- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from Dec 2010 to ICANN AGM 2011
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 27, 2010

Nov. 27, 2010

Election Call for ALAC Liaisons to serve from Dec 2010 to ICANN AGM 2011 The continuing* Liaison positions, and those currently serving in the role (until the ICANN AGM in Cartagena) is listed below; With the exception of Adam Peak (who is the next Nominating Committee Chair), the incumbent Liaisons are able to stand for reappointment. *Nominations are now called for each of the following Liaison positions:-* December 2009-2010 ALAC Liaisons - GNSO – Alan Greenberg<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/greenberg.html> - ccNSO – Rudi Vansnick<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/vansnick.html> - SSAC – Patrick Vande Walle<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/vande-walle.html> - IDN Policy – James Seng<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/seng.htm> - GNSO-NCSG – Adam Peak<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/peake.html> *Board Liaison – Vanda Scartezini<http://www.icann.org/en/biog/scartezini.htm> *NOTE*:*This role terminates with the seating of the At-Large Director selected Board Member for seat #15 on the ICANN Board, at the 2010 AGM. * * * *Your attention is also drawn to the relevant sections of the ALAC Rules of Procedure (ROP 4-6) inserted below in relation to the criteria required and other matters relating to appointment made by the ALAC.* *ALAC Liaison Election Schedule November - December 2010* *26 November 2010 Election Call (sent to lists.)* *6 December 2010 Deadline for Liaison Nominations (to be sent to lists.)* *9 December 2010 Chair to post to the public ALAC list an “election summary” message (sent to lists.)* *9 December 2010 Nominations are discussed* *10 December 2010 Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination (sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of th At-Large Wiki.)* *13-17 December 2010 Election of ALAC **Liaisons (if required => where only one nomination is received for any Liaison position the nominee will be confirmed in that role on December 10th)* *17 December 2010 Election Results announced and any unconfirmed Liaisons **begin in their roles* *Excerpts from the ALAC Rules of Procedure (ROP) relating to Liaisons of the ALAC * RULE 4 - ELECTION OF LIAISONS 4.1 Liaisons to ICANN's Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations and Constituencies can be established by approval of the Committee; in that case, they will follow the rules established for the appointment and functioning of the GNSO Liaison *4.2 **Refers to* *The Board Liaison*, *and is therefore not relevant here, and will be redacted from the ALAC ROP after the 2010 AGM* 4.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 4.4 All liaisons serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. 4.5 Liaisons shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 4.6 They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; 4.7 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the At‐Large Community by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 4.8 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as an ALAC representative, to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. RULE 5 - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR LIAISONS 5.1 There is no requirement for a Liaison to be a member of the At‐Large Advisory *Committee;*** 5.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 5.3 A person may not serve two different liaison positions at the same time in; 5.4 All liaisons can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11; 5.5 All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in Rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. *The mission and responsibilities of each Liaison of the ALAC are:* 5.6 To participate diligently in the meetings and activities of the body he/she is liaison to; 5.7 To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to such body; 5.8 To report to the ALAC the current and upcoming activities of the body he/she is liaison to, as far as this is possible under the timing and confidentiality constraints of such *body;* ** ** * 5.9 When this is possible under such constraints, ask to the ALAC for advance instructions on matters that are going to be discussed by such body. * RULE 6 - PRIVILEGES OF LIAISONS 6.1 All liaisons have the same rights of access to information, mailing lists and documents *as the ordinary ALAC members.* * ****NOTE: there is no assured travel finding for ALAC Liaisons to attend ICANN Meetings unless they are serving ALAC members so assurances that they can still perform their role will be required**.* * * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RES: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board
by carlos dionisio aguirre Nov. 26, 2010

