- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

At 14/01/2011 04:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 14 January 2011 01:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would >like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of >support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head >if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be >a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts. > >Clearly this problem was not considered important by the GNSO when >it voted down the WG-proposed (and ALAC-endorsed) WG charter. Well, in fact it was a major issue of discussion. In the end, I diffused a call for additional discussion about what to do with the conflicting (or at least different) charters by saying that the issue does not exist until the ALAC decides not to change its charter to be in line with the GNSO one. So as this discussion seems to be heading, it will come up at the GNSO again. But more important, there was the start of a discussion that went something like this (my paraphrasing, but I can point you to the relevant part of the transcript once it is available): - cross-SO/AC working groups may be powerful ways of attacking some class of problems; - BEFORE we go ahead with them, we should fully understand all of the implications; - one of the implied difficulties is just the one that has come up now - synchronizing the different SO/AC's. It was pointed out that it is a bit late to be having this discussion regarding the JAS group, since it was already chartered (and is now supposed to be working to address specific Board-requested issues), but it will come back up again. As I have already mentioned, the GNSO is currently VERY process-focused. This is understandable with regard to formal Consensus policy, but it extends way past that. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 15, 2011

Jan. 15, 2011

Richard, I do not think that it was written with that in mind, but according to the words, I think that you are correct. ;-) Alan At 14/01/2011 12:29 PM, Richard Tindal wrote: >I didn't participate in the GNSO discussions on this, so I apologize >for my ignorance, but doesn't this GNSO charter item leave a fairly >broad scope for the form of assistance?: > >b) Propose mechanisms for determining whether an application for >special consideration should be granted and what sort of help should >be offered;

1 0

JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting. I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is attached. The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter was first drafted. The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow further work, even if not specified in detail; - work should proceed without delay. For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Sending this message to both lists was probably a mistake, because I suspect that those without posting rights on the other list will be held for moderation or bounced. In any case two small reply comments. Regarding being kind, I was trying really hard to present what happened and not editorialize. I know a bit sneaked in. Regarding the chain of command, I was amused by that but not really worried, as the chartering body is the NORMAL place to submit a report, and if there is some reason that this needs to be bypassed for expediency or whatever, I have faith that at least the ALAC would bless that. If a document is submitted by the WG to (say) the Board, it is still just a WG opinion and not that of the chartering body (which is what caused my amusement. Regarding what the ALAC does, it is a bit problematic. I also would like to see the group continue on the path addressing a variety of support methodologies. But I also see a real problem raising its head if one of the first multiple-SO/AC chartered groups cannot really be a joint operation. It does not bode well for future efforts. Alan At 13/01/2011 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >Alan, > >Thank you for forwarding that. > >I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved >by the GNSO. > > >As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in >partnership with an incumbent. While this was one type of aid the >JAS group was recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike >me as a form of neocolonialism where of those helped would only be >helped by an incumbent partner. No fee reductions. No financial >aid. Just partnership with an incumbent. Is this really something >this group can just accept? > >The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to >prevent the JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with >anyone other than the chartering organization. That is, it would >establish a military style chain of command for all JAS WG >recommendations that would bar the group from communicating with the >Board , the GAC or the community at large. I do not believe this >sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be accepted. > >It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter >based on the GNSO motion. > >As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new >co-chairs are catching their breath after the holidays. And I know >that Rafik has been busy banging his head against the wall of the >Contracted Parties House representatives in the GNSO trying to gain >support or the charter we proposed. As a member of the GNSO council >he is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I do not envy his position. > >I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as >specified by the ALAC. > >a. > > >On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS > group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was > originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at > its November 2010 meeting. > > > > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it > is attached. > > > > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: > > > > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or > > > > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would > mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. > > > > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling > and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the > revised charter was first drafted. > > > > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a > vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would > have significantly augmented the final version, both of which > failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option > that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. > > > > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would > have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a > situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for > whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. > > > > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts > of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. > > > > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had > not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: > > > > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; > > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow > further work, even if not specified in detail; > > - work should proceed without delay. > > > > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not > happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. > > > > Alan<Charters.pdf>

