- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Comments on RAA report
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

For those who may be interested, I submitted the following comments to the RAA Improvements report. Alan >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Comments on RAA Report > >Comments on: Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the >Registrar Accreditation Agreement > >These comments are submitted solely on my own behalf and do not >necessarily represent the views of the ALAC or NARALO. > >I commend the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting team for a comprehensive >report on a difficult subject. > >I first must comment on the timing of this report and the >implications for RAA changes in the future. The GNSO resolution that >created this Drafting Team was passed in March 2009, with the stated >intent of having the recommendations by the end of July 2009. A year >later, we have an Initial Report. This is not meant as a criticism >of the Drafting Team(s) - in retrospect, the target date was >euphorically optimistic. But it should be a wake-up call to push >forward with the process with due haste. The high priority issues >listed in the report are indeed high priority, and it would be good >to see quick progress. This is all the more so in light of the >recommendation to handle issues that are eligible for consensus >policy via PDPs, a process which itself typically takes years, and >the fact that as the RAA is interpreted, it can take up to five >years to implement a new version. > >I would like to highlight a number of specific issues. > > >Resellers >--------- > >The 9th high priority topic is to define reseller and clarify >responsibilities. I strongly support this. I specifically support >the wording of the IPC and Law Enforcement proposals to make it >explicit the resellers must comply with ALL registrar requirements >that are delegated to them. Prior to the May 2009 RAA, resellers >were not mentioned in the RAA, and one could assume that resellers >would have to adhere to any rules associated with the registrar >tasks that they perform. It is a given that in the general case, a >party to a contract cannot absolve themselves of >their responsibilities simply by subcontracting the work to a third >party - if that was the case, there would be a lot more >subcontracting being done. However, it the May 2009 RAA, section >3.12 explicitly assigns certain responsibilities to resellers, and >some registrars have claimed that this means that those >responsibilities not mentioned are de facto excluded. As a result, >adding section 3.12 could be viewed as having effectively weakened the RAA. > >Although not currently an RAA issue, it is also important to note >that ICANN Compliance has always said that since ICANN has no >contracts with resellers and therefore cannot take actions against >them, they do not focus any attention on reseller issues. They are >correct that they have no right to audit or otherwise force >disclosure of information from resellers. But that can take action >through the appropriate registrar. And there is nothing to stop >compliance from doing audits using publicly available information >(such as web pages) and then following up with registrars if needed. >The lack of a definitive list of all resellers should not stop ICANN >from at least doing spot checks or investigations based on complaints. > > >Registered Name Holders >----------------------- > >The report section on "Registrar Business Dealings with Registrants" >starting on page 39 includes the text: > >"The RAA sets forth actions the Registrar may take at the conclusion >of the registration period if a Registered Name Holder has not >provided consent to renew the registration, including the Registrar >cancelling the registration at the end of the current registration >term. If the Registered Name Holder did not consent to renewal, the >Registrar must make sure that a Registered Name is deleted from the >Registry database within 45 days of the end of the registration term." > >This makes it sound as if the "Registered Name Holder" is a single >entity. However, as noted in RAA Matrix No. 10.2, most registration >agreements allow the registrar to unilaterally reassign a Registered >Name to itself or a related or unrelated third party at any time >after expiration. It is unclear if such transfers are in fact in >compliance with section 3.7.4 of the RAA, but regardless, the >ORIGINAL Registered Name Holder (that is, the one on record just >prior to expiration) is not accorded the rights as described in this >section. As a result, this section of the report does not really >represent reality. > > >Section 5.2 Recommended Next Steps >---------------------------------- > >I believe that the wording in both Option A and B implicitly biases >the outcome. They describe the two parties who must negotiate as >Staff and Registrars. But it is not "Staff" who is one of the >signatories of the contract, it is "ICANN". The responsibility to >negotiate and sign has been delegated to certain ICANN staff, but >that is a policy decision within ICANN. > >In a bottom up, stakeholder-based organization such as ICANN, paid >or contract staff are given certain responsibilities, but that is a >conscious decision. If ICANN chooses to have as its negotiating >team, someone from ICANN legal services, the ICANN Chief Registrar >Liaison, and several people representing ICANN Stakeholder Groups or >Advisory Councils, that should be an internal ICANN decision. These >user representatives do not have to be either excluded or classed as >observers. If ICANN management wants to include them, then that is a >decision that they can make.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS Application from the Information Policy Analytical Center
by Fouad Bajwa Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

