- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project Plan: Final
by Seth Greene June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

Hello, Attached is the final "ALAC/At-Large Improvements Implementation Project Plan," developed during the ALAC teleconferences of 23 March, 27/29 April and 25 May. We'll be sending it to the SIC later today. 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<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GNSO Work Prioritization Effort
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2010

June 8, 2010

Attached is the set of priorities that Sebastien and I have agreed to. These will be used as input into the final process which will take place face-to-face in Brussels. After that, there still needs to be discussions on how to use the resultant priorities. I must say that some of the prioritization was difficult because an associated issue is how much more work needs to be done to take the item off the table completely. Having a better idea of that would have been useful. The results for this phase are due today, but I will delay submitting them until I hear (or don't hear) if any problems are seen with the results. Alan At 25/05/2010 02:27 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you will recall, the GNSO has decided to assess the priority of >its various projects, as a step in deciding how to manage its overall workload. > >As the ALAC Liaison, I will take part in this process and we need to >decide exactly how my submission should be formulated. > >There are 15 projects to be evaluated. Details on these projects can >be found at ><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-en.pdf. > >My submission is due on June 7, and there will be a further >evaluation exercise carried out face-to-face in Brussels. > >I hope we will have time for a brief discussion on this at the ALAC meeting. > >Alan

1 1

Fwd: [gnso-vi-feb10] Some things that would be helpful ...
by Carlton Samuels June 6, 2010

June 6, 2010

Yes, I agree these are all laudable operational precepts. But they are weakened in the context of the existing operational framework; competing proposals for consideration, all intended to be seen as "first among equals". It is nigh impossible to wish away the spirit, if not the reason, they were advanced in the first place. Someone remarked in an earlier post that the opportunity we have here is a green field. So let's do some green field imagining then. I believe it is purely PR to enact regulations that are unenforceable or, the discovery process for violation so onerous as to make enforcement 'hit and miss', at best. I also think it is unethical, at best, to promulgate rules or contractual obligations without the intent to enforce them. The alternative to my mind is the approach of a positive regulatory framework. Since we cannot predetermine the method or organisation that would generate activities harmful to the public interest - business model is no such predictor - nor enumerate the sundry ways harm could be generated, we simply say 'here are the outcomes we wish to enable and the [known] harms we would wish to preclude. Any behaviour that result in these harms or tends to undermine these positive outcomes is prohibited. And the sanctions are, as follows: ". Then what is outlined here provides a perfect template for process. Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote: > > Substitute "arbitrary" with something that doesn't suggest the > advocates of some specific policy choice, among many choices, aren't > using dice or throwing darts. > > Substitute "reasonable" with something that doesn't suggest that > everything else is "unreasonable". The advocacy position with which a > writer associates is, like all other advocacy positions, reasonable > from some analytical framework. > > Substitute "anti-competitive" with something that recognizes that all > possible choices are anti-competitive from any one of several > analytical frameworks. > > Substitute "self-interest" as the sole motive of other advocates, or > assert the same about yourself when advocating. > > Mutual assured deprecation is not likely to lead to an affirmative > outcome. > > Enlightened self-interest should be sufficient to solve the problem at > hand. > > Eric >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICM and Agenda for Brussels
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

