- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

At 17/01/2012 07:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in >that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried >out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. > > >As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown >its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes >rather than policy (ie, objection processes). Actually, I think that "willingness" is the wrong word. The GNSO is not limited to policy work, although some on Council have at times taken that position. I view it more as stepping up to their responsibilities to look at a wider range of issues than just making policy. >If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also >have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based >authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does. > >The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS >group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a >single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can >come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at >all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. > > >I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in >which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will >come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues >have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is >future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to >constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because >it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of >the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the >lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue >should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly. > >There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. >If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common >denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of >this will happen. I don't see any conflict here. If we (At-Large) want to work on something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG. We do it alone, or with someone else who IS interested. The GNSO is not the only game in town. If (as you allude) we have interested that are a super-set of GNSO interests but do not conflict, I would think that people of good faith could come up with a charter that covers this. If not, then it reverts to the first case. > >I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had >multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. > > >Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The >concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of >an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to >established power. There in fact have been a few - both with us and the ccNSO. But my point was that a CCWG is likely to be born out of a common interest. If there is none, then we need another vehicle. To be candid, I fought hard to eliminate that rule, not because I felt we were likely to need to invoke a multiple-charter group, but because I felt that there was no real reason for it. In any specific case, if one or more partners feels that a multi-charter would not work, they have it within their power to simply refuse it at the time. But this was not a battle that I won in that group. Once it goes to the larger community of AC/SOs, perhaps the pendulum will flip the other way. But I really don't think it is a major roadblock regardless. > In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, > we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) > error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO > approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to > drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not > sufficiently important to >warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the >GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at >that issue regardless of whether it as in the charter). Other CCWGs >such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or >another ahead of time. > > > >This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility. 100% agreed. That is my preference. My only argument to the contrary is that as real life unfolds, I really don't think it will matter a whole lot. >You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of >re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. > > > >If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a >post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the >WG. This is IMO unacceptable. I don't agree with the conclusion. Once a WG is born, there is no words in the current principles that say that a single charter is required for life. I do believe that some on the GNSO would like to see that, and perhaps on Thursday, they will say so and get their way. But for whatever it is worth, those on the DT were willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not mention it as a principle. JAS was born with a single charter and ended up life with two. If the WG itself had refuse to work in that situation, or if the two charters were really going in opposite directions, the outcome would have been different. > >If you recall the sequence of events there: > > >I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful >attempt to find a middle ground. > > >- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was >willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful >outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the >ones that they had not included in their charter. > > > >Evidence, please? > >The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, >but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board. > >That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a >GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests >(such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund). Based on the outcome we have today, my reading is that not objecting is de facto acceptance if not throwing their arms around it and hugging the report. > >Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a >CCWG will follow. > > >Why does this need to be set in stone? > >Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining >the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive. Again we agree 100%. But for better or worse, the discussion has been started. Not by you or I, but started nonetheless. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Sharing an article interview to CIO Magazine Pakistan on new gtlds for raising awareness
by Fouad Bajwa Jan. 13, 2012

Jan. 13, 2012

Pakistan and the New gTLDs by RABIA GARIB on JANUARY 13, 2012 http://www.ciopakistan.com/2012/01/pakistan-and-the-new-gtlds/ Best Fouad

1 0

Letters from ICANN CEO to US NTIA and FTC
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2012

Jan. 12, 2012

Perhaps of interest to ALAC members, two letters from Rod Beckstrom to the Larry Stricklng and Jon Leibowitz have been posted to the ICANN correspondence page. http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-en.p… http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-leibowitz-10jan12-en.pdf Both are in reply to letters to ICANN also found on the correspondence page - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/. Alan

2 1

Updated Statistics [Dashboard]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

