- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Selection of ALAC Chair
by Alan Greenberg May 17, 2018

May 17, 2018

My current term as an ALAC Member expires at the end of the AGM in October of this year, as does my term as ALAC Chair. I have previously said that I would not be a candidate for Chair of the ALAC for the coming year and in fact I am not a candidate for an ALAC seat. When the issue was discussed in San Juan, there was a general consensus within the ALAC that the position should be opened sooner rather than later, but not before the selection of RALO-appointed ALAC members was complete. The nomination and acceptance period is now complete. In three of the five RALOs, the ALAC seat is not contested, but it is in LACRALO and NARALO. The election is due to begin on Friday and end on Thursday, 24 May. Presuming the two elections result in definitive selections, I will formally initiate a call for nominations for ALAC Chair soon after. According to the ALAC Rules of Procedure, the call must be open for at least 14 days. That puts the end of the nomination period on or around Friday, 08 June. There is a 7 day period allowing for acceptances, but I am optimistic that any nominations will be accepted or declined quickly. Nominations may only be made by current ALAC Members, nominees must have a reasonable expectation of being on the post-AGM ALAC, and the electorate is the current ALAC. If there is only one candidate, that person will be declared incoming Chair. If there is more than one candidate, I will request that a teleconference be scheduled to allow the candidates to present themselves and address any questions the ALAC may have for them (as well as a Wiki space for written questions and answers). That will allow the election to be conducted electronically prior to departure for Panama. If, for some reason this schedule cannot be met, then the election may be conducted in Panama. If there is an ALAC consensus, the election may be deferred until Panama regardless of timing. There are specific rules covering the situation of more than two candidates and to address ties. For those interested in all of the details, see section 17.2 of the ALAC RoP (<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09) PLEASE NOTE that this message is NOT the call for nominations. That will not happen until after the current ALAC selection process is complete. Alan

4 3

Webinar on GDPR compliance Temporary Specification
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía May 14, 2018

May 14, 2018

Dear all, After some very lengthy and robust discussions about the proposed temporary specification, the Board requested ICANN Org that it updated the proposed temporary specification in order to incorporate much of the feedback received by the community. Of course not all feedback was able to be included for various reasons and of course the updated proposed temporary specification is not flawless but it is a document that tries to take care of the most urgent matters in order to allow the community to develop a policy while complying with the GDPR in the mean time. This document is not being circulated looking for feedback but, of course, any feedback is always well received. ICANN Org will be holding a webinar on the updated proposed temporary specification tomorrow May 15 at 16:15 UTC. You can find the information to join and participate here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-05-14-en>. You can also have more information on the updated documente here <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-revised-prop…>. I invite you and encourage you to join this important webinar. Kind regards, León