Stuart, you are correct that ALAC and At-Large have indeed got to the middle (in fact way past that ;-) on our work schedules for the Brussels meeting... As you know from the ALAC Comment that posted as Chair to the public comments forum on the "Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD." ALAC and many RALO's see this matter (at this stag) as one that needs to be looked at trough the optics of 'proper process ad indeed accountability and transparency' amongst other issues such as any entity having influence / or censorship control over content etc., the later having greater or lesser meaning depending on region, cultural backgrounds etc., and I thank you for your offer to give ALAC and the Regional Leadership of At-Large assembled in Brussels the "opportunity to ask questions and find out first-hand what the situation is." As we are finalizing our meetings schedule now, I have copied this reply to you (showing quoted text) to the ALAC Working list which includes all our Regional Leaders and Liaisons) to ascertain what reaction to you offer there might be. We do / may have some space available in our planning at this stage on the Tue, see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_brussels_schedule but the ALAC itself should prioritize what it wants to focus on for that limited time. and you will also note that in this schedule are listed a couple of RALO meetings so that might also be a time specific regions may wish to take up your offer; Note ALL the listed meetings we hold are open so if a RALO did wish to have a time slot for you any or all other community members could attend that just as easily as a meeting on our formal ALAC schedule. Of course there may also b an opportunity for an ad-hoc or out of listed schedule opportunity optioned as well. So this is a long way of saying "Thank you for your message and offer and we'll get back to you, as soon as possible"... I have also taken the liberty of c.c. this reply to the Chair and Vice Chair of the ATRT (which I serve on) as they are in control of that Teams Agenda for Brussels and beyond; As you do outline in your message that you believe your experiences have specific 'case study value' to the matters of Accountability and Transparency in ICANN that we are focussed on, they may wish to raise this issue to the ATRT for consideration as well. If they do it would certainly have my support as an ATRT member and I'm confident have the interest and support of wider community members from At-Large as well. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 4 June 2010 04:36, Stuart Lawley <stuart(a)lawley.com> wrote: > Dear Cheryl, > > > Firstly, again, many thanks for your recent comments to the comment forum. > > It’s less than a month to the ICANN Brussels meeting and so you must be in > the middle of preparing your work schedules. > > > > As such, can I offer – in fact, encourage you – to include a slot for > discussion of dot-xxx. As you know full well, this is an issue that has been > dragging on and we are again at a crucial point. As such I would really like > to give you and your members an opportunity to ask questions and find out > first-hand what the situation is. > > > > I’ll be honest with you, I think at this stage the issue has little to do > with dot-xxx itself and everything to do with ICANN’s accountability. The > declaration of the Independent Review Panel was very clear, and we’ve not > been very encouraged by the staff or Board’s response to that. > > > > As such, I would be delighted to talk about the whole IRP process and my > views on ICANN's accountability having been through every accountability > mechanism that currently exists ! > > > > But I do recognise that there continues to be a repeat of many of the same > questions (and accusations) that dot-xxx went through three years ago. So I > am happy to deal with them as well. > > > > As such please do consider including discussion of this crucial topic in > your schedule. It will be a defining moment for ICANN, and what’s more the > conversation will provide plenty of room for humour and discussion. I’m > happy to work around your schedule if needed. > > > > Thanks a lot and see you in Brussels. > > > > > > > > Stuart Lawley > ICM Registry >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 3, 2010

