- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .
by Alan Greenberg June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

I was asked to evaluate whether a comment of the Proposed Revised Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs warrants ALAC comment, and if so to draft such a comment. Following consultation with selected ALAC and At-Large members, I believe that a comment is warranted. Unfortunately other commitments have prevented me from submitting such a comment until today, and the first stage of the comment period ends on June 6th. I would suggest that if there is no substantive ALAC request to not submit this comment, that it be submitted prior to the deadline with the stated proviso that it is undergoing ALAC comment and approval. That would allow the ALAC to revise it if needed, and accept or reject it prior to the conclusion of the 2nd phase of the comment period. The details of the proposal and comment period are at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/revised-cross-ownership-restric…. My concern is that one of the options provided is that existing registry operators (and specifically .com, .net and .org) can either request amendment of their agreements to remove cross-ownership restrictions, or can transition to the agreement to be used by all new gTLD operators. If they chose the latter path, along with the removal of the restrictions on cross ownership, they would also remove the price caps that are in existing agreements. This I feel could be of great detriment to Internet users. My proposed comment follows. Alan ========================== The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to the benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain ecosystem. There is, however, a unified position that whatever the environment is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing field for all gTLD operators. As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints for existing gTLD operators. Nevertheless, the ALAC does have one concern with the proposal, and that is the option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the new gTLD agreement. That transition would be subject to limits related to competition issues raised by the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions. The document is silent on other results of such a transition, and particularly the removal of price caps on existing operators. The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at this time to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so significantly change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer required for the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal of cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the price caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without substantive community involvement.

6 5

New GNSO Web Site
by Alan Greenberg May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

For those who have not already seen it, take a look at the new GNSO web site - http://gnso.icann.org/. VERY great improvement over previous one. But thankfully still preserved intact (but prettier) their extremely useful meeting calendar and historical archive - http://gnso.icann.org/calendar. Alan

6 8

Re: [ALAC] New GNSO Web Site
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2012

May 29, 2012

Yup. Easy to use, all info easily at hand, and perhaps more important, a repository so that when you are trying to find something from years ago, it is there. Similar to what the Board uses, although they have varied the exact format over the years. Alan At 29/05/2012 02:38 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: >Thank you, Alan, for sharing this. Calendar is really very user-friendly! > >Oksana > >2012/5/29 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: > > For those who have not already seen it, take a look at the new GNSO > > web site - http://gnso.icann.org/. > > > > VERY great improvement over previous one. But thankfully still > > preserved intact (but prettier) their extremely useful meeting > > calendar and historical archive - http://gnso.icann.org/calendar. > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: At-Large Vision Statement as Proposed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 23, 2012

May 23, 2012

Dear ALAC members, I wanted to follow-up on the vote announcement to provide a few more explanations, based on the questions I have heard during the Tuesday 22 May 2012 ALAC monthly call. On 23/05/2012 04:44, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote : > Dear All, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on the proposed "At-Large Vision Statement as Proposed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce<https://community.icann.org/x/esPbAQ>." > > ***** > Question: Do you support the ratification of the At-Large Vision Statement as Proposed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce<https://community.icann.org/x/esPbAQ>? > > The At-Large Vision Statement as Proposed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce is as follows: > > The ALAC, building upon the experience and views of the At-Large community, catalyzes and facilitates inclusive, meaningful participation of general Internet users world-wide, aggregates their input and brings their voice to bear in all ICANN matters. > ***** Q. Why do we need a "vision statement"? A. This is one of the recommendations made in the ICANN Bylaw-mandated At-Large Review process. I remind you that this started with the community review as well as an external consultant review several years ago. As a result, the At-Large Improvements Work Team C created an action item: "to articulate ALAC's and At-Large's vision and mission." The At-Large Improvements Task Force followed up with the recommendation and worked to draft a vision statement: https://community.icann.org/x/esPbAQ You might not agree fully with the wording of the vision statement. But ultimately, you should be reassured that the words that make-up this vision statement were debated by all participants in the WG. They might not have been 100% ideal, but they are the best that the working group has managed to choose, given the choices of words possible. The Vision statement in English will be the basis for vision statements in Spanish and French. Of course, if the statement does not translate well, the translator will have the discretion to adapt the statement to their mother tongue. As part of the improvements process, the ALAC needs to present a final report to the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC). If we do not ratify the vision statement made here, we will not be able to ratify the At-Large/ALAC improvements report. We plan to present our final report, in time to have the SIC make a decision in Prague. Q. Why is this not a "mission statement"? A. The ALAC already has a mission statement, as described in Article XI, Section 2.4.a: "The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations, as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users." > Additional information on this Statement can be found on the At-Large Vision Statement as Proposed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/esPbAQ>. > > Please note that the poll will be open from 22-May-2012 23:59 UTC to 24-May-2012 23:59 UTC. Q. Why only a 3 day vote? A. That's because we only have about 4 weeks until the Prague meeting but the deadline for sending this report to the SIC and letting them make decisions, is much shorter. 5 days would have been better, but the ALAC then also needs to vote on the complete report to the SIC -- and 5 days will be given for this too. Add the week-ends and a deadline for sending this to the Board SIC of early June and we're running out of time. Q. Is this really so important? Aren't we wasting time on this? A. Yes, it is important, because it is part of our bylaw-mandated review process. It is an inherent part of our improvements. Finalising it now will save us time in future ALAC Reviews. No, we're not wasting time. It was asked of the community. The community has spent a lot of work to put this together. It's important that it is done correctly. Warmest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

