- ALAC - lists.icann.org

2018 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by sandra hoferichter Aug. 3, 2018

Aug. 3, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-08-02-en Best Sandra (Note: This message was sent from my iPhone - I apologise for any misspelling.)

1 0

Methodology for selecting NomCom delegates
by Alan Greenberg July 30, 2018

July 30, 2018

There has been some question of whether the ALAC should endorse one or more of the NomCom delegate recommendations from the RALOS. As decided on the ALAC monthly call on 24 July 2018, there will be a vote to decide on the specific methodology to be used for endorsing the RALO NomCom delegate recommendations. The two options are: 1. For each regional recommendation, there will be a vote on whether to ratify the recommended candidate. The candidate will be ratified in a supermajority of the ALAC supports the candidate. A supermajority is 2/3, so for a fully seated ALAC, 10 votes of support are needed. 2. For each regional recommendation, there will be a vote on whether to ratify the recommended candidate. The candidate will be ratified in a supermajority of the those voting support the candidate. In accordance with RoP 12.2.1 at least five ALAC Members must cast a non-abstaining vote and the number of votes supporting ratification must be at least double the number of votes against ratification. Alan

4 3

Open Data Initiative
by Alan Greenberg July 26, 2018

July 26, 2018

I have posted a statement at https://community.icann.org/x/DoMpBQ. The Public Comment closes tomorrow (27th) but I am requesting an extension. Alan

1 0

ALAC EPDP Selection Committee Notice
by Maureen Hilyard July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear All On behalf of the ALAC EPDP Selection Committee, consisting of the ALAC non-candidates, I would like to announce the names of the Members and Alternates who were selected to represent the ALAC on the recently formed Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) of the Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNSO). The purpose of the EDPD is to confirm, or not, the Temporary Specification as a Consensus Policy. The EPDP must be completed within 12 months of the implementation effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification. The ALAC team will consist of: Hadia Elminiawi (Member); Alan Greenburg (Member); Seun Ojedeji (Alternate)' and Holly Raiche (Alternate). The ALAC would like to congratulate these volunteers and to thank them in advance for the exceptional amount of time they will need to dedicate to this task, to ensure that the ALAC's view is represented in the EPDP. Members of At-Large are encouraged to participate in the meetings of the Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) which will be the primary means for the EPDP team to communicate with its community, but also to enable the coordination of the ALAC point of view for the EPDP. Regards Maureen Hilyard Chair, ALAC EPDP Selection Committee

7 7

ALAC Liaison to GAC/SSAC/GNSO/ccNSO
by Alan Greenberg July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

It is time to consider the appointment of the ALAC Liaison so other ACs and SOs for the year starting at the completion of the ICANN63 meeting in Barcelona. Our current Liaisons are: ccNSO: Barrack Otieno SSAC: Andrei Kolesnikov GNSO: Cheryl Langdon-Orr GAC: Yrjö Länsipuro Barrack and Andrei were just appointed part way through this year. Cheryl and Yrjö will both be completing their second year in their respective roles (plus a few months for Yrjö since he was appointed a few months before the end of the year). All four are prepared to serve for another year, and the reports I have received as well as my interactions with them indicate they are serving the ALAC well. Our Rules of Procedure 18.2 (see below) allows us to reappoint serving Liaison without opening a formal call for Nominations/Volunteers. All four are serving the ALAC well. I do not see any merit at all in opening nominations for the roles of SSAC and ccNSO Liaison at this time. For the GNSO and GAC, I believe that stability is of the utmost importance in both roles at the moment. Our relationship with the GAC is flourishing as evidenced by the recent appointment of Ana Neves as the GAC Liaison to the ALAC. With regard to the GNSO, as evidenced by the recent decision to restrict the ALAC to two Members for the EPDP and other events over the past year, our relations are not the best. I believe that we have the two EPDP seats in no small part due to Cheryl's efforts and I believe that it would not be wise to make a change now. Therefore, in all four cases and in accordance with ALAC RoP 18.2 (See <http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09 and reproduced at the end of this message), I am proposing that the ALAC re-appoint the current Liaisons. If we choose to open nominations, and if there are more than one candidate for a positions, our current practice is to refer this selection to the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (as per RoP 18.3) for a recommendation to the ALAC. This will be on the agenda of today's ALAC call and we will either reach a decision during the meting or I will initiate a vote or Consensus call shortly thereafter. Alan ======================= ALAC Rules of Procedure 18.1 Appointments of At-Large Appointees to various bodies both inside and outside of ICANN will be made by the ALAC. Such appointments will normally be initiated by a call for volunteers, posted by the Chair/Staff to the Approved Distribution Lists, and on other lists if appropriate, allowing at least seven days for people to volunteer. The decision regarding appointments is typically made via Consensus. However, the Chair will initiate a secret ballot to determine which candidate is to be appointed if Consensus cannot be reached or if this is requested by any ALAC Member. 18.2 By the decision of the ALAC, a current Appointee who is willing to continue in that role may be reconfirmed instead of initiating a new selection process. 18.3 In the case of selections requiring complex criteria evaluation, the ALAC may choose to form a sub-committee to carry out the analysis and to make recommendations to the ALAC based on that analysis. 18.4 For situations where the ALAC is not empowered to make appointments but rather to endorse one or more candidates, essentially the same process as described here for appointments should be used, but with the outcome being an endorsement.