Noted! Lets also discuss this at the monthly meeting to be scheduled in August? - Fouad On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Please send all the future communications to the worldwide list. We > should keep everything completely transparent. > > Hong > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS Application from the Information Policy Analytical Center
by Fouad Bajwa Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

Dear Hong: Thank you for consolidation of comments and the summary for agenda items for the next meeting. Taking note now. Dear Matthias: The final decision for APRALO approval of the ALS application will be scheduled for the upcoming APRALO meeting (August) Dear Pavan: Please take note of agenda items as shared by the Chair. Best Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Wolf and all others, for thoughtful contributions to these > useful cross-RALO discussions on this interesting issue. We could > build our future practices on these views and interactions on division > of regions by ICANN. > > With respect to this specific case, may I suggest the follow pragmatic > approach? > > a) Could staff send to APRALO list an updated application form reflect > the applicant's new preference to joining APRALO, rather than any > other RALO? > > So far we only heard from the staff, not from the ALS applicant > directly. What we have in hand is still a form applying to join > EURALO. Could we get things procedurally clear at least? > > b) Since all our discussions are on APRALO list, our members may still > comment on this issues until the second last Tuesday of August. > > c) The application will be on Agenda of our RALO's next Monthly > Conference call on the last Tuesday of August. If we could have > consensus on this, our regional suggestion will be forwarded timely to > ALAC later on the same day. > > Fouad, I assume you agree with me. > > Anybody else from APRALO? Alternative proposals are welcome but we've > asked to speed up. > > > Hong > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> wrote: >> Dear Fouad and all, >> >> I very much appreciate your elaborations on the IPAC case and your >> reflections on and your comparison with Armenia. Armenia - from a >> historical and cultural point of view - would be even more difficult to >> assess in the ICANN regional rules context, as your reference to the >> WP page clearly and rather contradictory shows. I think, we could >> spend exciting evenings to discuss cases like this, come up with >> interesting conclusions without consequences for existing rules... >> >> If - in the given case - the applicant seems to be pragmatic on their >> preferences (even if their representative expressed his preference for >> EURALO to me in Brussels), we shouldn't enter into an endless >> discussion on this. We should agree on a workable solution that IPAC >> will formally be part/member of APRALO -- and if they want to have >> working contacts with EURALO (on an informal level) as well, it could >> become a good example for cross-RALO cooperation and we are always >> open for new experiences. If there are no strong objections raised any >> more, I think that APRALO should start with the certification procedure >> -- and the At-Large community should be glad about welcoming a new >> member soon. >> >> Kind regards, >> Wolf >> >> >> Fouad Bajwa wrote Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:30: >>>Dear Matthias, >>> >>>I would like to step in on this issue and search for a solution since >>>within this framework of community consensus, I believe that there are >>>always some means available to reach a compromise between RALO's on >>>issues where exceptions can be explored with community consent. On >>>this issue, I would like to get in touch with EURALO. >>> >>>When I look at Armenia and that is a region present on the edge of >>>Europe or the bridge to Europe from Turkey, only Turkey is the country >>>that is both in Asia and Europe and history maintains that the Ottoman >>>Empire was always in conflict with Armenia because it was not possible >>>to find path to Europe otherwise. Armenia exists as EuroAsia >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia therefore I will treat this as a >>>EurAsia issue and not an Asian issue only. >>> >>>The documents shared are not rules, they are more or less principles >>>that in principle we recognize these regions in the way links point to >>>but we as a community have a responsibility to also facilitate ALSs >>>where otherwise we are unable to find a possible equally acceptable >>>solution. We as an At-Large community can work together to request a >>>change of this principle with respect to working with ICANN to reach a >>>compromise because this is need-to-need based. >>> >>>Instead of giving a sweeping statement to revoke this party from >>>joining APRALO, I would like to take this issue up with Wolf Ludwig, >>>Sebastian and Olivier before we reach a final decision and the fact >>>remains that the final decision remains with the APRALO community and >>>the fact also remains that RALO's have an Inter-RALO link and we can >>>jointly resolve issues with mutual consent/consensus. >>> >>>I would like to request staff to await a final decision regarding this >>>interested ALS party from both APRALO and EURALO as we make contact >>>with eachother taking some time to resolve this issue within the >>>community. >>> >>>In consensus oriented groupings and networks, we have to work together >>>to workout possibilities and mutual opportunities. >>> >>>Best >>> >>>Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> >>>On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Matthias Langenegger >>><matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> wrote: >>>> Thank you, Hong. >>>> >>>> We will inform the applicant that it is unfortunately not currently possible >>>> to choose the region they would like to join. According to ICANN's >>>> geographic regions, IPAC is part of the APRALO region (see full list under: >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm) >>>> >>>> ICANN's Geographic Regions Working Group has done an extensive review on the >>>> current geographic model and has recently published its Latest Draft Interim >>>> Report (see >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-28may10-en.htm#foot3) >>>> >>>> Cheryl represents At-Large in the Geographic Regions WG along with Carlton >>>> Samuels. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Matthias Langenegger >>>> Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >>>> Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >>>> Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >>>> Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27/07/2010 10:20, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for sending us the ALS application to the list. I've a >>>>> question: if we take a look at Objective part Q.3, it seems that the >>>>> applicant is based in Europe and interested in joining EURALO. Did I >>>>> overlook anything? >>>>> >>>>> Hong >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff >>>>> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is to inform you that we received an ALS application from the >>>>>> Information Policy Analytical Center. It is based in Baku, Azerbaijan and >>>>>> would be a member of APRALO if accepted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find the application form attached. Due diligence for this >>>>>> application will be provided to you in due course. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, >>>>>> Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström >>>>>> ICANN At-Large Staff >>>>>> >>>>>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> comunica-ch >> phone +41 79 204 83 87 >> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >> www.comunica-ch.net >> >> Digitale Allmend >> http://blog.allmend.ch - >> >> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >> http://euralo.org >> > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China >