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2018

May 13, 2018

We have again had a problem with the original comment being changed without clear notice and causing confusion. I have investigated whether Maureen suggestion is possible (have additional DRAFT boxes be added as needed) and found that this is not practical for a number of reasons (a) it would have to be done by staff since non-staff do not have the privileges to alter these macros; b) few staff have the skills; c) having specific staff do it on a tight time-frame is not practical). In light of that, I have instructed that staff modify the pages to give clear instructions for what can be done without extensive training or staff time to address the issue. Alan At 01/02/2018 11:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >This happens relatively infrequently. Why create >a new process that requires staff intervention >when simply stacking the version in the box now >called DRAFT(s) will do. And it allows for more than two version is required? > >At 01/02/2018 09:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >>But as Holly said, sometimes you just need >>another space to reorganise your thoughts >>before it becomes the final draft... although >>sometimes it ends up as the final draft.. >> >>But you are only currently given 2 options, first and final.. >> >>There should be two boxes to start off with, >>and the penholder can ask for another one if >>required as a transition section before the >>final statement . But it should be highlighted >>in another colour what changes have been made. >> >>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>When I was drafting more statements, I also >>would often post my "first draft" in the >>comment area and move it up if it had general >>acceptance. But there will always be cases >>where there are multiple draft versions posted >>and I was trying to find a really easy path for >>doing that without losing history along the >>way. Having staff create new boxes along the >>ways seems likea much more challenging way to address the problem... >>Alan >>At 01/02/2018 04:33 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >>>I think there is room for having personal >>>comments remaining at the bottom of the wiki >>>page, but drafts of the statement should be >>>able to be inserted as they develop. It might >>>mean teaching penholders how to create these >>>boxes for new drafts or asking the new policy >>>support staff person to create one for them. >>> >>> >>>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Holly Raiche >>><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >>>Makes sense to me. When I died to post a >>>Ã¢firirst draftÃ¢ of f the privacy stuff, >>>I couldnÃ¢t, and so put stuff in tn the >>>Ã¢commentÃ¢ ¬â¢ space. While that whole >>>wiki reflects pretty much what the discussion >>>was, it doesnÃ¢t follow the concept of firfirst and final draft >>>Holly >>>On 2 Feb 2018, at 6:40 am, Maureen Hilyard >>><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Sounds good to me because when you don't see >>>>the developments as new contributions are >>>>incorporated into the statements, it may seem >>>>as if its only just been ONE or only a few contributors >>>>Some statements go through several transitions. >>>>M >>>>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Alan >>>>Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>>>It has been pointed out to me that the >>>>template we use has a space for "First Draft" >>>>and then "Final Draft". This works for issues >>>>that do not generate a lot of dialogue and >>>>revision of the statement. For such >>>>statements, there is no specific place to >>>>post the revised version(s). Simply changing >>>>the first draft does not really work, because >>>>then we are left with Wiki comments on that >>>>draft that refer back to something that s no >>>>longer there (unless you go to the trouble of >>>>finding the correct earlier version). >>>>I suggest that we change the title from >>>>"FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" >>>>and add instructions saying that if multiple >>>>draft versions are posted, old versions >>>>should remain, with the newer version posted >>>>at the top of the box, prefixed with the date >>>>posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. >>>>That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. >>>>Does anyone see a reason not to do this? >>>>Alan >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>ALAC mailing list >>>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>At-Large Online: >>>><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: >>><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>

4 4

Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2018

May 13, 2018

It has been pointed out to me that the template we use has a space for "First Draft" and then "Final Draft". This works for issues that do not generate a lot of dialogue and revision of the statement. For such statements, there is no specific place to post the revised version(s). Simply changing the first draft does not really work, because then we are left with Wiki comments on that draft that refer back to something that is no longer there (unless you go to the trouble of finding the correct earlier version). I suggest that we change the title from "FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED" to "DRAFT STATEMENTS" and add instructions saying that if multiple draft versions are posted, old versions should remain, with the newer version posted at the top of the box, prefixed with the date posted and author, and separated from earlier versions by a horizontal line. That way we have a full history of the draft evolution. Does anyone see a reason not to do this? Alan

7 7

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
by Alan Greenberg May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Interesting Public Comment on Verisign request to release O.COM. The interesting part is that they propose to auction off the single character domain "O" (a single character that is known to have demand) and donate the proceeds to one or more non-profits. The specific non-prifits are not named in the public documents, but the implication is that the funds might be used "to benefit the Internet community in general." ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en > > >Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a >Single-Character Label: O.COM > Alan

