- ALAC - lists.icann.org

My revised SOI
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 14, 2011

July 14, 2011

Dear Danny, you recently enquired about my involvement in the gTLD Team, as shown on: http://gtldteam.com/team/ I can confirm that I was recently contacted by Hervé Rannou to perform ad-hoc consulting work for his firm as an external consultant. The extent of my involvement will be to consult on IPv6 issues. The listing on the web page you mention is erroneous (and I am therefore Cc'ing Hervé Rannou on this message) since I insisted for it to include "IPv6 issues" to clear exactly the sort of question you've asked. I run a company called Global Information Highway Ltd and this has done extensive work with Alain AINA (TRSTECH Togo) over the years. The company has also sold hardware in Kenya via Alex GAKURU. I've participated as a volunteer (with travel & per diem expenses in some cases) in EuroDIG (sponsored by the Council of Europe), but also the Ukrainian IGF. Also a recent trip to Chennai, India, thanks to ISOC Chennai. I have strong links with ISOC, through ISOC England. ISOC has funded my travels to 2 IGFs, as an ISOC ambassador. They have also partly funded an IPv6 project which I directed. Also partly funding this project is 2020Media, a UK hosting provider also registering domains - but they are also my company's ISP. My company's Web pages are hosted pro-bono by PSG.COM, run by Randy Bush whom I have known for many many years. In the distant past, I have facilitated the creation of .MK and .PS ccTLDs, back in the days of Jon Postel. Back to the present, I am working on an IPv6 project in the United Arab Emirates. This is probably more than you have asked for, but it's all to tell you that the Internet world is a small world. However, I am making sure to not be involved directly with any new gTLD project by keeping my expertise to IPv6 issues, which is what my company does. Since becoming Chair of ALAC, I have refused close to half a dozen consultancy proposals with potential new gTLD applicants, specifically because I thought it would conflict with my current position. I hope this answers your question. If I receive any more consulting offers for IPv6, I'll be sure to update you all - but I do have bills to pay at the end of the month. :-) Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: GNSO Council resolution on Inter-Registrar Transfer
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011

Dear all, FYI. Please find links to the IRTP-B WG report and the motion passed by the GNSO. Comments welcome, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: GNSO Council resolution on Inter-Registrar Transfer Date : Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:39:27 +0200 De : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Patrik Fältström <pfaltstr(a)cisco.com>, Louie Lee <louie(a)louie.net> Dear all, I am contacting you in your capacity as Chairs of ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, SSAC and ASO following a resolution passed by the GNSO Council at its June 22 public meeting in Singapore. The resolution, was part of an overall motion resulting from the work of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B working group (see motion here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011) and the group's final report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf) The resolution requests that, in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO Council, I inform you and open discussions with you as you can see from the text below. Happy to discuss with you at your convenience. Regards, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair *RESOLVED (B),* the GNSO Council recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the GNSO Council recommends that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include practical measures that registrants can implement "in house", such as ways to protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system for possible account compromise. The GNSO Council Chair will reach out to the ALAC and other ICANN structures to inform them of this recommendation and discuss how the GNSO may contribute to this promotion. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #2)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [soac-discussion] Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011

