- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 15, 2018

Feb. 15, 2018

Oh yes!!! -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On February 14, 2018 6:41:28 PM EST, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Understood, and thanks for the clarification. > >Perhaps the idea of warming against selective austerity might make it >into >the ALAC response in any case. > >- Evan (on mobile) > >On Feb 14, 2018 6:23 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >wrote: > >> Evan, please note that this proposal is not from ICANN Organization >> (current name for staff) or the Board. It is from a number of the >community >> members of the CCWG-Accountability group looking at recommendation to >make >> to the AC/SOs and the Board. >> >> Alan >> >> At 14/02/2018 01:54 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >> Fully agree. It is astounding that ICANN wants to consider growing >its >> bureaucracy just as budgets are shrinking. >> >> Perhaps our advice should encourage the Board and senior staff to >show >> leadership to its community as it moves to an increasing culture of >> austerity. Before ICANN asks its volunteers to sacrifice (through >reduced >> support and/or increased workload) it should engage in some of its >own. >> >> (Also funny how ICANN wants to take diversity seriously only AFTER it >has >> set in place policies - on gTLD expansion and the concept of domains >as >> rental property, for instance - that can't really be undone even if a >> newly-diverse community disagrees with that path.) >> >> - Evan >> >> >> On Feb 14, 2018 12:46 PM, "Kan Kaili" <kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I fully agree with the comments initiated by Alan and the points by >> Maureen, Holly and others. >> >> That is, ALAC should issue a statement against establishing this >office. >> I believe comments of Holly, Maureen and others would suffice as the >main >> body of the statement. >> >> Kaili >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> >> To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> >> Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; Alan Greenberg >> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC >COMMENTS >> >> +1 Holly >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Holly Raiche < >h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> >> wrote: >> Folks >> >> Part of me absolutely supports any moves that support diversity. At >one >> point in my life, I headed up the Equal Opportunity Unit in the Aust. >> Broadcasting Corporation so diversity was my job. >> Putting that aside, I have serious doubts about the concept in this >> context. >> >> If they talking about just ICANN staff, there is already an ICANN HR >> function that would (or should) be charged with addressing the issue. >> >> If they talking about the various organisations that attend the >SOs/ACs? I >> have even more concern. Just for starters, it is up to each SO/AC - >and >> then individual members within each SO/AC as to who participates. Is >ICANN >> seriously going to tell GAC members that some of them must send more >women >> representatives/more Asian members/more members from non-English >speaking >> backgrounds? And who is going to tell each registry/registrar whom >they >> can send to represent them! >> >> If the idea is to have diversity in the make-up of ICANN committees, >I >> would hope the first basis for selection is qualifications for the >task. >> >> In short, I support Alanâ€™s comments. If the concept is diversity >WITHIN >> ICANN staff, it is covered by HR. Otherwise, I have real doubts >about the >> concept, other than - at best -it could be just a score card. >> >> Holly >> >> >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2018, at 11:18 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >> >> wrote: >> >> I would like to call your attention to this paper that was just >circulated >> by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 on Diversity. >> >> The ALAC was silent on the question of an Office of Diversity (OOD) >that >> was mentioned in the draft recommendations (see >> https://community.icann.org/x/Z5tEB) >> >> As important as diversity is, I find it troublesome that ICANN might >be >> dedicating more bureaucracy to it. As I noted in my recent comments >on the >> Specific Reviews Operating Standards ( https://mm.icann.org/ >> pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17oct17/2018q1/000008.html ), I >find >> that for the best of reasons, ICANN is building more and more complex >> process, rules and bureaucracy. At a time when it is clear we are >going to >> have increasing budget constraint, this must be controlled. If we >consider >> issues such as this as sacred , then we will see more and more other >more >> discretionary budgets cut (and I am predicting that if we don't >change our >> philosophy, budget issues will get MUCH worse). >> >> According to the original recommendations document ( >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct- >> ws2-draft-recs-diversity-26oct17-en.pdf ): The role of this office >would >> be to independently support, record and keep track of issues >including >> complaints from the community on diversity issues within the >organization. >> >> I presume that by "organization" the