June 3, 2010

For any one on the VI-WG who might be wondering I want to clearly declare that (in my personal capacity and WG Member) I am one of the ALAC Members who agrees with the points Alan makes in his message below, my often quoted "hasten slowly - but continue moving forward" approach comes into play here... So at this stage my "greatest comfort" with the proposals we are looking at, (as they are NOT converged i.e. not blended or merged / mutuality explored etc.,) at this point *and* in the absence of other clarifications , further modification and/or discussion is with the proposal signed by *Brian Cute - Afilias Ken Stubbs – Afilias, Kathy Kleinman – PIR, Ron Andruff – RNA Partners, Tim Ruiz - GoDaddy.* I have copied this message to the ALAC Working list (and that also include all Regional Leaders and Liaisons etc.,) as the matters being reviewed and discussed in the VI-WG (as well as DAG 4) is on our formal ALAC Agenda for Brussels and there *we will be seeking to form an ALAC -At-Large view* I feel it is important that these views (especially as I will not be able to attend the Sat a.m. VI-WG session in Brussels (as I have ATRT Meting commitments as do others in this WG) that these views are *on the record* Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 4 June 2010 04:25, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Since we are getting close to the point where we must decide what we will > say in Brussels, I thought I would state my position. To be clear, this is a > personal position and not a formal ALAC position. Although I have discussed > aspects with some ALAC members who support my views, there are clearly > others who do not. > > First, with regard to timing, although we clearly have to give a report and > it is important for the community and the Board to understand where we are > heading, I do not see Brussels as a drop-dead decision point. The Board gave > us the task of providing an alternative to their "zero cross-ownership" > default in sufficient time to allow it to be used in the first round of new > gTLDs without delaying that launch. Since we are optimistically looking for > a launch near the end of this calendar year, that means that our > recommendation needs to be locked in by *about* August to allow for public > comment and GNSO/Board approval. > > I am approaching this from the point of view of registrants and the overall > community. I specifically am not looking at it from the perspective of > business opportunities. I favour security and stability of the gTLD > ecosystem over innovation at this point. Moreover, I am looking at this as a > solution for the first round of new gTLDs. The PDP WG can continue to work > on a long-term solution which might be quite different. For that reason, I > think that it is important to not implement something that may need to be > either turned back when the final recommendation is made, or worse, have > those who participated in the first round be working under different rules > than those who come in later. > > Of the proposals on the table, I support the latest one submitted by Brian > Cute on behalf of Afilias and others, although I would like to see some > modifications to it prior to final acceptance. > > I support this proposal because it makes minimal changes to an already > complex environment, but it plugs some loop-holes that are already there. I > would like to see some exceptions built in to accommodate SR TLDs and small > cultural or not-for profit TLDs, but I agree that defining these may be a > challenge. Hopefully we can do it before my suggested August date. > > At this time, I reject the proposal to relax the cross-ownership rules as > long as the related parties do not market their own TLDs. I am sympathetic > to it in theory, if it could be credibly enforced. But I believe that it > will make an already complex environment even more complex, with absolutely > no chance of ICANN being able to monitor or take action on infractions. As > others have noted, ICANN compliance may be getting more effective, but they > still have a long way to go when you factor in how much the TLD space they > are responsible for will grow. The issue of resellers has been mentioned, > and I think that it is important, particularly since ICANN compliance does > not consider them within their scope at the moment. > > I cannot consider supporting the CAM model without a well-defined > definition of the "market" that I agree with. I strongly believe that there > is not just one homogeneous TLD or even gTLD market, a core assumption of > many of the economists who would be the arbitrators in this proposal. The > really successful new gTLDs (and I do think that there will be some), will > be markets unto themselves. But that level of success will be impossible to > determine ahead of time when the CAM model says the evaluations will first > be made. Once a decision is made for integration, later success cannot undo > it, except by forced divestiture and that is not something we should build > into our system. Moreover, I still question whether the appropriate > competition authorities would participate in a timely fashion as the > proposal anticipates. > > Lastly, I reject the arguments raised by some that many ccTLDs are > vertically integrated and it works for them. While not denying the truth of > this statement, I note that these TLDs operate in a totally different > environment. Many or most are not-for profit, often with active or passive > government involvement. They often set rules far more stringent than ICANN > does (or perhaps can) and then they often diligently enforce those rules. > But as noted, I believe that there are certain classes of gTLDs for which > this could be both desirable and viable. > > Alan > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] question about At Large
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010