Dear Filiz, This is Dev Anand Teelucksingh and yes, I can confirm that admin(a)ttcsweb.orgis accessible only by me. Looking forward to participate in the focus group regarding the usability and viability of certain implementation constructs related to the Public Comment process as recommended by the ATRT. Kind Regards Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat ALS representative from Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society ( http://www.ttcsweb.org/) On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org>wrote: > Dear Olivier, > > Thank you and all members of ALAC for the prompt response on this. > > On the Cc of your mail, I see an e-mail address as "admin(a)ttcsweb.org". > Could you please confirm that this is a direct e-mail address that is > accessed by only Dev Anand Teelucksingh? > Please note that we need the e-mail address to send some login information > for the wiki. > I just want to make sure that this is the correct e-mail address to do so > and the login information will only goto Dev. > > Thanks again > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear Filiz, > > in response to your email, I have circulated your call for participants to > the ALAC list, along with a suggested person. > Dev Anand Teelucksingh from LACRALO, has received support from many at > At-Large to fill this post. > He is Cc'ed on this email. Please be so kind to get in touch with him > directly. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [ALAC] Fwd: [soac-discussion] > Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs Date : > Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:41:21 +0200 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > <ocl(a)gih.com> <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : ALAC Working List > <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Dear all, > > I am in receipt of the following message from Filiz Ilmaz regarding the > formation of a Focus Group. > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh has already worked on these problematics in the > past, thanks to his involvement in the At-Large Improvements WT. > His knowledge and experience would be very helpful to the focus group > and I therefore suggest that he be our representative for the ALAC. > > If I do not hear of any objections, I'll transmit Dev's name to Filiz > Ilmaz in the middle of next week. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Filiz Yilmaz* <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org<mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org> <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org>> > Date: 30 June 2011 19:08 > Subject: [soac-discussion] Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on > Proposed Public Comment Constructs > To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org> <soac-discussion(a)icann.org>" > <soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org> <soac-discussion(a)icann.org>> > Cc: "mike.silber(a)icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org> <mike.silber(a)icann.org> Silber" > <mike.silber(a)icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org> <mike.silber(a)icann.org>> > > > Dear Community Leaders, > > I communicated to you in Singapore that we would like to receive your > support in forming a Focus Group to provide some initial feedback on two > specific Public Comment implementation proposals relating to ATRT > Recommendations 15, 16 and 17. > > This email is intended to provide additional details to help you in > identifying individuals to participate in this activity. > > *Purpose*: To help ICANN Staff assess the usability and viability of > certain implementation constructs related to the Public Comment process > as recommended by the ATRT. > > *Team Members*: We would prefer to keep the Focus Group relatively small > and are therefore requesting one representative from of each ICANN SO, > AC or SG. > > *Methodology:* Due to the challenges in scheduling telephone > calls/meetings and considering the nature of the topics/questions, our > plan is that the group will interact and collaborate via a dedicated > space within ICANN's Confluence Wiki environment. Details (e.g., links, > login information) will be sent to the volunteers separately. At this > time, no meetings are planned. > > *Duration*: We anticipate that the feedback period will last one month > from 20 July through 19 August at which point the dedicated Wiki space > will be closed. > > *Content*: ICANN Staff will outline two current proposals to the Focus > Group and collect initial feedback (via the Wiki). The two specific > topics that the Focus Group's will be asked to provide feedback are: > > Topic 1: Stratification/Prioritization of Public Comments > > Topic 2. Comment/Reply Structure for Public Comments > > *Scope*: The Focus Group will be asked specific questions concerning the > topics listed above and feedback/responses will be collected via the > Wiki. The ATRT Recommendations have been reviewed by the ICANN Community > and approved by the ICANN Board; therefore, the Focus Group will not be > asked to validate the ATRT Recommendations themselves. > > *Outcomes*: The Wiki collaboration and discussion threads will be used > by Staff to inform its planning concerning the implementation topics > listed above. Staff does not plan to issue any written reports or > summaries of the Focus Group's deliberations; however, the Wiki may be > opened for public read access once the work is completed. Elements of > the feedback may be incorporated into a formal Public Comment > solicitation that will deal with these same topics circa September 2011. > > I hope you find the above information helpful in identifying and > selecting candidates to help with this feedback process. > > We hope to hear back from you with one volunteer contact detail from > your group latest by 13 July 2011, in order to start the activity as > outlined above. > > Kind regards, > > Filiz Yilmaz > > Sr Dir Participation and Engagement > ICANN > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011