1 0

GDPR: Latest exchange between ICANN
by Alan Greenberg May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-jelinek-10may… >https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-seeking-addi… > >Data Protection/Privacy Update: Seeking Additional Clarity from Article 29 >dpr update 10may18 en > >In a ><https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-summa…>previous >blog post, I detailed our 23 April meeting with >the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) Technology >Subgroup in Brussels. This meeting was an >important follow-up to the ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jelinek-to-marby-11apr…>letter >[PDF, 400 KB] that WP29 sent us on 11 April, and >we remain appreciative of the opportunity to >receive their feedback on the progress made in >developing an interim compliance model. >It was clear after our meeting that a number of >important questions still remained, and we >agreed to provide a letter requesting additional >input on how to bring the ICANN org and >contracted parties into compliance with the law. >That letter was sent to the WP29, and is >available ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-jelinek-10may…>here >[PDF, 564 KB]. >We hope that the WP29's reply will provide us >with greater clarity and guidance as we move forward. >Our ongoing dialogue with the WP29 has been a >key part of our overall work to identify a model >that will both maintain the current WHOIS to the >greatest extent possible, while also complying >with the European Union's General Data >Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is important >that we strike the right balance that allows us >to both maintain a stable and secure Internet >and comply with our bylaw obligations relating >to WHOIS, while also ensuring compliance with the law. >As always, you can follow the latest updates on >our dedicated ><https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy>Data > Protection/Privacy page. We welcome the >community's input and invite you to email your >thoughts to <mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org. > >Details > * ICANN Blog > * Author: GÃ¶ran Marby, ICANN President and CEO

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey
by Alan Greenberg May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