1 0

Proposal from Paul Vixie: a DNS reputation system
by Patrick Vande Walle Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

FYI . http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100728_taking_back_the_dns/ Patrick

1 0

At-Large, new gTLDs and Vertical Integration
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

Hello everyone, This morning attended the briefing call on the thorny ICANN issue of "vertical integration" (VI), a topic that is being reviewed because of the planned roll-out of new gTLDs. At its simplest state, VI is the discussion of ICANN regulations governing the extent to which registries may own and sell domains through registrars. At one level -- the level taking the most discussion right now -- is "who may own what". Much deeper (IMO, from the At-Large perspective) are closely related issues such as (but not limited to): - Under what circumstances may a registry sell domains direct to the public? - What limits exist on how registries may use domain-search information to set prices or reserve names? - Do registrars serve a necessary (and thus mandatory) purpose, or is their role be that of an optional value-added service provider? - To what extend does ICANN have jurisdiction and/or authority to regulate Internet business models? What are its limits? The current debate IMO only skims the surface of most of these issues, concentrating largely on the ownership issues which are most dear to some of the most vocal participants, the contracted parties directly affected by policy change. In my opinion this is an issue that requires At-Large involvement, but we need not be constrained by the same charter given by the GNSO to its current VI working group<https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp>(in which there is ALAC participation). I am quite fine with the issue currently falling under the realm of ALAC's new-gTLD Working Group (which I chair) for short term tactics related to the DAG (as suggested at today's meeting), However, I believe that ultimately the issue is larger than that for just gTLDs or just new ones. We have the ability to frame the issues on our own terms and ask the questions we need answered -- how to provide most benefit and least harm to non-speculator registrants (and would-be registrants). Should we even care "who owns who" if the public is well-served? I invite anyone interested in this issue to join the gTLD WG, which looks ready to be the home of two of ICANN's more ... lively ... issues: "vertical integration" and "morality and public order". This looks to be a lively time of year (unusually lively for those in the northern hemisphere). - Evan PS: In addition to materials on the VI website, I also highly recommend Milton Mueller's analysis of the current diversity of positions<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4582700.html>on VI. PPS: I would point you to the actual home page of At-Large's gTLD working group but it looks like it's been hacked<https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy>. (I wonder what else has been hit?)