Dear all, I am in receipt of the following message from Filiz Ilmaz regarding the formation of a Focus Group. Dev Anand Teelucksingh has already worked on these problematics in the past, thanks to his involvement in the At-Large Improvements WT. His knowledge and experience would be very helpful to the focus group and I therefore suggest that he be our representative for the ALAC. If I do not hear of any objections, I'll transmit Dev's name to Filiz Ilmaz in the middle of next week. Kind regards, Olivier ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Filiz Yilmaz* <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org <mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>> Date: 30 June 2011 19:08 Subject: [soac-discussion] Form a Focus Group to Provide Feedback on Proposed Public Comment Constructs To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org>" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org>> Cc: "mike.silber(a)icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org> Silber" <mike.silber(a)icann.org <mailto:mike.silber@icann.org>> Dear Community Leaders, I communicated to you in Singapore that we would like to receive your support in forming a Focus Group to provide some initial feedback on two specific Public Comment implementation proposals relating to ATRT Recommendations 15, 16 and 17. This email is intended to provide additional details to help you in identifying individuals to participate in this activity. *Purpose*: To help ICANN Staff assess the usability and viability of certain implementation constructs related to the Public Comment process as recommended by the ATRT. *Team Members*: We would prefer to keep the Focus Group relatively small and are therefore requesting one representative from of each ICANN SO, AC or SG. *Methodology:* Due to the challenges in scheduling telephone calls/meetings and considering the nature of the topics/questions, our plan is that the group will interact and collaborate via a dedicated space within ICANN's Confluence Wiki environment. Details (e.g., links, login information) will be sent to the volunteers separately. At this time, no meetings are planned. *Duration*: We anticipate that the feedback period will last one month from 20 July through 19 August at which point the dedicated Wiki space will be closed. *Content*: ICANN Staff will outline two current proposals to the Focus Group and collect initial feedback (via the Wiki). The two specific topics that the Focus Group's will be asked to provide feedback are: Topic 1: Stratification/Prioritization of Public Comments Topic 2. Comment/Reply Structure for Public Comments *Scope*: The Focus Group will be asked specific questions concerning the topics listed above and feedback/responses will be collected via the Wiki. The ATRT Recommendations have been reviewed by the ICANN Community and approved by the ICANN Board; therefore, the Focus Group will not be asked to validate the ATRT Recommendations themselves. *Outcomes*: The Wiki collaboration and discussion threads will be used by Staff to inform its planning concerning the implementation topics listed above. Staff does not plan to issue any written reports or summaries of the Focus Group's deliberations; however, the Wiki may be opened for public read access once the work is completed. Elements of the feedback may be incorporated into a formal Public Comment solicitation that will deal with these same topics circa September 2011. I hope you find the above information helpful in identifying and selecting candidates to help with this feedback process. We hope to hear back from you with one volunteer contact detail from your group latest by 13 July 2011, in order to start the activity as outlined above. Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN

6 6

GAC Singapore Communique
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011

For those who may not have seen it. http://gac.icann.org/press-release/singapore-communiqu%C3%A9-23-june-2011 Alan

1 0

FYI: Board deliberations on approval of new GNSO non-commercial charters
by Beau Brendler June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > Date: 19 June 2011 11:01:16 GMT+08:00 > To: NCSG EC <ncsg-ec(a)n4c.eu> > Subject: Update from Ray Plzak > > Hi, > > I have been informed that the Board is putting the following items on the Consent Agenda for the end of the Week. > > 1. approval of the new constituency process > 2. approval of the NCSG charter. > 3. approval of the NPOC charter. > > > Assuming that all three remain on the agenda and are approved, I see the next set of activities: > > - Vote of NCSG approving the modified agenda - I would want to run this as quickly as possible. - hence my effort to get a completed voting members list assembled. People may remember that for our charter to be fully instantiated, it must be approved by the membership after it receives Board approval since it has changed since the NCSG last approved it. > > - Review and approval of the NPOC members who aren't already NCSG members to ascertain that they meet the NCSG membership requirements as defined in the NCSG charter. > > - Once the new charter is approved by the NCSG membership, assuming it is, creation of the new Executive committee according to the rules in the NCSG charter. > > - Nomination and election of a new NCSG chair > > - Nomination and election of 4 GNSO Council members (3 @ 2 years, 1 @ 1 year) > > > We need to complete all of this before the next ICANN face to face meeting. These steps do not necessarily all be done sequentially, though I beleive the first step, NCSG approval of the charter need to be completed as the first step. I would like to combine the final two steps into a single election. > > thanks > > a. >