Dear All, Thanks to Dev who kindly directed me to the Dashboards created last year, I pulled together some statistics and assembled them to see the extent of our Reach as a unit. Grateful if someone could help me with how many ALS's are in EURALO. The dashboards all across the Board *may *need updating. I will kindly seek the assistance of various RALO representatives to the ALAC to encourage the respective Secretariats to update the same or clarify the figures. The caveat with these statistics is that it is possible that there are new ALS's that are not counted in the dashboard. Aside from EURALO, it would be great if Staff could assist with gathering the following information within the RALO region: Countries with ccTLDs in ccNSO Countries with ccTLDs NOT in ccNSO Countries with ALSes and ccTLD in ccNSO Countries with no ALSes but ccTLD in ccNSO Countries with ALSes but ccTLD NOT in ccNSO Countries with no ALSes and ccTLD NOT in ccNSO It would be great if at some point we had some sort of consistent systematic template for the dashboards. I also noted a distinction in the number of countries that EURALO has on their dashboard and the one in * page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group which shows the modification of UN Statistics to fit ICANN regions.* * * *Only one more "x" to fill, so help please.* > *Number of At Large Structures within RALOs by region* > > > > *Regions* > > *Countries and Territories**[1]* > > *Countries and Territories that have ALS* > > *No. Of Countries and Territories yet to be reached* > > *No of ALS within RALOs* > > *Latin American and Caribbean[1]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn1> > * > > *33* > > * 15* > > * 18* > > * 38* > > *Asian Australasia and Pacific* > > *73* > > *16* > > * 57* > > * 23* > > *African[2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn2> > * > > *54* > > * 15* > > * 39* > > * 21* > > *European[3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn3> > * > > *75 (76)[4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn4> > * > > *14* > > * 62* > > * x* > > *Americas[5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn5> > * > > *51* > > * 3* > > * 48* > > * 22* > > * * > > > ------------------------------ > > [1] *The figures are the result of Modification of UN statistics regions > to obtain ICANN regions from page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO > Regions Working Group* > > > > ------------------------------ > > > <file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref1> > > > [2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref2> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdHBJOWR6SDE5NWJzan… > > [3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref3> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdF9KTy1JZEp0YzNIRkhLNUdXVWlwSFE > > [4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref4>The EURALO Dashboard in terms of number of countries differs from the > *page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group* > > [5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref5> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdDI2YTI2S0ppMkNYaUFPWmFDVFIzOHc > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

4 6

Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 4, 2012

Jan. 4, 2012

The Preliminary Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments requested by the ICANN Board in Dakar has been published today. A public comment forum has been opened until January 13, 2012 - <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-12dec11-en.htm. It perhaps goes without saying that it is vitally important that At-Large review this document and provide any relevant comments by the deadline. Given the holiday season, this may be difficult. My personal opinion is that this Issue Report will trigger a PDP that will certainly last well over a year and perhaps much longer, as the issues may well be contentious. As such, allowing a few more weeks for comments may well have resulted in a better PDP without any meaningful extension in the process duration. But 1 month is what was decided. Alan

2 1

Final ALAC Statement on Preliminary Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 28, 2011

Dec. 28, 2011

The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has been posted at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624. Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were: - In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified as suggested by Eduardo. - Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process with no one disputing it. Of the other suggestions, they generally were: - counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; - supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or - were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the Preliminary Issue Report. If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me. Alan

6 5

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Updated Statistics [Dashboard]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Dec. 25, 2011