I have been largely offline for the last two days and am just now reviewing this thread. A few comments, not necessarily to any particular posting. - This demonstrated the difficulty in going to a group such as the members of the ALAC list with questions that focus highly on the work the CCWG has been doing for over a year. A short introductory post cannot do justice to all of the discussion that has gone on (admittedly not all of which was productive!). - Of all the options, I favour doing something related to ICANN (there are three variations) and working with another group that we pick carefully so we do not have to invent mechanism and hire staff where we can use resources that are already in existence and working well. Picking that org may not be trivial. Simply farming everything out is perhaps the easiest, but I think the least likely to make good use of our money. - Regarding the "open Internet" issue. I strongly support it staying. We will still need to consider the ICANN mission, but if we restrict things too much, we will end up doing ONLY things that ICANN itself could or should be doing and we will have lost a HUGE opportunity to do really good things with what is likely to be close to 1/4 of a billion dollars. If we end up wasting that, it would be a pity. - The ICANN department and ICANN foundation are functionally equivalent. In both cases other ICANN resources can be shared if necessary (just as PTI shares resources). If we are going to spend the money on setting up and maintaining a separate corporation (ie Foundation), we need to be really sure we understand what we are getting for the cost and complexity. We did it with PTI largely for political purposes (it made some people happy who wanted even more independence from ICANN) but I am not at all sure what benefit we get from that expense. Alan At 07/05/2018 02:58 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >So true Vanda.. we need the input.of other. I >know full well that Option #3 is the most >expensive, even though independence is an >important criteria But the models that John >Laprise and Russell Howarth of Nominet mentioned >could mean some sharing of operational tasks may >be possible while keeping the Board and >selection and allocation criteria separate. > >On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Vanda Scartezini ><<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>vanda(a)scartezini.org> wrote: > >Thank you Maureen for the explanation. I guess >at this point we had the experts exchanging >their knowledge and experience with us, so the >model to distributing and control the results to >better use the money is relevant. > >The balance between the efficiency, efficacy and >cost must be considered, reason why other minds can think better than ours.. > >Kisses > > > >Vanda Scartezini > >Polo Consultores Associados > ><https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>Av. >Paulista 1159, cj 1004 > >01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil > >Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 > >Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 > >Sorry for any typos. > > > > > > > > > > > >From: ALAC ><<mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >on behalf of Maureen Hilyard ><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> >Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 06:47 >To: Carlton Samuels ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Cc: 'ALAC List' ><<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Auction proceeds survey > > > >Hi Carlton and Holly > > > >I guess it does seem convoluted but that may be >a perception of the GNSO processes. > > > >But for every stage of the Auction Proceeds >meetings and in-between meeting discussions, >there have been some really interesting and >comprehensive debates around topics such as The >Charter and the Mission of the group; What is >the Open Internet? (and we still are out on that >one); Who should Benefit? (was among the first >things we discussed, and we were all tasked with >making recommendations and then evaluating all >the recommendations in order to come up with a >core set of criteria on which applications might >be based,a key one being that it must focus on >CANN's mission); Whether ICANN should use >Auction Proceeds for its Reserve Fund (there was >a wide range of opinions on that topic); and for >ages now we have looked at How the Funds might >be Managed. After we had looked at several >options and come up with a shortlist of >mechanisms, we then asked a number of volunteer >experts to give their opinion on our final four. >For this survey, we are using their >recommendations as our guide to assess which >mechanism we each might suggest as the most >appropriate one for this group to recommend to the Board. > > > >Carlton selected an external organisation taking >control of the management of the funds with >ICANN having oversight. Like you, I personally >would prefer an independent ICANN Foundation >with the CCWG recommendations being the >over-riding influence in how it is >managed. However, I realise that there is a >cost factor involved in the Foundation option >which limits it a bit, especially as we have not >yet decided on a sunset period. But giving it >over to an external organisation with its own >goals and objectives, and with ICANN >supervising, doesn't go down well for me (even >though they may be a high-flier international >organisation with huge experience in giving away >donor money. But how do we ensure that they are >interpreting our criteria for beneficiaries and purposes appropriately?). > > > >But that's my take on what we are doing anyway. >We have a very active and enthusiastic team of >members, so I am really looking forward to the results of this survey. > > > >Maureen > > > > > > > >On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Carlton Samuels ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Thanks to Vanda for bringing the subject matter to our attention. > > > >A big +1 to Holly's. I share every concern and >question noted. I should think Option 4 is preferred. > > > >Why so convoluted? Reminds me of a story used by >a former boss - an ex-army 3-star general - to >characterise something like this when presented. >He'd say the 2 hump camel was what emerged when >an earnest committee got together to plan a better race horse. > > > >Carlton > > > >On Sun, 6 May 2018, 8:51 pm Holly Raiche, ><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > >First - thank you Vanda with sharing this with >ALAC. I hope this discussion can migrate >somewhere beyond just this email so that >everyone can easily find and comment on it. > > > >Now, to be devilâs advocate. Why is the group >seeking comment on how the funds are managed >rather than how they are allocated. It seems to >me that the most important question is how the >funds will be spent - and heaven knows ALAC has >already contributed to this discussion. Some of >the suggestions over time have been that the >funds should support applications from >underserved areas, and/or help fund community >(better defined) applications. We also had >concerns about some of the funds being used to >reduce ICANN debt. But all that was about >allocation - not the mechanism of allocation itself. > > > >So I am really less concerned with the >allocation METHOD, and more concerned with the beneficiaries of the allocation. > > > >That said, I will comment on the options. > > > >Option One: I am a bit concerned with yet >another Department within ICANN. They are - we >are told - cutting back on expenditure. Creating >a new Department will be heading the other way. > >Option 2: I particularly do not favour Option 2 >because it assumes that the money may be spent >on charitable purposes. If the decision is to >assist underserved areas, the focus will be very >different to âcharitable purposes; > >Option 3 & 4: Iâd prefer something like a >Foundation - so that the funds really are >separate, and so would be happier with Options 3 >or 4. I would prefer Option 4, but with the >condition that if it is to evaluate proposals >(good idea) then it must have multistakeholder >membership and not simply be a creature of ICANN Org. > > > >Hope that helps > > > >Holly > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 7 May 2018, at 8:19 am, Vanda Scartezini ><<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>vanda(a)scartezini.org> wrote: > > > >Dear Alan, other ALAC friends > > In the Auction proceeds CCWG we are asked to respond to a survey. > >Since from the responses from this survey the >proposals for the report will be more defined, >we were encouraged to get some feedback from the >group we are acting with, in this case ALAC, and >share our ideas and get your feedbacks if possible > >There are several questions but in my view some >will define others and I would like to hear from you, your thoughts > > For me the relevant question is related to the model > >Please take a look at ><https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter>https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter > >To understand the question. > > All financial resource shall be granted to > projects under the mission of ICANN and only for that. > > > >Sorry we have to finalize the survey till >Miercoles May 9 , so if you can give feedback >during Monday 7and Tuesday8 I really appreciate. > > > >Here the options for the most relevant question >in my opinion I would like to have some inputs >before respond the survey: which will be the >best option, think about process, cost, efficiency > > > >The working group has come up with 4 different >possible mechanisms that could be considered: > >1. A New ICANN Proceeds Allocation >Department is created as part of ICANN, the >organisation (ICANN Org)- This department would >be part of ICANN Org and take full >responsibility for solicitation and evaluation >of proposals, and disbursement process. > >2. New ICANN Proceeds Allocation Department >Created as part of ICANN Org which would work in >collaboration with an existing charitable >organization(s) Responsibilities for >solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and >disbursement process would be split between the >newly created department and the existing charitable organization(s). > >3. A new structure would be created (e.g. >ICANN foundation) - A new structure would be >created separate of ICANN Org which would be >responsible for solicitation and evaluation of >proposals, and disbursement process > > > >4. An established entity/entities (e.g. >foundation or fund) are used (ICANN would >organize the oversight of processes to ensure >mission and fiduciary duties are met) - An >stablished entity / entities (e.g. foundation or >fund) would be responsible for solicitation and >evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process. > > > >Thank you > > > > > >Vanda Scartezini > >Polo Consultores Associados > >Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 > >01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil > >Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 > >Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 > >Sorry for any typos. > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;YTOPR01MB0396;27:zFjhgAXlAWsfYsRosDj90Yo88ZWODi+/FtcBVjIWEby++5iAEQAD2QZtfGDODaImoPaVeXeNJgN0++qRpAAlHjM4OelBwbqldiSj4lqH03YuiBhdFa/gqhVWTU+2xs57 >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