1 0

Fwd: [council] NCUC statement on the URS
by Alan Greenberg June 19, 2011

June 19, 2011

The following is a statement just issued by the NCUC which I personally support and that the ALAC might consider supporting as well. Alan >From: "Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "karen.lentz(a)icann.org" > <karen.lentz(a)icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, > "Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au" > <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au>, Rita > Rodin Johnston <Rita.Rodin(a)skadden.com> >CC: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk> >Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:57:41 -0400 >Subject: [council] NCUC statement on the URS > > >The following is a formal statement from the Non-Commercial Users >Constituency (NCUC) on the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system. We >would greatly appreciate it if ICANN staff or the GNSO >representatives on the Board could ensure that it is forwarded to >the rest of the Board as soon as possible. Thank you. > >"The NCUC strongly urges the ICANN Board to retain the current >proposed standard of proof in relation to the URS. Not only is the >standard consistent with the recommendations made by the IRT and >STI, which represents community consensus on this particular point, >lowering the standard to that being requested by the GAC would >completely undermine the purpose of the URS, which is to expedite >suspension of domains in "slam dunk" cases without abrogating the >rights of applicants to due process. Allowing an expedited >suspension on the basis merely of a "preponderance of the evidence" >would go against this fundamental principle, and disrupt >registrants' reliance on domain stability. Changing the evidentiary >standard would also potentially expand the URS, undoing the >safeguards that were negotiated and published in the Guidebook and >raising the very real possibility of abuse of the URS. The URS is >not intended to replace the UDRP, and as such one of the critical >differences between the two - as to the standard of proof - must be retained." > >Best regards, >Mary > > >Mary W S Wong >Professor of Law >Chair, Graduate IP Programs >Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, >NH 03301 USA Email: ><mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu>mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: >1-603-513-5143 Webpage: ><http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php >Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network >(SSRN) at: <http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Dear Marc, thank you for your letter of resignation which I accept with deep regret. I appreciate that the time demands which are placed on ALAC members are high when wishing to be involved fully in ALAC processes, RALOs and At-Large grassroots input to ICANN. It is something which we all have to struggle with. I also share your concerns regarding decisions by national governments and other factors external to ICANN. However, our mission in ICANN is limited to the by-laws under which we operate and this mission is quite focussed. The responsibilities which were defined to avoid a scattering of resources, are listed in Articles XI.4.a and XI.4.j and surpassing those limits, although tempting, is not something which the ALAC should do. The responsibility of the ALAC is to make the voice of Internet users heard in ICANN - and this has to be done with the scarce resources which we are afforded, both in funding and in volunteer time. I have enjoyed working with you on the Internet Town Hall in San Francisco and hope that you will remain in contact with the ICANN At-Large community. I know that many members have appreciated meeting you and will look forward to keeping in touch. However, with your resignation, your participation in the ICANN Singapore meeting cannot be justified and after consultation with the Executive Committee, it was decided to enable another At-Large member to travel to Singapore. I trust that you will understand this, and wish you every success in the future. Sincerely, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 07/06/2011 21:36, Marc Rotenberg wrote : > Dear Olivier, > > I am tendering my resignation from ALAC. > > Upon further consideration, I do not believe I have the > considerable amount of time required to make a meaningful > contribution to ALAC. > > I do believe that the Internet Town Hall, which we organized in > conjunction with the recent meeting in San Francisco, provided the > opportunity for a fresh perspective on Future Challenges facing > users of the Internet. > > I also believe that the decision of national governments to > suspend access to the Internet poses a profound challenge to the > freedom of Internet users that cannot be ignored. > > And I remain concerned about the technical and administrative > obstacles that continue to consume so much of our valuable time and > make it difficult for people to obtain even basic information about > the work of ALAC. > > To be an effective representative of the individual Internet > user, as the ALAC charter requires, the Committee should focus less > on the organizational structure of ICANN and more on the needs and > concerns of the Internet user. A clear vision can help transform an > organization. > > Whether ALAC chooses to explore that possibility is now up to > the Committee. > > I appreciated the opportunity to meet many fine individuals, and > hope to see them again in the future. And I admire your dedication > as Chair. I wish you the very best. > > I will attend the meeting in Singapore or not, based upon your > preference. > > Sincerely, > > > Marc Rotenberg > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: Proposed Amendments to JAS motion