document means all of ICANN >(ICANN >> Organization as the staff are now known, the volunteer community and >the >> Board). For ICANN Organization, I see this as falling directly under >Human >> Resources and the Complaints Officer. For the volunteer part of >ICANN, and >> the Board, I think it quite reasonable to keep records but that does >not >> warrant a staffed office. Selection of volunteers is not done >centrally, >> and complaints presumably should go to the Ombudsman. >> >> Should the ALAC issue a further statement on this? And if so, what >are >> your views? >> >> Alan >> >> >> From: Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:28:23 -0500 >> To: ws2-diversity <ws2-diversity(a)icann.org > >> Subject: [Ws2-diversity] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity - PAPER ON >> OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS >> >> All, >> >> As promised at the last meeting of the diversity sub-group please >find >> below and attached the document prepared by Fiona and Rafik on this >topic. >> >> Bernard Turcotte >> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 >> >> For Fiona and Rafik. >> >> DIVERISTY SUB-GROUP >> >> >> >> >> PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS >> >> >> >> Preamble: >> >> >> >> The Diversity sub-group presented a report for public comments that >> presented diversity at ICANN identified by a number of elements by >which >> diversity may be characterized, measured and reported. The report was >> informed by feedback from ICANN Supporting Organization(SO)/Advisory >> Committee (AC)/groups through a Diversity Questionnaire. In the >report the >> Sub-group proposes a number of recommendations by which ICANN may >define, >> measure, report, support and promote diversity. It also indicated >that >> there was a lack of consensus on the establishment on an office of >> diversity and sought to receive public comments on the position of >the >> office of diversity. >> >> >> >> Summary of Responses from Public Comments: >> >> Total of 15 comments >> >> >> - 6 had no comments on an office of diversity >> - 3 supported an office of diversity or a panel >> - 3 supported an office of diversity >> - 3 rejected the notion of an office of diversity. >> >> >> Breakdown by major categories >> >> >> - 7 SO/ACs/Board (those which will have to approve the WS2 final >> report): >> >> >> >> >> - 4 had no comments >> - 3 Rejected the notion of an office of diversity >> >> >> >> >> - 2 Governments: >> >> >> >> >> - 1 had no comments on an office of diversity >> - 1 supported an office of diversity >> >> >> >> >> - 6 Individuals/Associations: >> >> >> >> >> - 1 had no comments on an office of diversity >> - 3 supported an office of diversity or a panel >> - 2 supported an office of diversity >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Summary of Positions relating to the OOD from Public Comments: >> >> >> >> 1. Establishment of an office of diversity or a panel similar to >what >> is proposed in the Ombuds recommendations. >> >> 2. Establishment of an office of diversity >> >> 3. Rejection of an office of diversity in favour of staff >performing >> this work. >> >> >> >> Required Actions: >> >> The Sub-group on diversity does not have one solid position from the >> public comments but has instead received a number of options that >need to >> be discussed further and weighed in order to determine how oversight >of >> diversity can be pursued. >> >> >> >> Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Office Of Diversity >OptionsV1.2.pdf" >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="Office Of Diversity OptionsV1.2.pdf" >> X-Attachment-Id: f_jdkm12g20 >> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:5Mxd449bwS/HOp/iuqOwk4pTsHsOLwp4Urd2lAQC+ >> LxH4sZOpA5H5EWy2W2rBs7gToTighaGdY2nGhYw4nbnkMhHj+ >> A5OHljcCMG4yzy5c5s6+66WnCi//rOuNRtAQcG >> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >> ApKEtrCYhRKl3UPpOM0fLBOZkaTcY6QwBeeGtAqZw+OgOzfrvYEk+ >> AotEDu2+rNWAMq6958Jvp+c+glyW7W4EQn8cXBw9UBrowrCZ+ >> P5ytgQVR8nbfFnqRajG4VJuLLwZc6022IzI09Frtk3p2uxpg== >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Content-Disposition: inline >> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:5Mxd449bwS/HOp/iuqOwk4pTsHsOLwp4Urd2lAQC+ >> LxH4sZOpA5H5EWy2W2rBs7gToTighaGdY2nGhYw4nbnkMhHj+ >> A5OHljcCMG4yzy5c5s6+66WnCi//rOuNRtAQcG >> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >> ApKEtrCYhRKl3UPpOM0fLBOZkaTcY6QwBeeGtAqZw+OgOzfrvYEk+ >> AotEDu2+rNWAMq6958Jvp+c+glyW7W4EQn8cXBw9UBrowrCZ+ >> P5ytgQVR8nbfFnqRajG4VJuLLwZc6022IzI09Frtk3p2uxpg== >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-diversity mailing list >> Ws2-diversity(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity >> >> <Office Of Diversity OptionsV1.2.pdf>______________ >> _________________________________ >> 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+(ALAC) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+(ALAC) >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+(ALAC) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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+(ALAC) >> >>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Cherine Chalaby to Alan Greenberg RE: GAC-ALAC Joint Statement of 2 Nov 2017
by Holly Raiche Feb. 15, 2018