FCWG White Paper: “Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected”
by Evan Leibovitch May 21, 2012

May 21, 2012

Hello everyone, I would like to call your attention to the work of the Future Challanges Working Group (FCWG), which was formed to take a high-level, proactive view of how At-Large can effect positive change within ICANN. The first product of this working group is now ready for ALAC consideration; a white paper titled “Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Future+Challenges+WG+-…>” (and internally referred to as "R3"). This white paper has been many months in the making, and reflects input from a number of authors with diverse backgrounds. Its aim is to strengthen ICANN by making it more responsible to the public it serves while fulfilling the promise of the multi-stakeholder model. It is the request of the two FCWG chairs, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and myself, that at its meeting (in about 24 hours from when I write this), the ALAC approve the publication and translation of this white paper for broader community discussion. A public workshop will be held at the ICANN Prague meeting to further discuss the paper and receive community input. Thank you. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Comments from US DoC regarding CCTC WG work
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

Dear ALAC colleagues, My action item from today's WG call is to ask you whether you believe that any set of surveys of Internet users asking them about the benefits/problems of an enhanced gTLD namespace might also be extended to Trademark Owners, especially enquiring about their experience with regards to cybersquatting and their assessment of incurred costs and satisfaction with results when a resolution is sought. Comments eagerly welcome! Also -- just arrived as a public comment from USG, please read below, FYI. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Comments from US DoC regarding CCTC WG work Date : Wed, 16 May 2012 01:44:32 +0200 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : gnso-consumercci-dt(a)icann.org <gnso-consumercci-dt(a)icann.org> Hello everyone, whilst preparing an email to follow-up on the Action Item which was assigned to me today to ask the ALAC about expansion of survey to trademark owners, I just came across an added entry on the Comments Forum from US Dept. of Commerce, from Vernita D. Harris. (Received & Dated 15th May 2012) http://forum.icann.org/lists/cctc-draft-advice-letter/msg00013.html You might wish to read this and staff might wish to forward to Steve Crocker, if he hasn't caught glimpse of this yet. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 2

SOIs of New gTLD Review Group Nominees
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

Dear All, According to the Call for Membership <https://community.icann.org/x/Zr3bAQ> for the new gTLD Review Group (RG), one of the requirements is that members submit a Statement of Interest in which they: a. declare that they have no Conflicts of Interest (COI); or b. disclose any possible or existing COI. A COI is defined as having an immediate past (previous 6 months), current or predetermined interest (being financial or other) in a New gTLD Applicant or any other party that is involved in any manner whatsoever with an applicant or the proposed registry. In determining COI, reference should be made to Section 2.4.3.1 at page 84 of the AGB which details some COI Guidelines. All members and RALOs will be informed of any changes in the gTLD RG's COI policy. In keeping with this requirement please find the SOIs of the RG nominees that have been received to date on the New gTLD RG Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ> . The nominees from AFRALO, APRALO (one more nominee is required), EURALO and LACRALO have been recommended by their RALO officers. NARALO will be holding a BigPulse vote beginning Wednesday, 16 May to choose their two recommended nominees. Please note, the specific RALO the member belongs to will be asked to confirm their SOI to the best of its ALS representatives' knowledge, information and belief to the ALAC. Both the SOI and RALO confirmation will be reviewed by the ALAC to vet the declarations, with final approval to join the gTLD RG being determined by ALAC vote. In some instances it may be necessary for the ALAC to interview the member. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Interesting correspondence
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2012

