Visually considering Andrei and Julie, it is amusing that I say that Andrei has some very large shoes to fill! I note that with this message, in accordance with section 3.5.5 of our Rules of Procedure, I am inviting Julie to continue to participate in the ALT as an advisor, to the extent that she wishes and has the time to do so. As an aside, that also gives her an invitation to all of our social events. :-) Alan

21 20

Joint NCUC-At Large outreach session on Saturday afternoon
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 10, 2018

March 10, 2018

Hello all, join us this afternoon at the joint NCUC-At Large outreach session. It's open to *everyone* ! Breaking the silos: Find your place at ICANN! Joint NCUC-At Large outreach ICANN 61, San Juan, PR, Saturday 10 March 2018, 15:15-16:45 Meeting Page: https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647546 . 1. Session description: Building on the success of the joint NCUC-EURALO session at ICANN 58 and NCUC-At-Large session during ICANN 60, this session represents a joint event of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (ncuc.org) and At-Large (atlarge.icann.org) for local Academia, Civil Society, and individual users. It will be built around specific issues of interest to inform the audience about ongoing policy processes at ICANN and discuss in an interactive manner how people and organisations wanting to join can contribute. 2. Agenda and resource persons: AGENDA (Moderators: Tatiana Tropina and Olivier Crépin-Leblond) 1) How not to drown in the acronym soup? Introduction to ICANN, NCUC and At-Large: (20 minutes) * NCUC and its governance (Louise Marie Hurel + Renata Aquino @renataaquino - remotely) (4 min) * What is At-Large and how is it governed? (Tijani Ben Jemaa) (4 min) * What is the difference between NCUC and At-Large? Do we also have different positions on various issues? (examples: consumer trust / privacy / freedom of speech) (Milton Mueller and Olivier) (9 min) * What can we do together and how we cooperate? (Olivier and Tatiana) (3 min) 2) What are we working on? Some insights into ICANN policy world (40 minutes) * GDPR Compliance at ICANN: top down and bottom up (Ayden Ferdeline + Holly Raiche) * The future of human rights in ICANN’s policy considerations (Collin Kurre + Bastiaan Goslings) * Geo names at New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Work Track 5: In the trenches (Robin Gross + Cheryl Langdon-Orr) 3) Navigating ICANN maze: how to get involved? (10 min) * Joining PDPs, WGs and other processes: NCUC and At-Large perspective (Rafik Dammak + Sebastien Bachollet) * Grabbing a pen? Public Comments: NCUC and At-Large perspective (Rafik Dammak + Bastiaan Goslings) 4) Ok, you did a great job! Now get serious and take a leadership opportunity (15 minutes ) * Opportunities at NCUC (5 min - Bruna Santos) * Opportunities in At-Large (5 min - Glenn McKnight @inkmedia ) * Global Stakeholder Engagement (5 min - Adam Peake) 5) Wrap up (5 minutes) * NCUC: Bruna/Elsa * At-Large: Olivier

1 0