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Eric, I haven't looked at the Redline and Blueline versions that you are talking about, but there is no error (that I am aware of) in my report of what was approved. The IDN item was not in the WG's proposed charter (ie what Rafiq proposed to Council). Debbie Hughes (I think) proposed an amendment to add it. Cannot remember whether that was taken as friendly or passed, but it doesn't really matter. Wolf-Ulrich Knoben proposed an amendment to Jeff's new charter which included the IDN point. That amendment did not pass, but ultimately that one item from it was again proposed by Zahid Jaamil and was accepted as a friendly amendment. Alan At 14/01/2011 10:40 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >Alan, > >A question about the 2-up presentation of the charter texts. > >Looking at the original text, 1(i) read "Design mechanisms to >encourage the build out of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in >small or underserved languages." > >In the Redline (Jeff Neuman's draft) version, 1(c) and 1(e), 1(f), >1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) are absent, in addition to other changes. > >In the Blueline (Avri as formated by Wolf-Urich) version, 1(c) and >1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h) and 1(i) are present, in addition to other changes. > >What puzzles me is how 1(i), the item on IDNs, appears in your pdf, >and in your textual commentary, absent from the column entitled >"Original ALAC Charter" and present in the (narrowly approved) column >entitled "New GNSO charter". > >Is this a error in transcription? > >Eric

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter
by Tijani BEN JEMAA Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Thank you Alan, Avri, Alex and Eric, Indeed, its disappointing. But it was expected, and since Cartagena, we were convinced that it will happen. We decided to try to find other constituencies to join the JAS WG, and we were thinking especially to the GAC. We really need to get closer to them. Who is taking the lead for such thing? I understood that Evan and Olivier were trying. Is there any chance to have the GAC as a chartered organisation for this WG? In any case, I do stick to the version adopted by ALAC, and dont see any reason that ALAC changes and joins the GNSO version. Yes Alan, its a pity that we lost the 2 or 3 last weeks. We were supposed to rush and try to be on time for a proposal to the board before the launch of the final DAG edition. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : vendredi 14 janvier 2011 05:57 À : JAS Cc : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS New gTLD Applicant Support WG Charter Alan, Thank you for forwarding that. I think you are too kind in your reference to the charter approved by the GNSO. As far I ca tell it only approves aid, when that aid is in partnership with an incumbent. While this was one type of aid the JAS group was recommending, to provide only this form of aid strike me as a form of neocolonialism where of those helped would only be helped by an incumbent partner. No fee reductions. No financial aid. Just partnership with an incumbent. Is this really something this group can just accept? The GNSO motion takes another unconscionable step in trying to prevent the JAS WG from sharing it results and recommendations with anyone other than the chartering organization. That is, it would establish a military style chain of command for all JAS WG recommendations that would bar the group from communicating with the Board , the GAC or the community at large. I do not believe this sort of top down restriction of WG flexibility should be accepted. It is my fervent hope, that the ALAC does not change its JAS charter based on the GNSO motion. As for why we haven't met yet, I can only imagine that the new co-chairs are catching their breath after the holidays. And I know that Rafik has been busy banging his head against the wall of the Contracted Parties House representatives in the GNSO trying to gain support or the charter we proposed. As a member of the GNSO council he is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I do not envy his position. I personally think we should just charge ahead on the charter as specified by the ALAC. a. On 13 Jan 2011, at 22:23, Alan Greenberg wrote: > At its meeting today, the GNSO approved a new charter for the JAS group. This charter differs significantly from the one that was originally proposed to the GNSO and later approved by the ALAC at its November 2010 meeting. > > I have formatted both charters for a left-right comparison and it is attached. > > The ALAC must now decide which path to follow: > > 1. Adjust its charter to match the new GNSO one; or > > 2. Keep the existing charter or modify it somewhat. This would mean that the WG is working to two different charters simultaneously. > > I am not a fan of the new charter. I find it far too controlling and eliminates actions which the WG felt were important when the revised charter was first drafted. > > The vote for this charter was preceded by much discussion and a vote on the original charter as well as an amendment which would have significantly augmented the final version, both of which failed. The charter does include a specific item on IDN, an option that the WG had considered but later decided not to include. > > The final vote was very close, and nearly failed. A failure would have left the WG unchartered (un-re-chartered?) by the GNSO, a situation that would also have been difficult to handle. But for whatever reasons, we now have the two charters as shown in the attachment. > > Obviously (to me in any case), the ALAC should seek the thoughts of the WG members regarding how it should proceed. > > I also note that after the Cartagena meeting (where the GNSO had not approved the draft charter), there was a strong feeling within the WG that: > > - it had an expanded charter from the ALAC; > - the original charter from the GNSO was thought be some to allow further work, even if not specified in detail; > - work should proceed without delay. > > For reasons that I do not fully understand, that has not happened, and I do not believe that the group has met at all this year. > > Alan<Charters.pdf>

