July 2018 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Methodology for selecting NomCom delegates
by Alan Greenberg July 30, 2018

July 30, 2018

There has been some question of whether the ALAC should endorse one or more of the NomCom delegate recommendations from the RALOS. As decided on the ALAC monthly call on 24 July 2018, there will be a vote to decide on the specific methodology to be used for endorsing the RALO NomCom delegate recommendations. The two options are: 1. For each regional recommendation, there will be a vote on whether to ratify the recommended candidate. The candidate will be ratified in a supermajority of the ALAC supports the candidate. A supermajority is 2/3, so for a fully seated ALAC, 10 votes of support are needed. 2. For each regional recommendation, there will be a vote on whether to ratify the recommended candidate. The candidate will be ratified in a supermajority of the those voting support the candidate. In accordance with RoP 12.2.1 at least five ALAC Members must cast a non-abstaining vote and the number of votes supporting ratification must be at least double the number of votes against ratification. Alan

4 3

Open Data Initiative
by Alan Greenberg July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

I have posted a statement at https://community.icann.org/x/DoMpBQ. The Public Comment closes tomorrow (27th) but I am requesting an extension. Alan

1 0

ALAC EPDP Selection Committee Notice
by Maureen Hilyard July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear All On behalf of the ALAC EPDP Selection Committee, consisting of the ALAC non-candidates, I would like to announce the names of the Members and Alternates who were selected to represent the ALAC on the recently formed Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) of the Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNSO). The purpose of the EDPD is to confirm, or not, the Temporary Specification as a Consensus Policy. The EPDP must be completed within 12 months of the implementation effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification. The ALAC team will consist of: Hadia Elminiawi (Member); Alan Greenburg (Member); Seun Ojedeji (Alternate)' and Holly Raiche (Alternate). The ALAC would like to congratulate these volunteers and to thank them in advance for the exceptional amount of time they will need to dedicate to this task, to ensure that the ALAC's view is represented in the EPDP. Members of At-Large are encouraged to participate in the meetings of the Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) which will be the primary means for the EPDP team to communicate with its community, but also to enable the coordination of the ALAC point of view for the EPDP. Regards Maureen Hilyard Chair, ALAC EPDP Selection Committee

7 7

ALAC Liaison to GAC/SSAC/GNSO/ccNSO
by Alan Greenberg July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

It is time to consider the appointment of the ALAC Liaison so other ACs and SOs for the year starting at the completion of the ICANN63 meeting in Barcelona. Our current Liaisons are: ccNSO: Barrack Otieno SSAC: Andrei Kolesnikov GNSO: Cheryl Langdon-Orr GAC: Yrjö Länsipuro Barrack and Andrei were just appointed part way through this year. Cheryl and Yrjö will both be completing their second year in their respective roles (plus a few months for Yrjö since he was appointed a few months before the end of the year). All four are prepared to serve for another year, and the reports I have received as well as my interactions with them indicate they are serving the ALAC well. Our Rules of Procedure 18.2 (see below) allows us to reappoint serving Liaison without opening a formal call for Nominations/Volunteers. All four are serving the ALAC well. I do not see any merit at all in opening nominations for the roles of SSAC and ccNSO Liaison at this time. For the GNSO and GAC, I believe that stability is of the utmost importance in both roles at the moment. Our relationship with the GAC is flourishing as evidenced by the recent appointment of Ana Neves as the GAC Liaison to the ALAC. With regard to the GNSO, as evidenced by the recent decision to restrict the ALAC to two Members for the EPDP and other events over the past year, our relations are not the best. I believe that we have the two EPDP seats in no small part due to Cheryl's efforts and I believe that it would not be wise to make a change now. Therefore, in all four cases and in accordance with ALAC RoP 18.2 (See <http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09 and reproduced at the end of this message), I am proposing that the ALAC re-appoint the current Liaisons. If we choose to open nominations, and if there are more than one candidate for a positions, our current practice is to refer this selection to the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (as per RoP 18.3) for a recommendation to the ALAC. This will be on the agenda of today's ALAC call and we will either reach a decision during the meting or I will initiate a vote or Consensus call shortly thereafter. Alan ======================= ALAC Rules of Procedure 18.1 Appointments of At-Large Appointees to various bodies both inside and outside of ICANN will be made by the ALAC. Such appointments will normally be initiated by a call for volunteers, posted by the Chair/Staff to the Approved Distribution Lists, and on other lists if appropriate, allowing at least seven days for people to volunteer. The decision regarding appointments is typically made via Consensus. However, the Chair will initiate a secret ballot to determine which candidate is to be appointed if Consensus cannot be reached or if this is requested by any ALAC Member. 18.2 By the decision of the ALAC, a current Appointee who is willing to continue in that role may be reconfirmed instead of initiating a new selection process. 18.3 In the case of selections requiring complex criteria evaluation, the ALAC may choose to form a sub-committee to carry out the analysis and to make recommendations to the ALAC based on that analysis. 18.4 For situations where the ALAC is not empowered to make appointments but rather to endorse one or more candidates, essentially the same process as described here for appointments should be used, but with the outcome being an endorsement.