Nov. 26, 2010

Agree with Vanda in almost evErything. I consider its words were very objective. However I particularly support a different candidate. Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:57:18 To: <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] RES: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board All candidates are friends and each one has peculiar positive and negative points in their profiles. However to be friend is not enough for support one or another candidate to this position which took so huge effort and time to ALAC to get it. Have the best we can candidate is really an obligation of this group . I don?t vote what I really believe is not fair. I have only the task but no rights? We don?t have liaisons anymore, so let it go, but I don?t agree liaisons shall have no right no vote inside their ACs. They should be full members. Back to election , ALAC members need to go deeply as how candidates profile will be adequate or not for the board - which behavior is expected for a board member? Controlled person, lack of impulsiveness, balance and analytical person, hard worker, strategic, independent, with lot?s of time to dedicate to the task., no conflict of interest meaning, no contract with internet industry, deep knowledge of the ICANN issues, good involvement with several regions... and with all points taking into account I must support Carlton choice. I don?t vote, but I believe I have right to express my opinion openly, and here it is. Good vote to all for the benefit of LAC and At Large users. All the best Vanda Scartezini ALAC LAST LIAISON TO THE BOARD -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A Enviada em: sexta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2010 12:58 Para: ALAC; At-Large Worldwide Assunto: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW, these are my views.....and I continue to hold them. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board We support Alan Greenberg. That said, we shall not support a directed LACRALO vote. It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed director to be. We would have missed the critical points totally if you were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself that what we call the At-Large is very diverse. So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board. [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut her down!]. I am drawn to dissenters. But in this case user interests is way too important just to dissent; having influence is much better. We must encourage our representative to have influence. And then to use that influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer interests that could arise at Board level. ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the "Interests". If you're going to have influence from a position of one, we believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests. This is the process of triangulation. It is the strategic model most utilized to succeed in the majority group when you are a minority. This is what we know, almost as birthright. We do not always agree with Alan. But to say he doesn't understand user or consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation and I was for 'free trade'. In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue. And while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment. You do not penalize until and unless you have a case. Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route. But in the end, they voted my perspective. Goes to show. Carlton Samuels _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board
by SAMUELS,Carlton A Nov. 26, 2010

Nov. 26, 2010

I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW, these are my views.....and I continue to hold them. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board We support Alan Greenberg. That said, we shall not support a directed LACRALO vote. It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed director to be. We would have missed the critical points totally if you were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself that what we call the At-Large is very diverse. So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board. [I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut her down!]. I am drawn to dissenters. But in this case user interests is way too important just to dissent; having influence is much better. We must encourage our representative to have influence. And then to use that influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer interests that could arise at Board level. ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the "Interests". If you're going to have influence from a position of one, we believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests. This is the process of triangulation. It is the strategic model most utilized to succeed in the majority group when you are a minority. This is what we know, almost as birthright. We do not always agree with Alan. But to say he doesn't understand user or consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation and I was for 'free trade'. In fact, some would have looked at this and concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue. And while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of collective punishment. You do not penalize until and unless you have a case. Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route. But in the end, they voted my perspective. Goes to show. Carlton Samuels _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

3 2

FW: [At-Large] ALAC response to the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook
by Heidi Ullrich Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

Dear All, Please see below a note from Evan Leibovitch regarding the latest version of the draft ALAC statement on the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook (available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F…) Please review and make your comments by Tuesday, 30 November either by e-mail or by using the comment function on the wiki page. Kind regards, Heidi -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:58 PM To: ICANN GTLD WG list; ICANN At-Large list Subject: [At-Large] ALAC response to the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook Hello all. I've just finished incorporating the input received in today's drafting call into the ALAC statement on the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F… Please review and comment. - Evan _______________________________________________ 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

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Cartagena Public Forum ; input requested
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

Peter, Thank you for this opportunity for community based input into the topic choices and structure of the Public Forum on Thursday in Cartagena. In a piece of unfortunate timing your email arrived shortly after our monthly ALAC and the following ExCom meeting, but I have already asked the ExCom to provide some prompt feedback and with this reply the ALAC Working list (which also has our Regional Leadership and Liaisons subscribed are also being requested for feedback and ideas as soon as possible... To this end if the ALAC List can discuss ON our list alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org , say before 2355 UTC on Friday 26th if at all possible, that would be appreciated, and I will pass on any outcomes to the Board Chairman. >From my perspective though Peter what responses I have had back from the ExCom does indicate that new gTLD's is still a matter the community desires much interaction on... Yes we see the Agenda time being allocated elsewhere in the meeting for this and related matters Recommendation 6 for example, but I do wonder if some community members are unable to attend those sessions OR if there are developments out of our meeting at these sessions or in our community and cross community discussions earlier in the week it may still be very worthwhile to consider time in the Public forum for this topic and it's various component parts... There might also be interests developing from community discussions and interactions at Cartagena on having the ATRT's work (or matters arising from it) as a topic as well. I will attempt to provide the time-frame information you requested with any iout from our community on proposed topics, but on the matters I mentioned above those affected by the outcomes is our whole ICANN community... More when I have it then, Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 November 2010 11:07, Peter Dengate Thrush < peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Chairs, > I'd be grateful for some comment on topics your organisations might like to > have included on the agenda of the Public Forum for Cartagena. > It would be helpful if you indicate the context of any proposed topics, > including who is affected by the outcomes, and the timeframe in which > decisions might have to be made. > > Note that new gTLD topics are provided for already by separate sessions. > > Many thanks - I look forward to seeing you in Colombia. > > regards > > > Peter Dengate Thrush > Chairman of the Board of Directors, > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > +64 4 4998959 (DDI) > +64 21499888 (mobile) > +64 4 4710672 (fax) > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] FYI: Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 25, 2010

