April 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

Re: [ALAC] Question about GDRP
by Alan Greenberg May 1, 2018

May 1, 2018

GDPR generally applies to all businesses. There is an exemption about not maintaining records of how data is used, but if a person requests such a record, you would have to reconstruct it after the fact. I was not aware of any exemption on publishing why and how data is collected and processed, but that may be ignorance on my part. Alan At 30/04/2018 10:22 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >A friend of mine quoted the following from an >article written here (bullet #9): ><https://government.diginomica.com/2018/01/22/gdpr-compliance-here-are-the-1…>https://government.diginomica.com/2018/01/22/gdpr-compliance-here-are-the-1… > > >"Smaller firms those defined as hhaving 250 >employees or less do not have to comply with >all GDPR rrules as standard. If your >organisation falls into this band, thereâs no >need to have documentation of why personal data >is being collected and processed, the >information youâre storing or how long for. >Smaller firms are not required to maintain a >record of processing activities unless this >carries a risk to the rights and freedoms of >data subjects, it is a regular occurrence, or it >relates to certain data like criminal convictions and offences." > >The question: Is this statement true or false. >If false what 's the real thing? > >Thanks to whomever answers this. > >-ed > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:Ytj/AIpssqiibmKnz50JsE2dlIuhl4mAZZ7KgUS70r3MLVG2H5KbNLby1tvjuxmL9xkihjOX8lTqRqdvkojOVcdFn+7J6Rg9dLd4q6K0sBwFMmlBydtVxY/DHJHtiGSJ >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: > >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 > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

5 4

Question about GDRP
by Eduardo Diaz April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

A friend of mine quoted the following from an article written here (bullet #9): https://government.diginomica.com/2018/01/22/gdpr-compliance-here-are-the-1… *"Smaller firms – those defined as having 250 employees or less – do not have to comply with all GDPR rules as standard. If your organisation falls into this band, there’s no need to have documentation of why personal data is being collected and processed, the information you’re storing or how long for. Smaller firms are not required to maintain a record of processing activities unless this carries a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, it is a regular occurrence, or it relates to certain data like criminal convictions and offences."* The question: Is this statement true or false. If false what 's the real thing? Thanks to whomever answers this. -ed

1 0

Fwd: [community-finance] FY19 Operating Plan and Budget Public Comment Staff Report Published
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 26, 2018

April 26, 2018

Dear all, This information might come relevant to many in these lists. I hope you find it useful. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Planning <planning(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [community-finance] FY19 Operating Plan and Budget Public Comment Staff Report Published > Fecha: 25 de abril de 2018, 21:50:42 GMT-5 > Para: "community-finance(a)icann.org" <community-finance(a)icann.org> > > Today, ICANN published the Staff Report of Public Comments on ICANN's Draft FY19 Operating Plan and Budget, and an associated update to the Five-Year Operating Plan. The report was based on the public comment proceeding that ran from 19 January to 8 March. > > The report can be accessed here. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-fy19-budget-24a…> > The documents will be revised to incorporate changes from the staff report. The final version will be posted for Public Comment in mid-May, then will be submitted for Board adoption on 30 May. > > ICANN recognizes and thanks all stakeholders who contributed to the submission of comments during this public comment period. Your participation is important for ICANN’s long-term planning and budget process. > > > Shani Quidwai > ICANN- Director, Financial Planning and Analysis > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90064 > Mobile: (310) 804-7684 > Office: (310) 578-8664 > > > > _______________________________________________ > community-finance mailing list > community-finance(a)icann.org <mailto:community-finance@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/community-finance>

1 0

Statement on Reserve Replenishment
by Alan Greenberg April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

As discussed on the ALAC on Tuesday, I have modified the draft statement. Please my comment identifying what has been changed and the final version to be submitted (https://community.icann.org/x/riS8B) Alan

1 0

3 new SSAC correspondences published
by Andrei Kolesnikov April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear ALAC, The SSAC has published 3 new correspondences. SSAC2018-09: Request to Appoint Andrey Kolesnikov to the SSAC <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-09-09apr18-en.pdf> SSAC2018-10: Notice of Appointment of SSAC liaison to ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-10-11apr18-en.pdf> SSAC2018-11: Notice of Appointment of SSAC Liaison to the Nominating Committee of ICANN <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac2018-11-23apr18-en.pdf> -- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET

1 0

Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Judith Hellerstein April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Hi All, Very interesting blog by Ash Rangan. Forwarding this email widely so others could read it and discuss it. Best, Judith Sent from my iPad judith(a)jhellerstein.com Skype ID:JudithHellerstein Begin forwarded message: > From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> > Date: April 20, 2018 at 2:16:27 PM EDT > To: "ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org" <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan > > Dear all: > > Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: > > Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org > > Best regards, David > > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org] > > ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? > As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org] with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: > > The Forensics Investigation > With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. > Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. > We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: > Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or > Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. > With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. > > Community Feedback and Next Steps > For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. > Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: > We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. > Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. > > We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. > > Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org > > Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. > > I look forward to your comments! > > > > David A. Olive > Senior Vice President > Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > _______________________________________________ > SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list > SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [APAC-discuss] Nomination of Holly Raiche as ALAC member of APRALO
by Holly Raiche April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

Thank you Kaili. They are very kind words which I appreciate very much. I am happy to accept - and will fill out my candidate’s statement in the next 24 hours.. Holly On 23 Apr 2018, at 9:51 pm, Kan Kaili <kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear APRALO, > > I would like to nominate Holly Raiche as ALAC member of APRALO. > > Over the last few years Holly has been THE major task force of ALAC's policy work, including WHOIS, At-Large Review, GDPR, CCTR and many many others. She not only chaired many of these task forces, but also was pen-holder of numerous ALAC Advices and statements. She has been the most important person in ALAC's policy effort representing end-users' interests, especially representing APRALO. > > Therefore, I fully believe Holly is the best person to represent APRALO at ALAC. > > Kaili Kan > > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

At-Large Review Implementation Overview Proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

The vote on the At-Large Review Implementation Overview Proposal has concluded and passed with 14 votes FOR and 1 ABSTENTION. A copy of the approved proposal is attached. It is now being submitted to the OEC for its consideration. Alan

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [technology taskforce] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond April 22, 2018

April 22, 2018

Dear Marita, On 21/04/2018 16:16, Marita Moll wrote: > So I would be very happy to see a return to Adobe as our basic > platform although I don't know whether "hardened" Adobe will look a > bit different. Spot on. The big question is whether a "hardened" Adobe Connect will work the same way as the "old" Adobe Connect, especially across platforms and networks with differing quality of service. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0