1 0

CROP PROGRAM RT closing to be included on ALAC Agenda
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear ALAC members, On the At-Large Regional Leadership call held on July 19 <https://community.icann.org/display/CRALO/2018-07-19+At-Large+Regional+Lead…>, the RALOs had a significant discussion on the FY19 CROP, particularly the scope and responsibilities of the CROP Review Team <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43982055> members. After thorough deliberations, all RALOs decided unanimously to recommend to the ALAC that the CROP RT be eliminated for the FY19 and onwards. The RALOs decided to coordinate and manage the CROP Program allocations internally. The functions of the RT members will be performed by the CROP Program Coordinators <https://community.icann.org/display/CROP19/CROP+Contacts>. RALOs will review and if necessary, change their Program Coordinators <https://community.icann.org/display/CROP19/CROP+Contacts>. We would like to request that this item be placed on the July 24 ALAC meeting agenda for its discussion and ALAC approval. Thank you! Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (on behalf of RALO Chairs)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] IDN Variants in the market place
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

I support this Siva and would call on the ALAC chair and ALAC to direct the At Large Working Group on IDNs to put a paper together for the community to input into to capture, Siva's concerns and those views averse to the notion so we can have a broad macro view of the same. Particularly, the major RALOs that would be affected are EURALO and APRALO and notwithstanding other RALOs at all. Many thanks, Sala On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, 10:19 pm Sivasubramanian M, <6.Internet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a look at the attached screenshot of a domainer's offer to > sell single character IDNs, for instance an IDN variant (lookalike) of the > ASCII character X, which sets a harmful trend. This is an issue if > confusability. > > I understand that the Registries (are required to?) maintain a list of > harmful names for their TLDs, but there is no common minimal list of > harmful names. One possible way to achieve this is for the Registries, at > least in the ASCII space, to volunteer to feed their respective list of > harmful names into a common Registry Stakeholder database, and then draw up > a common minimum list of harmful domain names that any Registry could avoid > registering. > > If At-Large could shape this as a workable suggestion, it could formally > go to the Registry Stakeholders. > > Sivasubramanian M > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment on Red Cross national names
by Alan Greenberg July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

The PC at https://community.icann.org/x/GoRHBQ is addressing a set of recommendations to protect at the second level the names of the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. I was an active member of the original Red Cross name PDP. The national names were not protected at that time for a number of reasons, largely technicalities. This PDP modification process was convened to attempt to correct the process. I also joined the reconvened WG, but stopped attending after three meetings, largely due to the slowness of the deliberations, but I did keep an eye on the mailing list. The bottom line is that the reconvened PDP is recommending that the country names be protected. In reality, I do not believe that this issue is really substantive in that fraudulent activity can still occur using minor modification of the names. But I believe that we should support it because it is significant example of ICANN addressing an issue with global public interest implications. In particular, one of the arguments against reserving these names in the past has been that by doing so, we are impacting freedom of speech - specifically not allowing other parties to use these names. Since these names are in fact protected by law in each jurisdiction, I personally believe that this argument has little merit. I am reproducing the statement below for your convenience. Alan ======== The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs Policy Amendment Process. The ALAC has always taken the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. The current process recommends additional protection in this area and the recommendations are supported by the ALAC.

10 9

SSAC Report related to the GNSO EPDP
by Alan Greenberg July 16, 2018

July 16, 2018

I call your attention to SAC101: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data (14 June 2018). I believe it relates very closely to issues that are of importance the At-Large as we enter into the GNSO EPDP. It can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-101-en.pdf. Alan

1 0

Draft Principles for GDPR
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

Folks Since we all think principles are a good idea, I have set down the basics from the Temporary Spec - very simplistic, but it's a start. What we need now is discussion on the principles. Evin - I'm not sure if you have a new wiki page for discussion on the temporary spec, but if not, would you create on. And Olivier - the Temporary Spec necessarily will deal with access - at the least, guiding principles, so whoever is on the EPDP will have some guidance on our red lines on access. So please everyone - comments Thanks Holly TEMPORARY SPECIFICATION FOR GTLD REGISTRATION DATA PRINCIPLES FOR REQUIREMENTS TO REPLACE THE RAA/REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS _(within the context of compliance with the GDPR)_ _ _ PURPOSE OF COLLECTION OF DATA Quoting from the Temporary Spec – which is quoting from the ICANN Bylaws: _purpose is to coordinate the bottom-up, multistakeholder development and implementation of policies “[f]or which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries” _ _Purpose includes_ · 􏰂 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names); · 􏰂 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and name servers; · 􏰂 procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar (e.g, escrow); and · 􏰂 the transfer of registration data upon a change in registrar sponsoring one or more registered names. the Bylaws specifically obligate ICANN, in carrying out its mandate, to “adequately address issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection” _ _ GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF EPDP OUTCOME: · Apply globally OR · Apply only to European Economic Area (the coverage of the GD R) and otherwise lesser requirements (existing RAA requirements?) DATA COLLECTED · ‘Thick Whois” – based on the differing uses of the data is listed in the purpose above – OR · Some lesser amount of information CONSENT · Registrants must be told, at the time of collection, what personal information is collected, why the collection is necessary to achieve the purposes, who will have access and in what circumstances access will be given to what information, and all circumstances in which the data will be transferred (to Registry, Escrow) and where held.They must also be told their consent can be withdrawn at any time (and consequences of withdrawal) and how to withdraw consent ACCESS TO DATA – TIERED ACCESS (LARGELY WHAT IS IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION) · Applies to all Registrants – natural or corporate persons · Information generally publicly available o Registrant name o Anonymised email or other anonymous contact means · Access to other personal information – o Only to accredited entities (not individuals)– o Only in specific circumstances that warrant access