Outreach is a main pillar of our ALAC Improvements Implementation program and so is very much in the Regional Leadership agenda as well as that of the ALAC, ands as there will be the inevitably sub-committee or WG formed for this I suspect you might just end up contributing your expertise in all this personally real soon :-)... IN fact the ExCom meeting to be held in a little under an hour see https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?02_june_2010_alac_excom is a single purpose call to look at all aspects of the current 'state of play' with all 13 recommendations from the ALAC Review so if any one wants to dial in to that you of course all more than welcome... One of the most recent outreach approaches the regions have been engaged with is the Regional pamphlets (which of course) tend to focus on getting ALSes and members to join in the 'wonderful world of ICANN' rather than the in-service needs we clearly have BUT INreach became a normalized part of our vernacular at the Nairobi meeting and is certainly a focus for us all now... The next step from ALAC's point if view is to build on the regular community briefing calls we run and have our first ICANN Webinar / Podcasts programming done after the Brussels meeting as a follow on to those recently run around Policy Development by the GNSO sort of a there is where it happens Here is How YOU can be involved approach.... As a co-author of the new Policy WG Guidelines I'd appreciate your input on the small program planning group for that activity I must say. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 2 June 2010 17:54, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> wrote: > Hi Cheryl, > > Thank you so much for this response. > > I probably should have gone looking for this info on the At-Large web pages > instead of bothering you with it. Has outreach been done to all ALS members > informing them of these rich communications paths. Do the GNSO invitations > to get involved in WGs, for example, get as far as ALS members? > > Again thanks. > > a. > > > On 1 Jun 2010, at 23:22, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > > Hi Avri => delighted to have you as a 'formal' part of At-Large :-) > > > > Here are a few responses from me as ALAC Chair => > > • any ALS Member should/can be subscribed to any (or all) the > Regional lists and from their a request issue or matter should be formally > brought forward by their Regional Rep(s) at any ALAC Meeting (or > intersessionally) if you define At-Large Leadership as the ALAC... > > • Similarly if you define the At-Large leadership to include (and I > believe it should be defined this way) as 'the ALAC and Regional Leadership' > then same method of individuals directly OR via their ALS (if they/you > want to weight their issue thusly) can be formally used to instigate RALO > and ALAC action / discussion > > • ALSes also can and should have direct interaction with ICANN's > PDP's, PC's, meetings, activities etc., > > • Individuals should also have direct interaction with ICANN's > PDP's, PC's, meetings, activities etc., > > Also as all ALAC & Committee or WG meetings are open by default any > person can pose / comment etc., to a wiki page of an At-Large committee or > WG ... Same with respect to an email to any associated list(s) to any WG or > Committee though unless subscribed the post will need to be 'allowed > through by a list moderator { I doubt anything an ALS Member would post > would be 'spam' and if it was that is the only reason for NOT posting a > message; And / or of course any one can join a call or meeting and raise > any matter question or comment etc., at any time (the meeting Chairs > discretion on when and how that fits into agenda planning of course) so > there should be open communications as well as the formal channels you > describe from individuals at all times... Remembering a group voice may > weight differently to a single POV you should pick and choose to best effect > IMO... > > > > Finally we can certainly put up a wiki or email addressed suggestion box > - happy to do so! > > > > But the equivalent to the suggestion box (historically) for raising > matters comments questions suggestions that runs from at-large (inclusive > of ALS members of course who are At-Large ;-) is the public list > "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > > > > I hope this helps but would like to explore your needs and suggestions > further were always looking for ways to better meet Community and ALSes > needs... > > > > I've copied to the ALAC Working list as all At-Large leaders ALAC and > Regional are subscribed there so you can get additional and individual > dialog and reactions to your questions from others as well... > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > > > > > > > > On 2 June 2010 06:45, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> wrote: > > hi, > > > > I recently became a member of an ALS. is there any way a lowly > individual in an ALS can pose questions of the At large leadership. Is > there a general mailing list for any and all ALS members who care about > ICANN. A suggestion box? > > > > > > I have asked around and been told that i have to go through channels, i > have to get the ALS to ask the RALO and the RALO can decide to bring it up. > Is this the way it works? > > > > Thanks > > > > a. > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] question about At Large
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Hi Avri => delighted to have you as a 'formal' part of At-Large :-) Here are a few responses from me as ALAC Chair => 1. any ALS Member should/can be subscribed to any (or all) the Regional lists and from their a request issue or matter should be formally brought forward by their Regional Rep(s) at any ALAC Meeting (or intersessionally) if you define At-Large Leadership as the ALAC... 2. Similarly if you define the At-Large leadership to include (and I believe it should be defined this way) as 'the ALAC *and *Regional Leadership' then same method of individuals directly OR via their ALS (if they/you want to weight their issue thusly) can be formally used to instigate RALO and ALAC action / discussion 3. ALSes also can and should have direct interaction with ICANN's PDP's, PC's, meetings, activities etc., 4. Individuals should also have direct interaction with ICANN's PDP's, PC's, meetings, activities etc., Also as all ALAC & Committee or WG meetings are open by default any person can pose / comment etc., to a wiki page of an At-Large committee or WG ... Same with respect to an email to any associated list(s) to any WG or Committee though unless subscribed the post will need to be 'allowed through by a list moderator { I doubt anything an ALS Member would post would be 'spam' and if it was that is the only reason for NOT posting a message; And / or of course any one can join a call or meeting and raise any matter question or comment etc., at any time (the meeting Chairs discretion on when and how that fits into agenda planning of course) so there should be open communications as well as the formal channels you describe from individuals at all times... Remembering a group voice may weight differently to a single POV you should pick and choose to best effect IMO... Finally we can certainly put up a wiki or email addressed suggestion box - happy to do so! But the equivalent to the suggestion box (historically) for raising matters comments questions suggestions that runs from at-large (inclusive of ALS members of course who are At-Large ;-) is the public list "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, I hope this helps but would like to explore your needs and suggestions further were always looking for ways to better meet Community and ALSes needs... I've copied to the ALAC Working list as all At-Large leaders ALAC and Regional are subscribed there so you can get additional and individual dialog and reactions to your questions from others as well... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 2 June 2010 06:45, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> wrote: > hi, > > I recently became a member of an ALS. is there any way a lowly individual > in an ALS can pose questions of the At large leadership. Is there a general > mailing list for any and all ALS members who care about ICANN. A suggestion > box? > > > I have asked around and been told that i have to go through channels, i > have to get the ALS to ask the RALO and the RALO can decide to bring it up. > Is this the way it works? > > Thanks > > a. > >