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Initial Report on introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs - your input sought
by Rudi Vansnick July 29, 2010

July 29, 2010

For your information Rudi Vansnick --- till 8/8 in vacation - online when possible --- Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> > Datum: 28 juli 2010 08:15:13 GMT+02:00 > Aan: ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, "cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <cctldcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org> > Kopie: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Onderwerp: [ccnso-council] Initial Report on introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs - your input sought > > Dear all, > > The joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) has published its Initial Report on the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs and is now seeking for the community’s comments. > > Read more at http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm > Comments can be made until the 9th September at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201009-en.htm#jig-ini… > > Kind regards, > > Gabi

1 0

Revised travel policy statement
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2010

July 28, 2010

Dear Kevin, Thank you for joining the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels. We appreciate you listening to our concerns, and we found your insights based upon your discussions about travel support with other SO/ACs helpful. The current process for travel support is unwieldy and appears expensive for ICANN. Many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers seem unhappy with the experience and results. To spend that amount of effort without the "gold medal" performance that you were aiming is surely disappointing. I suspect that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, so I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers. In short, I am suggesting that you OPTIONALLY allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds. I believe that you will still need an "official ICANN" travel agent, but offered as a resource not as a requirement. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of business. I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note. 0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. 1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort. Such bookings would still be subject to the price limitations to be described. 2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel and understands transit visa issues for those not from North America or western Europe. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. 3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them. One exception that I would explicitly call out would be travel to and from the local airport where such travel clearly exceeds what could reasonably covered by per diem allocations. 4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. 5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less. 6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed. With the ICANN travel agent understanding this rule, many of the current exemptions would no longer be necessary. 7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. 8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges. 9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveler may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead! 10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%. 11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. 12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable". Although not related to air travel, some people have hypothesized that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems (in cases where they are currently used) would result in a net savings to ICANN. However, I strongly question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, the volunteer time to submit claims, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. I would be happy to provide further details or participate in any discussion on this proposal. This message was originally written on my own behalf, but has since been reviewed by the ALAC and regional RALO leaders and has benefited from that review. At the ALAC meeting of 27 July 2010, it was formally and unanimously endorsed by the ALAC. You are welcome to share this with others and to have it posted to the ICANN Correspondence site. Warm regards, Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Revised travel policy statement
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2010