10 17

Fwd: Call for Volunteers: Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
by Alan Greenberg July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

Please find attached the formal Call for Volunteers for the GNSO EPDP. A few things to note: - The criteria for Membership and Alternates have changed. The Wiki will be changed and all of the lists that received the original call for EoIs will be notified. - The group quotas have changed - radically. = Registries and Registrars unchanged at 3/3 each (Members/Alternates) = Commercial SG Constituencies each cut from 3/3 to 2/1 = NCSG increased from 3/3 to 6/3 = GAC unchanged at 3/3 = ALAC, SSAC and ccNSO cut from 3/3 to 2/2 Alan >From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: various >Subject: Call for Volunteers: Expedited Policy Development Process >(EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:19:47 +0000 > >Dear Alan, > >On behalf of the GNSO Council, please find attached the Call for >Volunteers concerning the Expedited Policy Development Process >(EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. > >Kind regards, > >Nathalie > >Nathalie Peregrine >Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >Email: <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.htm>nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org >Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our >i<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…>nteractive >courses and visiting the ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>GNSO >Newcomer pages

2 1

High level Panel on Digital Cooperation
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

Dear All, Chengetai Masango has recently been appointed to the UN Secretary General's Digital Commission today. Kindly find information on the Commission. See email below for further info. The Commission is co-chaired by Jack Ma and Melinda Gates. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 6:08 am Subject: Fwd: [IGFmaglist] High level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chengetai Masango <chengetai.masango(a)un.org> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 4:25 am Subject: [IGFmaglist] High level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist(a)intgovforum.org> Dear All, Please find attached the press release and fact sheet, Q&A's and key messages on the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. Please feel free to distribute it amongst your constituents. Remember, the Co-Executive Director of the Secretariat Amb. Amandeep Gill will be at the MAG meeting in Room XI at the Palais 9:30am tomorrow Friday GVA time to answer any questions and explain a bit more about the Panel. Those not in Geneva can remotely participate through Webex https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?MTID=m88f19f719ee44268e7897… Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist(a)intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org

1 0

EPDP Wiki Site
by Alan Greenberg July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

The main EPDP page is https://community.icann.org/x/u4lHBQ. It is a daughter page of the main At-Large Policy Development page. As our work proceeds, it will have links to other relevant wiki pages. It will be managed by staff. At the moment, there is a link to: - the EoI submission form and the Membership criteria - a page discussing why we care - https://community.icann.org/x/_YlHBQ. Alan

3 2

Public Comment on Travel Guidelines
by Alan Greenberg July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

Tanks for the great contributions on the Wiki for this ccomment. A draft comment has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/hCkFBQ. A copy is attached for your convenience. The Public Comment ends next Monday, so please post any comment by the end of the weekend. It will be ratified after the fact. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft Principles for GDPR
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2018