5 4

Posted draft on ccwg accountability final report
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

Dear all, Please note that I have posted the first draft of the alac statement on ccwg accountability ws2 final report. For some reason I was not able to save it as a first draft but you will find it as a comment. Kindly take a look and put your recommendations/suggestion/approval Kind Regards Hadia Sent from my iPhone

4 4

Auction proceeds survey
by Vanda Scartezini May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

Dear Alan, other ALAC friends In the Auction proceeds CCWG we are asked to respond to a survey. Since from the responses from this survey the proposals for the report will be more defined, we were encouraged to get some feedback from the group we are acting with, in this case ALAC, and share our ideas and get your feedbacks if possible There are several questions but in my view some will define others and I would like to hear from you, your thoughts For me the relevant question is related to the model Please take a look at https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/CCWG+Charter To understand the question. All financial resource shall be granted to projects under the mission of ICANN and only for that. Sorry we have to finalize the survey till Miercoles May 9 , so if you can give feedback during Monday 7and Tuesday8 I really appreciate. Here the options for the most relevant question in my opinion I would like to have some inputs before respond the survey: which will be the best option, think about process, cost, efficiency… The working group has come up with 4 different possible mechanisms that could be considered: 1. A New ICANN Proceeds Allocation Department is created as part of ICANN, the organisation (ICANN Org)- This department would be part of ICANN Org and take full responsibility for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process. 2. New ICANN Proceeds Allocation Department Created as part of ICANN Org which would work in collaboration with an existing charitable organization(s) Responsibilities for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process would be split between the newly created department and the existing charitable organization(s). 3. A new structure would be created (e.g. ICANN foundation) - A new structure would be created separate of ICANN Org which would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process 1. An established entity/entities (e.g. foundation or fund) are used (ICANN would organize the oversight of processes to ensure mission and fiduciary duties are met) - An stablished entity / entities (e.g. foundation or fund) would be responsible for solicitation and evaluation of proposals, and disbursement process. Thank you Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