1 0

CROP PROGRAM RT closing to be included on ALAC Agenda
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond July 24, 2018

July 24, 2018

Dear ALAC members, On the At-Large Regional Leadership call held on July 19 <https://community.icann.org/display/CRALO/2018-07-19+At-Large+Regional+Lead…>, the RALOs had a significant discussion on the FY19 CROP, particularly the scope and responsibilities of the CROP Review Team <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43982055> members. After thorough deliberations, all RALOs decided unanimously to recommend to the ALAC that the CROP RT be eliminated for the FY19 and onwards. The RALOs decided to coordinate and manage the CROP Program allocations internally. The functions of the RT members will be performed by the CROP Program Coordinators <https://community.icann.org/display/CROP19/CROP+Contacts>. RALOs will review and if necessary, change their Program Coordinators <https://community.icann.org/display/CROP19/CROP+Contacts>. We would like to request that this item be placed on the July 24 ALAC meeting agenda for its discussion and ALAC approval. Thank you! Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (on behalf of RALO Chairs)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] IDN Variants in the market place
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

I support this Siva and would call on the ALAC chair and ALAC to direct the At Large Working Group on IDNs to put a paper together for the community to input into to capture, Siva's concerns and those views averse to the notion so we can have a broad macro view of the same. Particularly, the major RALOs that would be affected are EURALO and APRALO and notwithstanding other RALOs at all. Many thanks, Sala On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, 10:19 pm Sivasubramanian M, <6.Internet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a look at the attached screenshot of a domainer's offer to > sell single character IDNs, for instance an IDN variant (lookalike) of the > ASCII character X, which sets a harmful trend. This is an issue if > confusability. > > I understand that the Registries (are required to?) maintain a list of > harmful names for their TLDs, but there is no common minimal list of > harmful names. One possible way to achieve this is for the Registries, at > least in the ASCII space, to volunteer to feed their respective list of > harmful names into a common Registry Stakeholder database, and then draw up > a common minimum list of harmful domain names that any Registry could avoid > registering. > > If At-Large could shape this as a workable suggestion, it could formally > go to the Registry Stakeholders. > > Sivasubramanian M > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Public Comment on Red Cross national names
by Alan Greenberg July 18, 2018

July 18, 2018

The PC at https://community.icann.org/x/GoRHBQ is addressing a set of recommendations to protect at the second level the names of the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies. I was an active member of the original Red Cross name PDP. The national names were not protected at that time for a number of reasons, largely technicalities. This PDP modification process was convened to attempt to correct the process. I also joined the reconvened WG, but stopped attending after three meetings, largely due to the slowness of the deliberations, but I did keep an eye on the mailing list. The bottom line is that the reconvened PDP is recommending that the country names be protected. In reality, I do not believe that this issue is really substantive in that fraudulent activity can still occur using minor modification of the names. But I believe that we should support it because it is significant example of ICANN addressing an issue with global public interest implications. In particular, one of the arguments against reserving these names in the past has been that by doing so, we are impacting freedom of speech - specifically not allowing other parties to use these names. Since these names are in fact protected by law in each jurisdiction, I personally believe that this argument has little merit. I am reproducing the statement below for your convenience. Alan ======== The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs Policy Amendment Process. The ALAC has always taken the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. The current process recommends additional protection in this area and the recommendations are supported by the ALAC.

10 9

SSAC Report related to the GNSO EPDP
by Alan Greenberg July 16, 2018

July 16, 2018

I call your attention to SAC101: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data (14 June 2018). I believe it relates very closely to issues that are of importance the At-Large as we enter into the GNSO EPDP. It can be found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-101-en.pdf. Alan

1 0

Draft Principles for GDPR
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net July 12, 2018

July 12, 2018

Folks Since we all think principles are a good idea, I have set down the basics from the Temporary Spec - very simplistic, but it's a start. What we need now is discussion on the principles. Evin - I'm not sure if you have a new wiki page for discussion on the temporary spec, but if not, would you create on. And Olivier - the Temporary Spec necessarily will deal with access - at the least, guiding principles, so whoever is on the EPDP will have some guidance on our red lines on access. So please everyone - comments Thanks Holly TEMPORARY SPECIFICATION FOR GTLD REGISTRATION DATA PRINCIPLES FOR REQUIREMENTS TO REPLACE THE RAA/REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS _(within the context of compliance with the GDPR)_ _ _ PURPOSE OF COLLECTION OF DATA Quoting from the Temporary Spec – which is quoting from the ICANN Bylaws: _purpose is to coordinate the bottom-up, multistakeholder development and implementation of policies “[f]or which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars and registries” _ _Purpose includes_ · 􏰂 resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names); · 􏰂 maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning registered names and name servers; · 􏰂 procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar (e.g, escrow); and · 􏰂 the transfer of registration data upon a change in registrar sponsoring one or more registered names. the Bylaws specifically obligate ICANN, in carrying out its mandate, to “adequately address issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection” _ _ GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF EPDP OUTCOME: · Apply globally OR · Apply only to European Economic Area (the coverage of the GD R) and otherwise lesser requirements (existing RAA requirements?) DATA COLLECTED · ‘Thick Whois” – based on the differing uses of the data is listed in the purpose above – OR · Some lesser amount of information CONSENT · Registrants must be told, at the time of collection, what personal information is collected, why the collection is necessary to achieve the purposes, who will have access and in what circumstances access will be given to what information, and all circumstances in which the data will be transferred (to Registry, Escrow) and where held.They must also be told their consent can be withdrawn at any time (and consequences of withdrawal) and how to withdraw consent ACCESS TO DATA – TIERED ACCESS (LARGELY WHAT IS IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION) · Applies to all Registrants – natural or corporate persons · Information generally publicly available o Registrant name o Anonymised email or other anonymous contact means · Access to other personal information – o Only to accredited entities (not individuals)– o Only in specific circumstances that warrant access

10 17