July 11, 2018

Carlton, I think that this is THE answer to the question of why At-Large needs to participate in this process. There are likely to be few GNSO participants that look at it from this perspective. See my comment at https://community.icann.org/x/_YlHBQ. Alan At 11/07/2018 11:10 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >A good piece to introduce here. So we not mis >read this let me state how the end user >interest is inextricably conjoined with "third parties". > >The first is the protection of end users from >predators and predatory practices enabled by the >DNS. The vast majority of end users would not >know a WHOIS record even it jumped up and bit >them in the butt. We depend on others to help >us, to be on the line for our collective sake. > >These surrogates, if you will, include the >reputation companies, the antivirus folks, the >researchers and a whole amalgam of third party interests. > >When the end user gets a green tick that says >this is a safe website, it protects the end >user. That springs from the work of reputation >companies. Accesd to WHOIS data is vested in >their formulaic response that keeps me from >wandering, mouth-breathing, into dangerous territory. > >ICANN and the entire chain of connections in the >DNS infrastructure has a role, each from a >slightly different perspective. But reputation >is not a sole interest as it is for these guys. >And the end user is a beneficiary of this >interest, which kicks in long way before the mainline DNS actors. > >This is just one example. But let us be clear. >That end user interests are defended by >surrogates and so-called third parties is not an >outlier. I would argue it is the central case. > >The ALAC may not argue for end user interests >absent an appreciation of the role in defending >those interests by third parties. That would be >a failure to recognize the facts as they >are...and an egregious abdication of responsibilities. > >-Carlton > >On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, 7:51 am Bastiaan Goslings, ><<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net> wrote: >I think I can agree with both Jonathan/Alan and >Tijani on this. And as a matter of principle >Iâd therefore suggest to follow what the EDPB >says on page 2 ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-05jul…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-05jul… > >âThe EDPB considers it essential that a clear >distinction be maintained between the different >processing activities that take place in the >context of WHOIS and the respective purposes >pursued by the various stakeholders involved. >() The EDPB therefore reiterates that ICANN >should taake care not to conflate its own >purposes with the interests of third parties, >nor with the lawful grounds of processing which >may be applicable in a particular caseâ > > > > > On 11 Jul 2018, at 12:17, > <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net wrote: > > > > Hi Tijani > > > > I think we can both agree that it is about > the public interest. And while privacy is a > big part of that, so are other issues - a safe, stable DNS etc. > > > > I have asked that this discussion is on the > wiki so that there is a place for everyone to > contribute - and I hope you will participate as well. > > > > We need agreed principles for the people who > will sit on the EpDP - which means we need to hear from everyone - you included > > > > Holly > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > "Tijani BEN JEMAA" > <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@benjemaa.com>tijani.benjemaa(a)benjemaa.com> > > > > To: > > "Jonathan Zuck" > <<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > > Cc: > > > "<mailto:h.raiche@internodeon.net>h.raiche(a)internodeon.net" > <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>, > "ALAC List" > <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > "A t" <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Sent: > > Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:33:16 +0100 > > Subject: > > Re: [ALAC] Draft Principles for GDPR > > > > > > Good morning everyone, > > > > I disagree with this statement Jonathan. > > The registrants represent the active part of > the end-users. we are responsible to defend their interest. > > I have heard such reflection, and it always > lead to be more aligned with the commercial > interests. We need to be careful and be always > for the public interest, not for the political or commercial interests. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > > +216 52 385 114 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Le 10 juil. 2018 Ã 22:27, Jonathan Zuck > <<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> a Ã©crit : > > > > Thanks Holly for getting this started. I > guess what weâre after are some basic > principles on our perspective on the GDPR. The > temp spec is the temp spec so some of this will > apply for sure, if we reach some consensus on > these but there are areas that are simply part > of the law over which we donât have > influence. A principle might be something like > > > > > > The ALAC feels responsible to > reprresent the interests of non-registrants > more so than registrants as they represent the majority of users. > > > > Iâm not saying weâve agreed to that but > thatâs the kind of filter we could send our reps in with? > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > From: ALAC > <<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > on behalf of > "<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net" > <h.raiche(a)internode.onnet> > > Reply-To: > "<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net" > <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > > Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:22 PM > > To: ALAC List > <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > A t <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Subject: [ALAC] Draft Principles for GDPR > > > > > > Folks > > > > > > Since we all think principles are a good > idea, I have set down the basics from the > Temporary Spec - very simplistic, but it's a > start. What we need now is discussion on the principles. > > > > > > Evin - I'm not sure if you have a new wiki > page for discussion on the temporary spec, but if not, would you create on. > > > > > > And Olivier - the Temporary Spec necessarily > will deal with access - at the least, guiding > principles, so whoever is on the EPDP will have > some guidance on our red lines on access. > > > > > > So please everyone - comments > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Holly > > > > > > Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data > > > > > > > > > > Principles for requirements to replace the RAA/Registry Requirements > > > > (within the context of compliance with the GDPR) > > > > > > > > Purpose of Collection of Data > > > > Quoting from the Temporary Spec which is quoting from the ICCANN Bylaws: > > > > > > purpose is to coordinate the bottom-up, > multistakeholder development and implementation > of policies â[f]or which uniform or > coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary > to facilitate the openness, interoperability, > resilience, security and/or stability of the > DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registriesâ > > > > > > Purpose includes > > > > Â· ô° resolution of disputes > regarding the registration of domain names (as > opposed to the use of such domain names, but > including where such policies take into account use of the domain names); > > > > > > Â· ô° maintenance of and access to > accurate and up-to-date information concerning > registered names and name servers; > > > > > > Â· ô° procedures to avoid disruptions > of domain name registrations due to suspension > or termination of operations by a registry > operator or a registrar (e.g., escrow); and > > > > > > Â· ô° the transfer of registration > data upon a change in registrar sponsoring one or more registered names. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Bylaws specifically obligate ICANN, in > carrying out its mandate, to âadequately > address issues of competition, consumer > protection, security, stability and resiliency, > malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protectionâ > > > > > > > > > > Geographic Coverage of EPDP Outcome: > > > > Â· Apply globally or > > > > > > > > Â· Apply only to European Economic Area (the coverage of the GD > > R) and otherwise lesser requirements (existing RAA requirements?) > > > > > > > > > > Data Collected > > > > Â· âThick Whoisâ bassed on the > differing uses of the data is listed in the purpose above â OR > > > > > > > > Â· Some lesser amount of information > > > > > > > > > > Consent > > > > Â· Registrants must be told, at the time > of collection, what personal information is > collected, why the collection is necessary to > achieve the purposes, who will have access and > in what circumstances access will be given to > what information, and all circumstances in > which the data will be transferred (to > Registry, Escrow) and where heldThey must also > be told their consent can be withdrawn at any > time (and consequences of withdrawal) and how to withdraw consent > > > > > > > > > > Access to Data Tiered access (largely what > is in the Techniccal Specification) > > > > Â· Applies to all Registrants naturaal or corporate persons > > > > > > > > Â· Information generally publicly available > > > > > > > > o Registrant name > > > > > > > > o Anonymised email or other anonymous contact means > > > > > > > > Â· Access to other personal information â > > > > > > > > o Only to accredited entities (not individuals) > > > > > > > o Only in specific circumstances that warrant access > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Expedited PDP on Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2018