May 13, 2012

Timing is one of the issues. I have been trying to find the date that the "2nd timestamp" archery was due to start (presuming the original end of applications) but couldn't does anyone know what the delay was supposed to be between close of application period and start og the archery competition? Alan At 11/05/2012 07:19 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Thanks for these links Alan... > >It strikes me Olivier that the document (briefly discussed if not >made available during CR meeting) from Steve / IPC re an >'alternate catagorisation method for adjunct use in a batching >method as oppossed to the digital archery 'crapola shoot' yes I am >not a fan either ;-) might be well worth endorsing formally and >tossing back "into the mix" with these two documents for consideration... > >OCL. perhaps with input from Steve re the status of that discussion >paper for Costa Rica we might be able to get a fresh discussion 'on >the agenda. Or at least ALAC Advice 'on the books,.... > > From my Android Tablet... > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) >tweeter @clo3 ><http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr >On May 12, 2012 7:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Two letters protesting the Digital Archery method of new gTLD >Batching. As tempting as it is, I will not add any editorial >comments, but do suggest that you read them (hint, I am not a fan of >the proposed batching technique). >- ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-icann-board-09may12…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-icann-board-09may12… >- http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/isc-to-icann-10may12-en.pdf > >Not yet published on the ICANN Correspondence page, a letter on >behalf of the International Olympic Committee making a formal Board >Reconsideration Request related to the Board decision not to adopt >the first-level changes approved by the GNSO. It is interesting that >such a request goes to the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, >who happens to be Bruce Tonkin, a conflicted Board member (related to >new gTLDs) who cannot take part in any discussions or decision >related to new gTLDs. >- ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/msg00455.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/msg00455.html > >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…

2 1

Interesting correspondence
by Alan Greenberg May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

Two letters protesting the Digital Archery method of new gTLD Batching. As tempting as it is, I will not add any editorial comments, but do suggest that you read them (hint, I am not a fan of the proposed batching technique). - http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-icann-board-09may12… - http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/isc-to-icann-10may12-en.pdf Not yet published on the ICANN Correspondence page, a letter on behalf of the International Olympic Committee making a formal Board Reconsideration Request related to the Board decision not to adopt the first-level changes approved by the GNSO. It is interesting that such a request goes to the Chair of the Board Governance Committee, who happens to be Bruce Tonkin, a conflicted Board member (related to new gTLDs) who cannot take part in any discussions or decision related to new gTLDs. - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/msg00455.html Alan

2 1

Fwd: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz
by Alan Greenberg May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

Messages related to URS and JAS from Kurt Pritz in preparation for GNSO Council meeting starting 2.5 hours from now: My translation/summaries: URS: Word "Summit" in budget was an ill-advised choice. Process will be bottom up as per the STI. JAS: ALAC and GNSO Council agreed that JAS group could continue to work on implementation. JAS group is doing that and had now made an explicit recommendation that a "Son of JAS" be involved in carrying out implementation. If the GNSO Council desires, that recommendation can go to the GNSO COuncil instead of being implemented immediately. Alan >From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:18:07 -0700 >Subject: [council] Message from Kurt Pritz > > >Dear All, > >Please find below a message from Kurt Pritz in >relation to agenda item 6 (JAS WG) and item 9.3 >(URS) for today's GNSO Council meeting. > >With best regards, > >Marika > >From: Kurt Pritz <<mailto:kurt@icann.org>kurt(a)icann.org> >To: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Subject: For the Council meeting > >Council Members: > >I am sorry that I could not join the Council >meeting. Please accept the following brief >report on issues that have raised by the Council >leadership and through your email list. More information can be provided. > >Sincerely, > >Kurt > > >Uniform Rapid Suspension: >There is a budget line item identified as "URS Summit" >Implementation work conducted on the URS to date >indicates that the the implementation will not >attain the cost target of $300-$500 in URS fee >per case. This is based on discussions with WIPO >staff, direct communication with the IPC, and >examples understood from the ICM registry and >Nominet. Because the fee target is a primary >goal of the URS, additional work and study >should be undertaken to determine if amendments >to the program might attain the fee goal and >retain the safeguards and other features of the >program. This study must be undertaken by a >community group. While the scope of the effort >is not yet defined, it was necessary to reserve >resources for the work in the ICANN's FY13 >budget.The line item in the budget is the >placeholder for those resources while the best >way to accomplish the work can be designed. >Again, the work will be done through a >bottom-up, community discussion similar to the >the work done to create and review the URS in >the first instance. The timing of the budgeting >process required that we create the line item >before planning for this work could be drafted >and worked through the community. > >Joint Applicant Support Working Group >The GNSO Council approved an extension of the >JAS charter on 22 September 2011 in order to >complete other reports (Milestone 2 report) that >have since been completed, and to request that >the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to >review the outcome of the ICANN implementation >of the JAS >recommendations. ><http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109>http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109. >We continue to review implementation details >with the JAS either the entire JAS or a >sub-group selected by the JAS. Most notably, JAS >members have recommended that the community play >a role in in the planning for the recruitment, >training and operation of the "SARP," the review >panels that will evaluate financial assistance >applications. This planning includes the idea >that the SARP include a Community Member >Representative or CMR. Additional information >can be provided to the GNSO to augment >information provided by the JAS. A report on the >details can be made directly to the GNSO Council >and ALAC if the Council indicates such a preference.

5 6