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Following a number of interchanges today (most of them below), Jeff proposed the following motion that has been accepted as a friendly amendment by Rafik. Barring some surprise between now and Thursday (which I don't expect), this pretty well assures the approval of this motion. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >CC: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:16:14 -0400 >Subject: RE: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion > > >Rafik, > >I think we are getting closer. I took your concepts and how would this work? > >Resolved: >The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint >SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its >dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and >The GNSO Council requests that the report be put >out for community review as soon as possible, and >The GNSO Council forwards the second JAS >Milestone Report to the ICANN board for >informational purposes to demonstrate the >progress made by the JAS WG so that it may refer >to that progress in their discussions with the GAC, >The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff begin >assessing whether the recommendations are implementable, and >The JAS Working Group continues working to deal >with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community, and >That the JAS Working group publish their final >report after this review process. >Resolved further, that the GNSO Council >instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy >Please note new address:Â 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166 Â Â Â > > >The information contained in this e-mail message >is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) >named above and may contain confidential and/or >privileged information. If you are not the >intended recipient you have received this e-mail >message in error and any review, dissemination, >distribution, or copying of this message is >strictly prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us >immediately and delete the original message. > > >From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:22 PM >To: Neuman, Jeff >Cc: Council GNSO >Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Amendments to JAS motion > >Hello Jeff, > >thank you for offering some amendments, please find my answers below: >2011/6/7 Neuman, Jeff <<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >All, > >I have given this motion a good deal of thought >and am still waiting feedback from my >stakeholder group. Given the attention that the >JAS working group has gotten from the GAC and >Board and the desire of all of us to ensure that >all economies have access to the new round of >gTLDs, a number of people and groups have been >afraid politically to state anything that could >in any way be perceived by anyone as being >negative towards the work that is >underway. Although the work has been tremendous >to date especially given the tight timing, and >the cause is certainly a worthy one, I do >believe that we cannot compromise our processes >and set bad precedent simply because we afraid >of how we may be perceived politically by those >that are not following everything going on at the GNSO. > >Therefore, I wanted to draft an e-mail >explaining the issues I have personally with the >motion and suggest some amendments that may >alleviate some of the issues for me. The >motion, as it currently stands now, is based on >a milestone report and therefore is not by >definition final. The report contains some good >principles and ideas that need to be flushed out >more (as the report admits). The motion asks the GNSO to do a few things: > >1. Putting the report out for public comment > >2. Forwarding the report to the Board for review and approval > >3. Having ICANN staff begin implementation > >4. Having the JAS WG deal with issues that arise in community review > >5. Having the JAS Group publish the final >report after the review process > >Numbers 1, 4 and 5 certainly make a lot of sense >to me and are in line with what normally happens >with policy groups. However, I have issues with >2 and 3. I do not understand the notion of >forwarding a non-final report to the board for approval. > >acknowledging that, what do you think of this proposal and rewording?: > >"The GNSO Council forwards the second JAS >Milestone Report to the ICANN board for >informational purposes to allow for evaluation >of the progress of JAS WG and its relevance to discussion with the GAC" > >we are not requesting approving for the MR2, and >the GNSO will vote later to approve the final >report, does it make sense for you? > >Nor do I understand the notion of having staff >begin implementation of a non-final report prior >to GNSO approval of the final recommendations >much less Board approval of the final recommendations. > > >in order to avoid delay in implementation and >understanding your concern, I suggest this rewording: >"The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin >investigating on implementation of the >recommendation pending Board approval, and " > >the idea is to ask ICANN staff to investigate >the recommendation for feasibility and study >them, it is not implementation per se and it is aimed to avoid delays. > >Therefore, I would propose that the following >amendments be made to the resolved clauses so it now reads: > >Resolved: >The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint >SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its >dedication to completing the work on such a tight schedule, and >The GNSO Council request that the report be put >out for community review as soon as possible, and >The JAS Working Group continues working to deal >with any issues that may arise in the upcoming review by the community, and >That the JAS Working group publish their final >report after this review process. >Resolved further, that the GNSO Council >instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair. > >I know I run the risk of being criticized on the >Council list and the JAS WG list as being >obstructionist or not caring about the needs of >the developing communities. I have also seen on >the JAS WG list that incumbents are trying to >keep out competition or that we are trying to delay the process. > > >I want to make clear that you are mentioning >personal opinions of some members who may feel >frustrated, but definitely it is not a WG position, > >Best, > >Rafik