July 11, 2018

In light of the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the ICANN Board enacted a temporary policy governing WHOIS (now know as Registration Data) effective 25 May 2018. This temporary policy must be replaced by a permanent policy within one year. To take this action, the GNSO has initiated and Expedited Policy Development Policy. The Charted for this process is expected to be approved by the GNSO on 19 July 2018, and a group convened to develop the policy will be convened soon after. Although the membership quotas of this group will not be definitively known until the charter is approved, at this point we expect that the ALAC will be given three Members and three Alternates. It is expected that Alternates may only actively participate if a Member is not available, but would be expected to be prepared to participate if needed. Members and Alternates representing the ALAC will work as a team to develop an ALAC position and strive to appropriately effect the policy effort. There will be regular consultation with the ALAC and At-Large. Since the policy must be in place by 25 May 2019, it is expected that a draft policy will be prepared in time for the ICANN63 meeting in late October 2018. Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the current requirements are as follows: * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry. Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. Expressions of Interest will be accepted until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 13 July 2018. The EoI may be found at https://tinyurl.com/ALAC-EPDP-EoI. If you complete the EoI more than once, the last version will be the one used.

3 4

Re: [ALAC] Consensus Call: EDPD - Proposed way forward
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2018

July 11, 2018

Indeed, thus the last sentence of #1 and #6 as well as time requirement to attend At-Large calls. As the EPDP runs, there will no doubt be many details to be defined, but the overall guidance will be to look at what maximizes the benefits to Internet users and what minimizes the potential harms. Alan At 07/07/2018 05:38 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote: >Ideally, there's a phase where the ALAC forms some consensus on >positions to carry to the EPDP > >From: ALAC [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf >Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 11:54 AM >To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Consensus Call: EDPD - Proposed way forward > >In #6, it should be "EPDP Members and Alternates" instead of "ALAC >Members and Alternates". Thanks to Sebastien for catching this. > >Alan > >At 07/07/2018 12:41 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >There have been no further comments to the message I sent to the >ALAC yesterday (modified to correct two issues identified by >Ricardo) on the process associated with the selection of the GNSO >Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place >to replace the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >adopted by the ICANN Board effective 25 May 2018. >I therefore am recommending, with the full support of the ALT, to >use the following process: >1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability >and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP >participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on >behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. >2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected >to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL >and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be >discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a >very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. >3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes >in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the >overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. >4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as to the ALAC, in >sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] >5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >number and demographics of the applicants. >6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, a >meeting will be convened of the Members and Alternates prior to the >EPDP's first meeting to ensure that everyone has the same >understanding of what we will be doing. >Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >- Monday, 16 July; >- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates >Tuesday, 17 July. >With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC to >ratify the above recommendation. >Due to tight time constraints, this Consensus Call will end at 23:59 >UTC on Wednesday, 11 July 2018. The call for EoIs will run in >parallel with this Consensus Call, but no further action will be >taken before ratification. >If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either >this list or to me directly. >Although messages indicating support are welcome, they are not >necessary. This Consensus Call will be deemed to have succeeded in >the absence of significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified >by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1). >Alan > > > > >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 19:46:04 -0400 >To: ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: URGENT: EDPD - Proposed way forward >As you all know, the GNSO is chartering an Expedited Policy >Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the >Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data that the Board >adopted. Since the temporary specification must be replaced by 25 >May 2019, the EPDP will have to proceed VERY quickly, with a draft >policy published by ICANN 63 in Barcelona (about 3 months from now). >The GNSO is expected to adopt the EPDP Charter on 19 July and >convene the EPD very soon after. That is 2 weeks from today. >At this point, it looks like each sub-group of the GNSO and other >AC/SOs will each have three Members and three Alternates (the >Alternates can "listen/read" but can only actively participate in >the absence of a Member). The current details can be found at ><https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-…>https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-… >. This is subject to change before the Charter is adopted, but at >this point it is a major victory that they are discussing parity >with the GNSO groups. If this comes to be, there are a few people to >whom we will owe a huge debt of gratitude. Without doubt we will >have SOME formal presence on the EPDP which was not a certainty just >a few days ago. >Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per >week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and >probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018 >[CORRECTION: 2019]. The GNSO is also setting some very specific >criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the >current requirements are appended to this message. >You will recall that in Panama, we decided that the evaluation of >possible candidates is sufficiently important that it should be done >at the first level by the ALAC, but clearly we do not have a lot of >time to do so. Moreover, we will have to ensure that the selected >candidates balance skills, availability and an understanding of user issues. >The ALT discussed this at our meeting on Friday and are proposing >the following path forward: >1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability >and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP >participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on >behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. > >2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected >to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL >and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be >discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a >very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. >3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes >in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the >overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. >4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as the ALAC, in >sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] >5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >number and demographics of the applicants. >6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, we >will need to convene a meeting of them prior to the EPDP's first >meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what >we will be doing. >Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >- Monday, 16 July; >- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates >Tuesday, 17 July. >This process will be the subject of a short ALAC Consensus Call most >likely starting Friday (tomorrow for me). The Consensus call will >overlap with the EoI submission process. >Alan >======================== > >EPDP Charter Membership Criteria >Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and >expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP >Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience >with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task >forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; >Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept >the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP >leadership or appointing group; >Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; >Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an >on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, >with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; >Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns >of individuals in the group that appoints them; >Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; >Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves >(standards, domains and numbers); >Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., >privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which >ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of >the Internet industry. >_______________________________________________ >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… >)