1 0

Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 14, 2011

Jan. 14, 2011

Dear ALAC members, you might be aware that there is currently much internal debate going on within GAC and the Board, and elsewhere, about the organisation of the summit which will bring GAC and the Board together. A significant tug of war appears to be taking place between partisans of the open meeting model and those of the closed meeting model. Another area of unknown unknown is where and when this meeting is due to take place. Please find enclosed below, a letter which I propose emailing to the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the ICANN Board. Again, time is of the essence, so please read this: ** I shall be sending this in 24H if there is no objection from the ALAC ** The aim is to catalyse the finding of a solution by suggesting one that's agreeable to everyone and avoid a situation where the results of such a meeting hold no legitimacy due to a flawed process. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, Olivier --- body of the letter --- The following is a suggestion which I make in an individual capacity, after having listened to the argument of many people involved in and out of the decision process. [ this will be replaced by: "which is made with agreement of ALAC" ] Proposed meeting Date: Mid-February Rationale: there are concerns that a meeting taking place at the end of the month will not give enough time for the Board to take notice, discuss and act on the points raised in the meeting, in time for the SFO meeting. Similarly, the GAC members would not have enough time to report to their governments and their stakeholders. As a result, there would be a real threat that the meetings in SFO would not contribute positively to the possibility of pressing the "go" button in SFO. More delays. More unhappy constituencies. Proposed meeting type: a mix of open & closed Rationale: both closed and open models have their advantages & inconvenients. Proponents of the closed model argue that there are several points of internal GAC & Board relationship building which might not benefit from being public - and could stop from GAC or Board members from being free to say what they wish to say during the meeting. This argument certainly has its validity. Proponents of an open meeting argue that ICANN, a champion of the open model of transparency, cannot politically have a closed meeting between the GAC and the Board. In the light of the uproar released by civil society triggered by the recent CSTD decisions regarding IGF-related governance, it is a simple case of eating one's own dog food. Opponents of the open model argue that if the meeting is going to be turned into a "circus" with people after people coming onto the microphone and giving mixed signals, this would be a waste of time. I therefore propose: - that the meeting, likely to last 2 days to be thorough, should be composed of a mix of closed and open meetings, with an emphasis that the closed meeting time shall constitute less than 40% of the total time allocated for meetings. - that it shall be possible to follow the open meeting remotely, through an Adobe Connect room, Internet streaming and a telephone bridge, to a standard no lower than the standard proposed at an ICANN Annual General Meeting (AGM). - that the Chair and Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs, plus a select number of people in the GNSO (number to be determined but akin to a selection of people taking part in Cross Community Working Groups (CWGs)) shall be invited to make comments and take part in the discussion in *some* of the open sessions. They shall be called "Community Representatives (CR)". - that the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of SOs and ACs might, at a common GAC-Board invitation, appear or make statements for a part of the closed meetings, provided there is consensus between GAC and Board on their presence. - that the rest of the people following the meeting shall have observer status but shall have full freedom to be in touch at all times with their Community Representatives and shall therefore be able to speak through them. Yours sincerely, --- cut here --- -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

8 13

Re: [ALAC] Urgent: proposed email to GAC/ Board Chairs
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

I have had neither any involvement or knowledge of this change, but I do note that it comes in parallel with the change from requiring a local host who made a very substantial contribution to the meeting, to ICANN being largely responsible for (at least some) meetings - a change for which there has been a great deal of demand within ICANN. If the budget (from ICANN fuinds) for such meetings is to not go up, increased sponsorship revenue is pretty much required (or a VERY reduced budget and/or charges for attendance). Alan At 12/01/2011 07:36 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >...and just in case anyone may has noticed it or not, if you go to the >sponsorship page of the ICANN meeting page at >http://meetings.icann.org/sponsorship , ICANN has increased the >sponsorship costs by factors of 2.5 to 10, so much about >"multi-stakeholder" and bottom-up stuff. Top sponsorship per ICANN >meeting is half a million dollars and the minimum sponsorship to have >a stand was increased to USD 25K from USD 10K. This excludes alot of >stakaeholders and people that may want to also set-up stall and raise >awareness about their groups.