1 0

Draft Applicants Guide verison 4 posted
by Patrick Vande Walle June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

for those who have not seen it yet: the fourth version of the DAG has been posted on ICANN's web site. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu

1 0

VeriSign .net Domain Name Exchange Service Request
by Alan Greenberg June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

The request has been withdrawn by VeriSign. As you will recall, the ALAC had strongly opposed the service (http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/msg00037.html) Only two other comments were received regarding the service. George Kirikos opposed the request, and the GNSO Business Constituency said that the service required additional study due to potential harm it could cause. Alan

1 0

ALAC Requirements for the 2010 AoC Reviews
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2010

May 29, 2010

As requested at the last ALAC and ExCom meetings, I have drafted the document of ALAC requirements for the upcoming Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. It consists of three parts: - Number of seats - Time it will take us to do the endorsements - Additional requirements for applicants seeking our endorsement The first part was largely drafted by Cheryl, and the last part by me. The time estimate is sufficiently liberal that we should not have a problem making it. Due to severe time constraints, Cheryl asked me to forward them to Janis Karklins and the executives of the other SOs and ACs. I will do that at about 05:00 UTC on Friday (about 5 hours from now). However, the cover note will say that it is still under ALAC review. The reason for the tight deadline is that all parties have agreed that we need to get the announcement out very quickly if we are to allow sufficient time to receive applications. For the additional applicant requirements, I have followed the pattern that we agreed upon for the first review selection, adapting the two questions to the new reviews. For both reviews, we are asking that the applicant explain why they are in a position to participate in the specific review, and why they feel they can properly represent At-Large. The latter issue is particularly important for the Whois review, where At-Large is not at all unified with respect to privacy issues. Since we do not yet know how many people we will have on the reviews, it will be very important to understand the perspectives of those who we endorse. In addition, based on a review of what the GNSO is thinking about asking their applicants, I (with Cheryl's approval) have added two additional requirements. - An attestation that they will be able and willing to commit substantial time to the review - A question asking if the applicant will be representing anyone else if selected, and if so, who. I am not sure whether a positive answer is good or bad - perhaps either, depending on who the other party is. But it certainly is important to know. If there is some error or omission that Cheryl and I failed to catch, please let us know by replying by 20:00 UTC on Friday. Alan

4 4