Dec. 25, 2011

Thanks Carlton, Dev sent me the links to the Dashboards. Cheers, Sala On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Sala: > Updates might be necessary but I believe that at least the ccNSO [historic] > data is available. If memory serves, Rudi [Vasnick] did the job when he > was liaison from ALAC to the ccNSO community. Staff may help to point to > it. > > Cheers, > - Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Thanks to Dev who kindly directed me to the Dashboards created last > year, I > > pulled together some statistics and assembled them to see the extent of > our > > Reach as a unit. Grateful if someone could help me with how many ALS's > are > > in EURALO. The dashboards all across the Board *may *need updating. I > will > > kindly seek the assistance of various RALO representatives to the ALAC to > > encourage the respective Secretariats to update the same or clarify the > > figures. The caveat with these statistics is that it is possible that > there > > are new ALS's that are not counted in the dashboard. > > > > Aside from EURALO, it would be great if Staff could assist with gathering > > the following information within the RALO region: > > > > Countries with ccTLDs in ccNSO > > Countries with ccTLDs NOT in ccNSO > > > > Countries with ALSes and ccTLD in ccNSO > > Countries with no ALSes but ccTLD in ccNSO > > Countries with ALSes but ccTLD NOT in ccNSO > > Countries with no ALSes and ccTLD NOT in ccNSO > > > > It would be great if at some point we had some sort of consistent > > systematic template for the dashboards. > > > > I also noted a distinction in the number of countries that EURALO has on > > their dashboard and the one in * page 10 of the Final Report of the > ccNSO > > Regions Working Group which shows the modification of UN Statistics to > fit > > ICANN regions.* > > * > > * > > *Only one more "x" to fill, so help please.* > > > > > > > > > *Number of At Large Structures within RALOs by region* > > > > > > > > > > > > *Regions* > > > > > > *Countries and Territories**[1]* > > > > > > *Countries and Territories that have ALS* > > > > > > *No. Of Countries and Territories yet to be reached* > > > > > > *No of ALS within RALOs* > > > > > > *Latin American and > > > Caribbean[1]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn1> > > > * > > > > > > *33* > > > > > > * 15* > > > > > > * 18* > > > > > > * 38* > > > > > > *Asian Australasia and Pacific* > > > > > > *73* > > > > > > *16* > > > > > > * 57* > > > > > > * 23* > > > > > > > > > *African[2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn2> > > > * > > > > > > *54* > > > > > > * 15* > > > > > > * 39* > > > > > > * 21* > > > > > > > > > *European[3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn3> > > > * > > > > > > *75 > > > (76)[4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn4> > > > * > > > > > > *14* > > > > > > * 62* > > > > > > * x* > > > > > > > > > *Americas[5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn5> > > > * > > > > > > *51* > > > > > > * 3* > > > > > > * 48* > > > > > > * 22* > > > > > > * * > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > [1] *The figures are the result of Modification of UN statistics > regions > > > to obtain ICANN regions from page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO > > > Regions Working Group* > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > <file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref1> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref2> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdHBJOWR6SDE5NWJzan… > > > > > > > > > [3]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref3> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdF9KTy1JZEp0YzNIRkhLNUdXVWlwSFE > > > > > > > > > [4]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref4>The > > EURALO Dashboard in terms of number of countries differs from the > > > *page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group* > > > > > > > > > [5]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref5> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdDI2YTI2S0ppMkNYaUFPWmFDVFIzOHc > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Updated Statistics [Dashboard]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Dec. 25, 2011

Dec. 25, 2011

Thanks Rudi. Season's Greetings to you and all. Best Regards, Sala On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>wrote: > Hi Salanieta, > > The data you are requesting has already been put together while I was > ALAC's ccNSO liaison. > > I've tried to catch back the wiki pages but it looks like they are no > longer available. I will search in my archives for the data I've been > working on at that time and will send you the files. > > Best regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > *——————————————— Internet Society Belgium —————————————————* > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen BELGIUM > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— > > Op 24-dec-2011, om 20:39 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende > geschreven: > > Dear All, > > Thanks to Dev who kindly directed me to the Dashboards created last year, I > pulled together some statistics and assembled them to see the extent of our > Reach as a unit. Grateful if someone could help me with how many ALS's are > in EURALO. The dashboards all across the Board *may *need updating. I will > > kindly seek the assistance of various RALO representatives to the ALAC to > encourage the respective Secretariats to update the same or clarify the > figures. The caveat with these statistics is that it is possible that there > are new ALS's that are not counted in the dashboard. > > Aside from EURALO, it would be great if Staff could assist with gathering > the following information within the RALO region: > > Countries with ccTLDs in ccNSO > Countries with ccTLDs NOT in ccNSO > > Countries with ALSes and ccTLD in ccNSO > Countries with no ALSes but ccTLD in ccNSO > Countries with ALSes but ccTLD NOT in ccNSO > Countries with no ALSes and ccTLD NOT in ccNSO > > It would be great if at some point we had some sort of consistent > systematic template for the dashboards. > > I also noted a distinction in the number of countries that EURALO has on > their dashboard and the one in * page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO > > Regions Working Group which shows the modification of UN Statistics to fit > ICANN regions.* > * > * > *Only one more "x" to fill, so help please.* > > > > *Number of At Large Structures within RALOs by region* > > > > > *Regions* > > > *Countries and Territories**[1]* > > > *Countries and Territories that have ALS* > > > *No. Of Countries and Territories yet to be reached* > > > *No of ALS within RALOs* > > > *Latin American and Caribbean[1]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn1 > > > > * > > > *33* > > > * 15* > > > * 18* > > > * 38* > > > *Asian Australasia and Pacific* > > > *73* > > > *16* > > > * 57* > > > * 23* > > > *African[2]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn2 > > > > * > > > *54* > > > * 15* > > > * 39* > > > * 21* > > > *European[3]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn3 > > > > * > > > *75 (76)[4]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn4 > > > > * > > > *14* > > > * 62* > > > * x* > > > *Americas[5]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn5 > > > > * > > > *51* > > > * 3* > > > * 48* > > > * 22* > > > * * > > > > ------------------------------ > > > [1] *The figures are the result of Modification of UN statistics regions > > to obtain ICANN regions from page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO > > Regions Working Group* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > < > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref1 > > > > > > [2]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref2 > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdHBJOWR6SDE5NWJzan… > > > [3]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref3 > > > > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdF9KTy1JZEp0YzNIRkhLNUdXVWlwSFE > > > [4]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref4>The > EURALO Dashboard in terms of number of countries differs from the > > *page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group* > > > [5]< > file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref5 > > > > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Ao5dV8HXW3JzdDI2YTI2S0ppMkNYaUFPWmFDVFIzOHc > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Help fill in the blank [Statistics]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Dec. 24, 2011