Nov. 25, 2010

OK tis a day for error correction I guess I have had it pointed out to me that of course the ICANN Letter to the GAC is NOT a reply to the latest letter from GAC at all, but actually to their earlier ones... and there I was thinking that it was a very prompt reply => the dates had me confused *sigh* Sorry to have mislead any one... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 25 November 2010 10:15, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Obviously still tired form last few days typo in my note below changes > the context completely Sorry... > > SHOULD READ => "Excellent letter *from *the GAC in my view at least, re > the ICANN response, the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and > GNSO in their co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the > cross community activity and any agreements they might come up with was to > offer to the Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know > how well that was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)... > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > > On 25 November 2010 09:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Excellent letter for the GAC in my view at least, re the ICANN response, >> the funny (not) thing is of course the GAC, ALAC and GNSO in their >> co-creation of the CWG aimed to offer by the action of the cross community >> activity and any agreements they might come up with was to offer to the >> Board exactly what PDT is asking for *sigh* and we all know how well that >> was managed...(and yes I use the term advisedly)... >> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr >> (CLO) >> >> >> >> >> On 25 November 2010 07:47, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)mindsandmachines.com> >>> Date: 24 November 2010 14:57 >>> Subject: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: >>> morality >>> issues >>> To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo(a)icann.org> >>> >>> >>> For those not yet aware, there has been an exchange of letters between >>> GAC >>> and ICANN concerning the subject matter of this working group. >>> >>> The GAC letter of Nov 22 ( >>> >>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dryden-to-dengate-thrush-22nov10-en.pdf >>> ) >>> suggests that there be "prior review" of applications, in order to give >>> applicants an "early warning" that their TLDs might raise sensitivities. >>> It >>> does not say who should conduct these reviews, what the standards of >>> review >>> are, whether there would be any appeal, whether the determination of the >>> reviewers was final, etc. etc. The GAC letter suggests that this is >>> important in view of the principle of universal resolvability, noting >>> that >>> to date "there do not appear to be controversial top level domains that >>> have >>> resulted in significant or sustained blocking by countries." The letter >>> does not explain why this is different than blocking of second-level >>> domains >>> by countries, which is a widespread practice. >>> >>> The ICANN letter in response ( >>> >>> http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf >>> ), >>> sent the next day, is a compendium of how ICANN has addressed or is >>> addressing outstanding issues. The issues concerning morality and public >>> order are saved for the end of the letter (pages 9 and 10), and basically >>> say to the GAC, we appreciate your input, but you need to suggest a way >>> forward rather than just say you're unhappy with the outcome. Here's a >>> couple of quotes from PDT: >>> >>> "Various competing interests are involved, for example the rights of >>> freedom >>> of expression versus sensitivities associated with terms of national, >>> cultural, geographic and religious significance. While freedom of >>> expression >>> is not absolute, those claiming to be offended on national, cultural, >>> geographic or religious grounds do not have an automatic veto over >>> gTLDs." >>> >>> "I understand that some GAC members have expressed dissatisfaction with >>> this >>> process as it was first described in version 2 of the Guidebook. The >>> treatment of this issue in the new gTLD context, was the result of a >>> well-studied and documented process which involved consultations with >>> internationally recognized experts in this area. Advice containing >>> thoughtful proposals for amending the treatment of this issue that >>> maintains >>> the integrity of the policy recommendation would be welcomed. The >>> expression of dissatisfaction without a substantive proposal, does not >>> give >>> the Board or staff a toehold for considering alternative solutions. >>> While >>> the report of the recently convened working group still does not >>> constitute >>> a policy statement as conceived in the ICANN bylaws, ICANN staff and >>> Board >>> are working to collaborate with the community to adopt many of the >>> recommendations." >>> >>> Antony >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GTLD-WG mailing list >>> GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg >>> >>> Working Group direct URL: >>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy >>> >> >> >