1 0

ALAC statement on eG8
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 27, 2011

May 27, 2011

Dear members, a final version of the text which was originally drafted by Cintra Sooknanan, and supported by many, thus turning it into a proposed ALAC Statement on the eG8 Summit can be found on: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+eG8… The comment period for amendments to this text is now closed, but prior to sending it, I wanted to answer a few questions which I have received, and also asked myself over the week-end. - Who is this Statement going to be sent to? There have been several proposals. It is clear that writing a statement for the sake of writing a statement and not sending it to anyone, would be a waste of time. In order to have the widest dissemination, and after enquiring, copies of this statement in English and in French will go to the following: - The person in charge of electronic communication at the Elysée Palace (who are the organizers of the eG8) - The French GAC representatives - The ICANN Board - The ICANN CEO - Agence France Presse, Le Monde Newspaper, the eG8 Forum Organising Office (via an indirect vector) - Is this statement going to be ratified? Yes, this will be either ratified at the ALAC call on 24 May 2011 or in a 5-day vote after sending the statement out. We shall decide this as a group during the ALAC call. PLEASE READ IT BEFORE THE ALAC CALL ON 24 MAY 2011. - Why has this statement been drafted? The eG8 Forum is a direct result of the renewed interests that Governments have regarding the Internet. However, looking at the eG8 Forum Agenda ( http://www.eg8forum.com/en/documents/EG8_Program.pdf ), it is clear that the speaker list is far from reflecting the worldwide Internet community as it exists today. Indeed, the speaker list is a world away from being multi-stakeholder. Several members of At-Large have voiced their opinion that the ALAC should send a statement to complain to the organisers of the eG8 Forum. Many other organisations around the world have already also written emails, letter and petitions to complain about the lack of multi-stakeholder participation. Rather than signing another organisation's petition or public letter, it was decided to write our own, targeted statement. - Isn't this outside the ALAC's realm of activity? That's a good question. The current ICANN bylaws define the ALAC's function in Article XI, Section 2.4.a: "a. The role of the At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users." The eG8 conference organisers have sent invitations to attend the conference as a participant to several individuals at ICANN, including both ICANN's current CEO and Chairman. Clearly, ICANN's functions constitute an essential part of the Internet infrastructure. Yet, ICANN has not been given a speaking slot in a long line-up which is not short of private sector speakers: http://www.eg8forum.com/en/documents/EG8_Program.pdf As grassroots members of a bottom-up organisation, it is up to us, the Internet's users, to show our support of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model which affords us and all other stakeholders to have an equal input into the way the ICANN functions are developed. Our advice, as sent to the organisers of the eG8 conference, goes no further than supporting the multi-stakeholder model which is a core ICANN activity. This is a model that we need to defend through education and outreach. The statement is a clear attempt at doing just that. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 5