July 28, 2010

ICANN has generally accepted paying visa fees and travel costs to obtain them *if formally requested and justified*. The put a hurdle in the process in that some people were either not aware of or did not want to press their case. To ICANN's credit, for Brussels the said in the original guidelines that they would reimburse visa fees and courier charges. Although not mentioned, I presume that included travel in cases where there was no option. Alan At 23/07/2010 02:15 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >Vivek: >I will leave it to Alan to answer you fully but visa fees are >usually refunded and not calculated as per diem. More than 2 years >ago we faced this with some of my colleagues from S. America. I've >had to pay a visa fee only once - to go to Brazil. It was US$20 and >I simply didn't bother to claim; the time alone was more expensive. > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of vivek anannd >Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:37 AM >To: Alan Greenberg; ALAC Working List >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Revised travel policy statement > >Dear Alan > >was going through the consultation o the travel. I would like to express my >experience on one or two issues- > >1. ICANN travel constituency refused my request from my travel expense from my >institute to Kolkata airport ( for Seoul as well as Nairobi) which >costed around >175$ each time by taxi and said that they can give only the >airfare-and i should >cover the same in per diem or it means that the ALAC member should live in a >city where there is an airport ! This to me is irrational and unreasonable. > >2.Another issue is that of Visa-fee - It costs again anywhere between 100 to >200USD and this again is covered by the per diem - normal practice in academic >conferences where there is sponsorship where they cover your visa charges and >handling fee of the agent. > >3. The fact given by many on the cost of BCD is true. For all the meetings i >attended i used to check the route in my local travel website which gives the >price and it is almost 50% less - which means that ICANN pays for >Business class >and we travel in economy class ! It is a loose-loose situation >for both IICANN >as well as the traveler. > >4.The routing done by them is to criss-cross - e.g. They asked me to fly from >Hyderabad to Dubai and then back to Sydney - which means flying four hours to >west and flying 4 hours back from Dubai over India to reach Sydney. I had to >insist that the shortest route cuts the travel by almost 8 hours by flying via >bangkok directly from Hyderabad and they relented in the last minute > >5. In the last instance to Brussels I asked for a route which is >shortest and i >could not convince them. Then i asked the BCD Travels in India ( >incidentally by >travel agent) who came up in two hours the route i wanted and i >mailed it to BCD >US and then they obliged and again the cost of BCD India was 30 % less. Other >travails are many - Every time i will tell them for Vegetarian Food >and all the >times it was not made except in the last trip where i had to remind them few >times - They had given the instruction as Vegan ! > >I find your suggestions are covering all the concerns and sure things can be >worked out to improve the quality of air travel and stay and related issues. > Dr.V.C.Vivekanandan >Ministry of HRD IP Chair Professor >NALSAR University of Law >3-5-874/18 Apollo Hospital Lane, >Hyderguda,-Hyderabad- 500029 >Adjunct Visiting Professor, University of Buffalo Business School, New York >ALAC Asia Pacific Member ICANN (Internet Corporation of Assigned Names & >Numbers) >Ph:+91-40-23210170 >Mobile-+91-9866050494 >vivek@nalsarpro.org,personal:vivekvc2001@yahoo.co.in > > > > >________________________________ >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Fri, 23 July, 2010 9:25:03 AM >Subject: [ALAC] Revised travel policy statement > >In light of the comments received, I have re-drafted the message to Kevin. I >have also revised the introduction. I have advised Kevin that a >revised version >will be coming. > >The major changes are: > >- highlighting that travelers purchasing their own tickets is >optional, not the >only method; >- clarifying and strengthening the case that per diems and not >reimbursement is >preferred; >- explicitly mentioning the need for a travel agent who is aware of >transit visa >issues; >- mentioning that there should be an exception process for handing abnormally >high local travel costs (to/from departure airport); >- streamlining the approval process for tickets that are issued by ICANN's >travel agent. > >Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts. > >Alan > >====================== > >Dear Kevin, > >Thank you for joining the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting >in Brussels. >We appreciate you listening to our concerns, and we found your insights based >upon your discussions about travel support with other SO/ACs helpful. > >The current process for travel support is unwieldy and appears expensive for >ICANN. Many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers seem unhappy with the >experience and results. To spend that amount of effort without the >"gold medal" >performance that you were aiming at must be disappointing. > >I suspect that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, so I >offer a new >approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has >regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of >the travelers. > >In short, I am suggesting that you OPTIONALLY allow travelers to >make their own >air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also >offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its >constituent >units of the budgeted travel funds. > >I believe that you will still need an "official ICANN" travel agent, >but offered >as a resource not as a requirement. I am sure that many travelers >will be happy >to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an >essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", >which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently >use the same >travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would >suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all >counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business. > >I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per >meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note. > >0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel >rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other >volunteer travelers. > >1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. >However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall >travel time over >18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. >Premium economy >includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest >increase in passenger comfort. Such bookings would still be subject >to the price >limitations to be described. > >2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should >compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities >typically used by >ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal >experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge >that doing this well will require a good travel agent who >understands the issues >related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of >traditional business travel and understands transit visa issues for those not >from North America or western Europe. If some needed cities are omitted, they >can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules >"business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, >fares provided >by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and >tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to >recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee >that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. > >3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests >outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of >them. One exception that I would explicitly call out would be travel >to and from >the local airport where such travel clearly exceeds what could reasonably >covered by per diem allocations. > >4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need >to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included >details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so >again, but I will >not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should >be allowed >to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before >their first >meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this >may mean that >they be allowed to arrive a day early. > >5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the >participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include >the ability to >stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to >flight time. Both >this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" >constraint placed >on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less. > >6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the >estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of >years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler >satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I >have added >the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class >is allowed. With the ICANN travel agent understanding this rule, many of the >current exemptions would no longer be necessary. > >7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially >below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be >willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. > >8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of >reasonable air >options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be >relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such >"extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent >withdrawal of self-reservation privileges. > >9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an >earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed >with ICANN >paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at >least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If >making their own >reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the >traveler may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still >coming out ahead! > >10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has >been granted, >ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, >converted into >US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%. > >11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the >total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for >business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group >be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved >travel purposes >(either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other >events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should >probably be tallied on an individual basis. > >12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel >expenses with >a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the >deadline is met. I >would be happy to comment on "reasonable". > >Although not related to air travel, some people have hypothesized that >reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would >result in a >net savings to ICANN. However, I strongly question whether this is worth the >additional staff time required to administrate it, the volunteer >time to submit >claims, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection >of claims. > >I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general >support of >the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the >ALAC meeting >next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a >similar proposal. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