1 0

Fwd: FW: letter to ICANN Board new gTLDs Nov. 22 2010
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Hmmm this is a take 2 of the forward the other one has been cued to send from my outbox for many hours so it seems perhaps this fresh attempt will succeed... Note here the specific issues raised regarding the work of the Rec 6 CWG... Much more on this I assume will unfold in Cartagena The ICANN reply FYI is found here ( http://icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-23nov10-en.pdf) it addresses/lists actions on MANY matters but from a Rec 6 CWG you should look to pages 8(end) 9&10... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Date: 24 November 2010 10:02 Subject: FW: letter to ICANN Board new gTLDs Nov. 22 2010 To: cgomes(a)verisign.com, ceo(a)auda.org.au, langdonorr(a)gmail.com Dear all, I am attaching the letter from the GAC to the Board, containing comments related to new gTLDs. Heather

1 0

Question for Candidates missing a reply on Candidate Community Forum
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Dear All, I have been reading the answers to the questions asked from candidates with great interest. For those who have not yet cast your vote, they are linked from: https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Director+Candidate-Comm… Whilst reading through the questions asked by EURALO, I noticed a misunderstanding a couple of days ago and made a comment about it, but it doesn't appear that my comment was taken into account. https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Candidate-Community+For… On that page, the last question asked was: <<<"A general question, but first for Alan. The ATRT's proposed recommendations include: "ICANN should establish [by INSERT DATE] formal mechanisms for identifying the collective skill-set required by the ICANN Board including such skills as public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution. Emphasis should be placed upon ensuring the Board has the skills and experience to effectively provide oversight of ICANN operations consistent with the global public interest and deliver best practice in corporate governance." 1. What skill sets do you feel currently missing from the board and how will your skills fill those gaps? 2. Please describe your experience with the following, as relevant to ICANN's mission "public policy, finance, strategic planning, corporate governance, negotiation, and dispute resolution".">>> The question was meant to be read during the conference call, and I believe that "first for Alan" meant that Alan should be first to reply; but other candidates interpreted this as being a question only for Alan. The sentence referring to "only for Alan" was for the previous question. I wonder if we can obtain the reply from Pierre and Sébastien, please? Please update your reply on: https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Candidate-Community+For… There's still just about 24H until voting closes for our EURALO ALSes and I think it would be interesting to see the answers for these questions. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

4 3

Fwd: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Draft Progress Report
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

Please find attached an 'advance' / draft copy of the Progress Report from the ccnso-idnpdpwg1; This will be announced and out for comment in thre usual ICANN way but is provided here so that RALO's, your ALSes and of course the ALAC can begin their review, discussion and feedback towards responses as soon as possible. More on this in Cartagena... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Date: 24 November 2010 06:18 Subject: [ccnso-idnpdpwg1] Draft Progress Report To: "ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org" <ccnso-idnpdpwg1(a)icann.org> Dear all, Included is first draft of progress report. Purpose of the report is to inform the community of progress made so far on the criteria and requirements and seek input. The report contains the principles and decisions and substantial notes from the decision documents. I have also updated the introduction to describe the working group activities and methodology so far. We have already created a forum as agreed on the call last week. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

DRAFT Statement on new Applicant Guidebook (AG) INPUT / Edits / COMMENTS please.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

ALAC Members (including those taking office in Cartagena) and Regional Leaders / Liaisons, please see the link to the wiki page below (a snip from another email exchange with latest version edit etc., from be gTLD WG activities earlier today/ yesterday.. Please use the comments section of the page to contribute to the final drafting of this WG product into a Statement of the ALAC that we can ratify in our F2F meeting(s) in Cartagena. Your early contributions would be most welcome as many of us will be travelling soon and having a near final draft together by the time we arrive at the meeting and work further on it in our Sunday meeting would be most important... Thanks you Evan and the team who have contributed (mainly the new gTLD-WG) this drafting is greatly appreciated... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007 -2010 <snip> "... ... the statement that is now on the At-Large Wiki. It incorporates changes made during yesterday's community drafting call. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+ALAC+Statement+on+Draft+F… - Evan <end snip>

1 0