8 9

Re: [ALAC] Consensus Call: EDPD - Proposed way forward
by Alan Greenberg July 9, 2018

July 9, 2018

In #6, it should be "EPDP Members and Alternates" instead of "ALAC Members and Alternates". Thanks to Sebastien for catching this. Alan At 07/07/2018 12:41 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >There have been no further comments to the message I sent to the >ALAC yesterday (modified to correct two issues identified by >Ricardo) on the process associated with the selection of the GNSO >Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place >to replace the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data >adopted by the ICANN Board effective 25 May 2018. > >I therefore am recommending, with the full support of the ALT, to >use the following process: > >1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability >and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP >participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on >behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. > >2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected >to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL >and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be >discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a >very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. > >3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes >in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the >overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. > >4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as to the ALAC, in >sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] > >5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >number and demographics of the applicants. > >6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, a >meeting will be convened of the Members and Alternates prior to the >EPDP's first meeting to ensure that everyone has the same >understanding of what we will be doing. > >Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >- Monday, 16 July; >- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates >Tuesday, 17 July. > >With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC to >ratify the above recommendation. > >Due to tight time constraints, this Consensus Call will end at 23:59 >UTC on Wednesday, 11 July 2018. The call for EoIs will run in >parallel with this Consensus Call, but no further action will be >taken before ratification. > >If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either >this list or to me directly. > >Although messages indicating support are welcome, they are not >necessary. This Consensus Call will be deemed to have succeeded in >the absence of significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified >by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1). > >Alan > > > >>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 19:46:04 -0400 >>To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Subject: URGENT: EDPD - Proposed way forward >> >>As you all know, the GNSO is chartering an Expedited Policy >>Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the >>Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data that the Board >>adopted. Since the temporary specification must be replaced by 25 >>May 2019, the EPDP will have to proceed VERY quickly, with a draft >>policy published by ICANN 63 in Barcelona (about 3 months from now). >> >>The GNSO is expected to adopt the EPDP Charter on 19 July and >>convene the EPD very soon after. That is 2 weeks from today. >> >>At this point, it looks like each sub-group of the GNSO and other >>AC/SOs will each have three Members and three Alternates (the >>Alternates can "listen/read" but can only actively participate in >>the absence of a Member). The current details can be found at >>https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-… >>. This is subject to change before the Charter is adopted, but at >>this point it is a major victory that they are discussing parity >>with the GNSO groups. If this comes to be, there are a few people >>to whom we will owe a huge debt of gratitude. Without doubt we will >>have SOME formal presence on the EPDP which was not a certainty >>just a few days ago. >> >>Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per >>week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and >>probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018 >>[CORRECTION: 2019]. The GNSO is also setting some very specific >>criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the >>current requirements are appended to this message. >> >>You will recall that in Panama, we decided that the evaluation of >>possible candidates is sufficiently important that it should be >>done at the first level by the ALAC, but clearly we do not have a >>lot of time to do so. Moreover, we will have to ensure that the >>selected candidates balance skills, availability and an >>understanding of user issues. >> >>The ALT discussed this at our meeting on Friday and are proposing >>the following path forward: >> >>1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >>Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >>online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >>candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the >>ability and willingness to participate, and understanding of the >>EPDP participation criteria. Membership and participation will be >>on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. >> >>2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are >>expected to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is >>CONFIDENTIAL and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC >>comments may be discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC >>Members will have a very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. >> >>3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >>evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for >>changes in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection >>meets the overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of >>diversity and balance. >> >>4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >>Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as the ALAC, in >>sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] >> >>5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >>number and demographics of the applicants. >> >>6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, we >>will need to convene a meeting of them prior to the EPDP's first >>meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what >>we will be doing. >> >>Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >>- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >>- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >>- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >>- Monday, 16 July; >>- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective >>Members/Alternates Tuesday, 17 July. >> >>This process will be the subject of a short ALAC Consensus Call >>most likely starting Friday (tomorrow for me). The Consensus call >>will overlap with the EoI submission process. >> >>Alan >> >>======================== >> >>EPDP Charter Membership Criteria >> * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and >> expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP >> Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include >> experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development >> processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or >> participation in EWG efforts; >> * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to >> accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by >> the EPDP leadership or appointing group; >> * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; >> * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP >> on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than >> one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to >> eight months; >> * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and >> concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; >> * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; >> * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN >> serves (standards, domains and numbers); >> * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, >> e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. >> * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in >> which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other >> aspects of the Internet industry. >_______________________________________________ >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…