3 3

Draft ALAC statement on the Policy Development Process Work Team Interim Report
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

As you are aware, as part of the GNSO Improvements process, the rules under which PDP are run is being reviewed. The is an immense job, since there are so many issues involved to ensuring that policy can be developed in a bottom-up consensus-based way. The Work team (WT) is led by Jeff Neumann of Neustar and has produced a very comprehensive and thoughtful 150 page report. I have been involved in the process from the start, and have some appreciation of the effort that has been made, and the job is f ar from over. An Interim Report (http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pdp-initial-report) was issued that makes interesting reading if only for its thoroughness and the insights it gives into the 50+ hours of discussions that have been held to date. At the ExCom meeting last week, I was asked to draft a comment to be considered by the ALAC. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#PDPWT and is also reproduced below for your convenience. The 4 areas that I have highlighted in the comment are: 1. Fast Track PDP - a possible way to address urgent problems, or simple ones that need to be addressed but do not warrant the full PDP process. 2. Accommodating input from from Advisory Committees (and other SOs) into the GNSO policy development process. 3. A comment that perhaps we should look at how effective Working Groups have been before committing to them as the sole alternative for PDPs. 4. Supporting the recommendation that PDPs should not end with the Board deliberating on secret documents that the PDP WG, the GNSO and the community have not seen. Alan ---------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT ALAC Comment on the Policy Development Process Work Team Initial Report and Draft Recommendations The ALAC appreciates the enormous task taken on by the Work Team and is suitably impressed with the 150 page of thoughtful deliberations in Interim Report. The ALAC supports the efforts of the Work Team and offers comments on four specific issues: Recommendation 15 Fast Track Process The PDP process must be able to deal with enormously complex issues. However, there are also issues which are simpler and potentially those that need urgent attention. For these latter classes of PDP, the ALAC supports the development of a streamlined process which will require less volunteer and staff time, and less elapsed time. Recommendation 21 AC/SO Input into the Policy Development Process Over the last several years, the GNSO has voluntarily included the ALAC and At-Large into its various policy development and other activities. Such involvement has been equally beneficial to both the GNSO and to At-large. It is encouraging to see that such cooperation is being contemplated on a more formal basis and will be institutionalized. Stage 3 Working Group The GNSO has been using Working Groups for several years as was mandated in the GNSO reform process. Some of these Working Groups have performed well, and others less so. A number of recent PDPs have in fact stressed the WG model. Prior to formally institutionalizing the model, it may be appropriate for the PDP WT to undertake or commission a review of whether the WG model is in fact optimal for addressing PDP issues. Recommendation 39 Reports to the Board In line with a recent ALAC/NCSG statement on the Transparency of Staff Documents (<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20may10-en.htm>http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20may10-en.htm) the ALAC strongly supports this recommendation. It is essential that a PDP WG and the GNSO know exactly how their work products are being presented to the Board prior to the Board discussing the results of any PDP.

2 2

PLEASE REVIEW: ALAC Final Recommendations on At_Large Community Director Selection Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

Dear ALAC Members, During today’s teleconference, you will discuss the ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process. You will find the complete agenda under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?27%20july%202010 In advance of today’s teleconference, please review the attached ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process. The document was sent to the ICANN Board Structural Improvements Committee on June 9th 2010, with no one from the ABSdt opposing it. Although the ALAC has delegated responsibility for the At-Large director selection process to the ABSdt, in order to make it official, the ALAC is asked to formally accept the recommendations during today’s call. The question that will be asked is the following: Does the ALAC agree that the ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process (the attached document) be considered as the final version? If you can not join today’s ALAC call, please send your opinion on the ALAC Final Recommendation to the ALAC-working list. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0