Dec. 24, 2011

Dear All, I would be grateful if you could help me fill in the blanks just where it is marked "x". This is for something which I am working on at the moment. I am interested to know the statistics for At Large Structures per RALO. * * *Regions* *Countries and Territories[1]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftn1> * *Countries and Territories that have ALS* *No. Of Countries and Territories yet to be reached* *No of ALS within RALOs* *Latin American and Caribbean* *33* * x* * * * * *Asian Australasia and Pacific* *73* *16* * * * 23* *African* *54* * x* * * * * *European* *75* * x* * * * * *Americas* *51* * x* * * * * * * ------------------------------ [1]<file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/ICANN/DRAFT%20PROPOSAL%20TO%20ADDRESS%20CAPACITY%20BUILDING%20WITHIN%20ICANN.doc#_ftnref1> *The figures are the result of Modification of UN statistics regions to obtain ICANN regions from page 10 of the Final Report of the ccNSO Regions Working Group* -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Final ALAC Statement on Preliminary Issue Report on âThickâ Whois
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 24, 2011

Dec. 24, 2011

Perhaps it would have been more precise, but I am happy to leave it as is. The intent was to try to ensure that those who feel that thick is less private than thin have some opportunity to raise the subject. Privacy in relation to whois in general will not be the subject of this PDP (I *HOPE*), so the generic question of who can hide in whois is not on the table. Alan At 23/12/2011 10:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >No concerns, I fully support this as-is. Thanks, Alan. > >Is it worth referring to "privacy" concerns as being that of >"personal privacy"? I haven't heard anyone, even the privacy >advocates amongst us, suggesting that corporate bodies -- especially >for-profit and governmental -- be allowed to hide themselves using a >thick (or even thin) WHOIS. > > >- Evan > > >On 23 December 2011 20:18, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The revised version of the statement based on comment submitted has >been posted at ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624. > >Aside from stylistic changes, the only two substantive changes were: > >- In sub-item 1, the intent of the statement needed to be clarified >as suggested by Eduardo. >- Sub-item 3 was added based on a comment I made early in the process >with no one disputing it. > >Of the other suggestions, they generally were: > >- counter to community input in the earlier round of e-mail comments; >- supported but did not change what was already in the draft statement; or >- were issues related to the substantive discussion of whether the >change from thin to thick should be made, the subject of the PDP if >one should be started, but was not required in this vetting of the >Preliminary Issue Report. > >If you have any concerns with this final statement, please contact me. > >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… >

1 0