8 21

IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data v1.5
by Evin Erdogdu May 6, 2018

May 6, 2018

Dear All, Please note a wiki workspace for the IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data v1.5<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=84219450> has been created. Once v1.5 is released this week, it will be posted under “Background Information” (blue box). A related At-Large website page will also be created at that time. Thank you for your attention, Evin From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 6:30 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org" <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: REMINDER Deadline 30 Minutes / WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Dear All, Reminder the deadline is in 30 minutes at 16:00 UTC. Please see first draft posted by Jonathan on the related wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/WwAFBQ Thank you, Evin From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:11 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org" <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: COMMENT - First Draft Posted / Deadline Today 16:00 UTC - REMINDER / WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Dear All, Please see first draft posted by Jonathan on the related wikispace: https://community.icann.org/x/WwAFBQ Reminder deadline is 16:00 UTC today. Thank you, Evin From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:32 PM To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org" <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Correction Deadline Today 16:00 UTC - REMINDER / WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Dear Holly, I touched based with Jonathan, and we believe you are referencing a statement related to the previous Article 29 thread. Jonathan will be drafting a statement, hopefully within the next hour or so. Many thanks, Evin From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 2:24 PM To: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: Correction Deadline Today 16:00 UTC - REMINDER / WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Hi Evin Can you find the earlier wiki page for this discussion. Jonathan drafted a response which is very close to what we can all agree on and it would be really helpful if that can be put into the First Draft space. I certainly take Leon’s point; it is really important that views other than the IPC/BC are put forward - particularly from ALAC So I’d very much appreciate it if you could find Jonathan’s contribution and post it - Thanks Holly On 4 May 2018, at 9:16 pm, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please note the deadline is today at 16:00 UTC. Kind Regards, Evin From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:35 PM To: "h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>, ALAC List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, "JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>" <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Subject: REMINDER - Today / WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Dear All, A kind reminder today (04 May 2018 at 23:59 UTC) is the deadline for requested feedback on the IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…>. The related workspace and resources are here: https://community.icann.org/x/WwAFBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. FYI Alan and Jonathan, Holly has indicated today may be busier than anticipated to create a draft. Please let me know how I may assist you. Thank you, Evin From: "h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Reply-To: "h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 2:49 AM To: ALAC List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, "JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>" <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Fwd: [Accred-Model] DEADLINE EXTENDED | Annotated - WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Folks We DO have a tiny bit more time. So Jonathan, I had only a small change to your text - which I put on the wiki. In 24 hours, I think we can agree on words - and then put something together. We certainly had lots of contributions and it would be a waste of everyone's efforts not to say something now that the deadline has been extendedn And Evin - where is the link to the wiki on the accreditation model. Could it please be found and put up so that we can have a final attempt Thanks HOlly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vayra Fabricio (Perkins Coie)" <FVayra(a)perkinscoie.com<mailto:FVayra@perkinscoie.com>> To: "accred-model(a)icann.org<mailto:accred-model@icann.org>" <accred-model(a)icann.org<mailto:accred-model@icann.org>> Cc: Sent: Tue, 1 May 2018 23:09:15 +0000 Subject: [Accred-Model] DEADLINE EXTENDED | Annotated - WHOIS Accreditation and Access Model v1.4 Please be advised that the deadline for comments on the current model is extended to Friday, 4 May 2018 at 4PM UTC (12 PM EDT, 9 AM PDT). As a reminder, the current model can be found here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accred-model/attachments/20180420/f2869f82/A… Comments to-date are archived here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accred-model/ We look forward to your further feedback. Thanks, Fabricio Vayra | Perkins Coie LLP PARTNER D. +1.202.654.6255 ________________________________ NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

1 0