6 5

Consensus Call: EDPD - Proposed way forward
by Alan Greenberg July 7, 2018

July 7, 2018

There have been no further comments to the message I sent to the ALAC yesterday (modified to correct two issues identified by Ricardo) on the process associated with the selection of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data adopted by the ICANN Board effective 25 May 2018. I therefore am recommending, with the full support of the ALT, to use the following process: 1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. 2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. 3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. 4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as to the ALAC, in sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] 5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the number and demographics of the applicants. 6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, a meeting will be convened of the Members and Alternates prior to the EPDP's first meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what we will be doing. Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: - EoI issued Monday, 09 July; - ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; - ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July - Monday, 16 July; - Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates Tuesday, 17 July. With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC to ratify the above recommendation. Due to tight time constraints, this Consensus Call will end at 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 11 July 2018. The call for EoIs will run in parallel with this Consensus Call, but no further action will be taken before ratification. If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either this list or to me directly. Although messages indicating support are welcome, they are not necessary. This Consensus Call will be deemed to have succeeded in the absence of significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1). Alan >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 19:46:04 -0400 >To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: URGENT: EDPD - Proposed way forward > >As you all know, the GNSO is chartering an Expedited Policy >Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the >Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data that the Board >adopted. Since the temporary specification must be replaced by 25 >May 2019, the EPDP will have to proceed VERY quickly, with a draft >policy published by ICANN 63 in Barcelona (about 3 months from now). > >The GNSO is expected to adopt the EPDP Charter on 19 July and >convene the EPD very soon after. That is 2 weeks from today. > >At this point, it looks like each sub-group of the GNSO and other >AC/SOs will each have three Members and three Alternates (the >Alternates can "listen/read" but can only actively participate in >the absence of a Member). The current details can be found at >https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-…. >This is subject to change before the Charter is adopted, but at this >point it is a major victory that they are discussing parity with the >GNSO groups. If this comes to be, there are a few people to whom we >will owe a huge debt of gratitude. Without doubt we will have SOME >formal presence on the EPDP which was not a certainty just a few days ago. > >Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per >week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and >probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018 >[CORRECTION: 2019]. The GNSO is also setting some very specific >criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the >current requirements are appended to this message. > >You will recall that in Panama, we decided that the evaluation of >possible candidates is sufficiently important that it should be done >at the first level by the ALAC, but clearly we do not have a lot of >time to do so. Moreover, we will have to ensure that the selected >candidates balance skills, availability and an understanding of user issues. > >The ALT discussed this at our meeting on Friday and are proposing >the following path forward: > >1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability >and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP >participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on >behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. > >2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected >to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL >and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be >discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a >very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. > >3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes >in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the >overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. > >4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate as well as the ALAC, in >sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. [CORRECTION: cc: ALAC] > >5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >number and demographics of the applicants. > >6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, we >will need to convene a meeting of them prior to the EPDP's first >meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what >we will be doing. > >Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >- Monday, 16 July; >- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates >Tuesday, 17 July. > >This process will be the subject of a short ALAC Consensus Call most >likely starting Friday (tomorrow for me). The Consensus call will >overlap with the EoI submission process. > >Alan > >======================== > >EPDP Charter Membership Criteria > * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and > expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP > Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience > with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task > forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; > * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to > accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by > the EPDP leadership or appointing group; > * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; > * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP > on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than > one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to > eight months; > * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and > concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; > * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; > * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN > serves (standards, domains and numbers); > * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, > e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. > * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in > which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other > aspects of the Internet industry.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: EDPD - Proposed way forward
by Alan Greenberg July 6, 2018

July 6, 2018

Thanks to Ricardo for catching an error and an omission. The EPDP will require a significant commitment until mid-2019 not 2018. And in #4, The ALAC will of course also be notified. And I see no reason why we should not make this fully public. Alan At 05/07/2018 07:46 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you all know, the GNSO is chartering an Expedited Policy >Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the >Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data that the Board >adopted. Since the temporary specification must be replaced by 25 >May 2019, the EPDP will have to proceed VERY quickly, with a draft >policy published by ICANN 63 in Barcelona (about 3 months from now). > >The GNSO is expected to adopt the EPDP Charter on 19 July and >convene the EPD very soon after. That is 2 weeks from today. > >At this point, it looks like each sub-group of the GNSO and other >AC/SOs will each have three Members and three Alternates (the >Alternates can "listen/read" but can only actively participate in >the absence of a Member). The current details can be found at >https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-… >. This is subject to change before the Charter is adopted, but at >this point it is a major victory that they are discussing parity >with the GNSO groups. If this comes to be, there are a few people to >whom we will owe a huge debt of gratitude. Without doubt we will >have SOME formal presence on the EPDP which was not a certainty just >a few days ago. > >Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per >week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and >probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. >The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for >participation. Although the list may change, the current >requirements are appended to this message. > >You will recall that in Panama, we decided that the evaluation of >possible candidates is sufficiently important that it should be done >at the first level by the ALAC, but clearly we do not have a lot of >time to do so. Moreover, we will have to ensure that the selected >candidates balance skills, availability and an understanding of user issues. > >The ALT discussed this at our meeting on Friday and are proposing >the following path forward: > >1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of >Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an >online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the >candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability >and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP >participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on >behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. > >2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected >to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL >and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be >discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a >very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. > >3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the >evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes >in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the >overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. > >4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO >Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate, in sufficient time to meet the >GNSO requested timeline. > >5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the >number and demographics of the applicants. > >6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, we >will need to convene a meeting of them prior to the EPDP's first >meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what >we will be doing. > >Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: >- EoI issued Monday, 09 July; >- ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; >- ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July >- Monday, 16 July; >- Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates >Tuesday, 17 July. > >This process will be the subject of a short ALAC Consensus Call most >likely starting Friday (tomorrow for me). The Consensus call will >overlap with the EoI submission process. > >Alan > >======================== > >EPDP Charter Membership Criteria > * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and > expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP > Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience > with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task > forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; > * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to > accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by > the EPDP leadership or appointing group; > * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; > * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP > on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than > one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to > eight months; > * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and > concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; > * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; > * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN > serves (standards, domains and numbers); > * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, > e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. > * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in > which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other > aspects of the Internet industry. >_______________________________________________ >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…