1 0

ACTION: Call for RALO Volunteers for Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group open through 20 January
by Heidi Ullrich Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, a call for volunteers from the RALOs to the Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA WG) is being made through 20 January 2011. The objective of the DSSA WG is to: - Examine the level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS - Review the current efforts and activities intended to mitigate these threats; and - Identify possible gaps in the current security response to DNS issues. The ALAC endorsed the Charter of DSSA WG during the ICANN Meeting in Cartagena in December 2010 (the Charter is available on the Joint DSSA WG At-Large Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Joint+DSSA+WG+-+At-Large+Worksp…> available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Joint+DSSA+WG+-+At-Large+Worksp…) As the GNSO and ccNSO have adopted the Charter and the NRO is in the process of adopting it, the ALAC is now calling for a volunteers from the RALOs to join the DSSA WG. If you would like to become an At-Large representative of the DSSA WG, please note that the following membership criteria apply: 1) You should have knowledge or expertise of the objectives of the DSSA WG. 2) You should be prepared to actively participate in the activities of the WG on an on-going and long-term basis. 3) You should be prepared, if required, to sign a Formal Affirmation of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure paper (see Annex B of the Charter) and/or a Non-Disclosure Agreement. The WG may decide to establish a sub-working group to access confidential or proprietary information. If you are interested in participating in such a sub-working group, you will most likely be required to sign one or both of the aforementioned agreements in order to ensure access to and protection of confidential information. If you are interested in joining this Working Group, please send a Statement of Interest by Thursday, 20 January at 23:59 UTC to At-Large staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) containing the following information: - Current vocation, employer and position - Type of work performed - Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in organizations that are interested parties in DSSA related topics - Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in DSSA related topics. Are you representing other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination/selection as a work group member. - DSSA Working Group members are expected to demonstrate knowledge or expertise aspects of the objectives of the DSSA WG. Please identify any knowledge, expertise, or experience that you have that would be relevant to the work of the DSSA Working Group. - Describe any tangible or intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such processes, for example, if you are an academic or non-governmental organization and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this should be part of the Statement of Interest, just as should employment by an organization that has an interest in DSSA Working Group outcomes. The Statements of Interest will be posted on the DSSA Working Group website. Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, will serve as a co-chair of the DSSA Working Group. The ALAC would ideally like to have a minimum of one representative from each region serve on the DSSA Working Group. The ALAC will review the Statements of Interest and formally select At-Large representatives to the DSSA Working Group during their meeting of 25 January 2011. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Fwd: Re: AGAT description
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Dear ALAC members, At the Executive Committee (ExCom) conference call yesterday, Evan Leibovitch proposed the creation of a sub-group operating under the New gTLD Working Group already in place: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+New+gTLDs This new sub-group would be called AGAT-WT - The Applicant Guidebook Alternate Text Working Team. Evan's description of the group is as follows: The Applicant Guidebook Alternate Text (AGAT) Working Team is intended to be comprised of a small number of end-user-focused members of the ICANN community. This Team will create specific wording change proposals to the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) designed to address specific (and substantial) issues raised by the At-Large Community, the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and others. Its intent is to * Respond to Board and GAC concerns within specific areas of the AG -- notably on applicant support in lesser developed economies and objections based on strings perceived to be offensive. * Define an *implementation* of existing policy that differs from the current ICANN (staff) interpretations. * Deliver wording (and commentary as applicable) that is straightforward and does not require "refining" by staff (except for legal purposes). * Maintain the consensus decisions made by the Recommendation 6 Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) while offering specific wording changes to issues on which the group was deadlocked. * Be open and transparent (though some initial preparatory work may be closed). The group will NOT: * Re-open non-controversial components of the AG that are already considered resolved (*). * Contravene existing GNSO policy (this is about process and wording detail, not high-level policy. * Implement any wording going against any consensus achieved by the CWG. The timing is such that this group is asked to have at least a rough form of its proposed wording changes available in advance of the GAC/Board meeting likely to take place in Geneva, at the end of February 2011. Endorsement by as many ICANN communities as possible is desirable, but lack thereof must not impair its transmission to the Board in time for consideration. It is our hope that this contribution may serve as a catalyst for an accommodation between the ICANN communities on such contentions issues. --------------------- (*) -- while not on the Board or GAC commentaries, the user-focused community has strong views on a single regressive change regarding the trademark-related take-down notices. This Working Team may propose suggestions here too even though they may be beyond the bounds of the Board or GAC communications. The ALAC Executive Committee is looking forward to receive comments and suggestions from the ALAC on this proposed sub-group. Due to short deadlines, we cannot wait to discuss this at the monthly ALAC call at the end of this month. Would you be in favour of the creation of this sub-group? Any objections? Would you be interested in joining it? I look forward to receiving your feedback. Best wishes, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 0