1 0

URGENT: EDPD - Proposed way forward
by Alan Greenberg July 5, 2018

July 5, 2018

As you all know, the GNSO is chartering an Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to put policy in place to replace the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data that the Board adopted. Since the temporary specification must be replaced by 25 May 2019, the EPDP will have to proceed VERY quickly, with a draft policy published by ICANN 63 in Barcelona (about 3 months from now). The GNSO is expected to adopt the EPDP Charter on 19 July and convene the EPD very soon after. That is 2 weeks from today. At this point, it looks like each sub-group of the GNSO and other AC/SOs will each have three Members and three Alternates (the Alternates can "listen/read" but can only actively participate in the absence of a Member). The current details can be found at https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-…. This is subject to change before the Charter is adopted, but at this point it is a major victory that they are discussing parity with the GNSO groups. If this comes to be, there are a few people to whom we will owe a huge debt of gratitude. Without doubt we will have SOME formal presence on the EPDP which was not a certainty just a few days ago. Membership in the EPDP is expected to require up to 30 hours per week, starting immediately and at least for the first 4 months, and probably a lower but still significant commitment until mid-2018. The GNSO is also setting some very specific criteria for participation. Although the list may change, the current requirements are appended to this message. You will recall that in Panama, we decided that the evaluation of possible candidates is sufficiently important that it should be done at the first level by the ALAC, but clearly we do not have a lot of time to do so. Moreover, we will have to ensure that the selected candidates balance skills, availability and an understanding of user issues. The ALT discussed this at our meeting on Friday and are proposing the following path forward: 1. Very shortly, we will send out an request for Expressions of Interest with a very short window (48-72 hours). The EoI will be an online GoogleDocs Form and will ask for information on the candidates past involvement/knowledge with WHOIS issues, the ability and willingness to participate, and understanding of the EPDP participation criteria. Membership and participation will be on behalf of the ALAC and not representing personal views. 2. The ALAC will have access to the EoI and all Members are expected to review the EoIs and ranks them. This is review is CONFIDENTIAL and neither the contents of the EoIs nor the ALAC comments may be discussed/presented outside of this group. ALAC Members will have a very short time to review these EoI, likely 48 hours. 3. The ALAC Chair, in conjunction with the ALT will summarize the evaluations and make a final selection, ordered to allow for changes in the final charter, ensuring that the final selection meets the overall criteria and ensures a reasonable level of diversity and balance. 4. The ALAC Chair will transmit the final selection to the GNSO Council or GNSO Chair as appropriate, in sufficient time to meet the GNSO requested timeline. 5. At the time of the transmittal, the Chair will announce the number and demographics of the applicants. 6. Once the proposed ALAC Members and Alternates are selected, we will need to convene a meeting of them prior to the EPDP's first meeting to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what we will be doing. Barring issues that elongate this process, the proposed timeline is: - EoI issued Monday, 09 July; - ALAC evaluation of responses begins Thursday, 12 July; - ALT synthesis of evaluation and final selection Saturday, 14 July - Monday, 16 July; - Announcement and scheduling of EPDP prospective Members/Alternates Tuesday, 17 July. This process will be the subject of a short ALAC Consensus Call most likely starting Friday (tomorrow for me). The Consensus call will overlap with the EoI submission process. Alan ======================== EPDP Charter Membership Criteria * Have sufficient and appropriate motivation, availability and expertise to participate in the substance of the work of the EPDP Team. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with the previous RDS/WHOIS policy development processes, task forces, or implementation review teams, or participation in EWG efforts; * Commit to abide by the EPDP Team Commitment Statement, and to accept the consequences of non-compliance as may be determined by the EPDP leadership or appointing group; * Commit to build consensus on issues within the scope of this EPDP; * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the EPDP on an on-going and long-term basis, for a period of no less than one-year, with the highest intensity expected in the first six to eight months; * Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the group that appoints them; * Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the EPDP Team; * Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers); * Commit to attend any provided introductory training courses, e.g., privacy, trademarks, registrar operations, DNS, etc. * Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry.

1 0