Feb. 15, 2018

Thanks Evan And maybe better. A warning - it is not as easy to do as just penning a response. It takes just that bit longer to be very concise about exactly what the position is - and then have the longer explanations attached. And heaven knows, we are operating on volunteer time. Worth discussing at least Holly On 15 Feb 2018, at 10:53 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> wrote: > One alternative is to have ALAC advice sufficiently concise so that no executive summary is required. > > This would have the added value of being easier to digest, not only for the direct recipients of the advice, but also the greater audience in whose interests ALAC attempts to act... > > Background data can be kept available as supporting documentation (in appendix form) but need not accompany the core advice. > > - Evan (on mobile) > > On Feb 14, 2018 2:43 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > Now Carlton > > I think we have to presume at least SOME of those above us actually want to understand what we think - I know, maybe just a fond hope. But when I was working at a public interest law centre, we always wrote a summary - no more than a page or page and a half - on what we were saying. That way, there was an odds on chance the relevant Minister/Minister’s adviser would read it. In attachments, put the bulk of what you want to say and - because it usually involved legislative change - another appendix for the Parliamentary draftsperson so they knew what you wanted. And generally, that was the best way to be heard - and have something happen. Exec summaries do help - as long as they can be read in under 60 seconds! > > > Holly > On 15 Feb 2018, at 3:08 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> You know what is the glaring presumption here? That most people really want to or even like to read these tomes! >> >> First, there is abundant evidence that most persons engaged in this business simply don't read documents, whether they are long or short. I defy successful contradiction. >> >> Breaking news. And I hate to break this to all y'all but from long experience in corporate, the evidence of 'senior' people reading high-level summaries more than the long document is precisely NEVER! >> >> Years ago one fella told me that my writing was too literate, I needed to write at an 8th grade level for senior corporate officers. That was waaay before Donald Trump. Never mind he remained as dense as thick mud. >> >> Pffft. >> >> -Carlton >> >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >> ============================= >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> wrote: >> Executive summaries is a great idea. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 00:35 >> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Cherine Chalaby to Alan Greenberg RE: GAC-ALAC Joint Statement of 2 Nov 2017 >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> -Carlton >> >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >> ============================= >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >> >> "The Board also encourages the ALAC to continue to lead by example in producing materials that ensure effective and equal participation by all stakeholders, and would encourage the ALAC to include executive summaries on statements, advisories, and other materials issued by the ALAC." >> >> >> >> How noble. Will the Board sufficiently resource the ALAC to produce such materials and additional content? >> >> >> >> What the Board wants -- anywhere in ICANN, they're able to get if it's sufficiently resourced. >> >> >> >> - Evan >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… > > > _______________________________________________ > 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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 14, 2018

Feb. 14, 2018

Evan, please note that this proposal is not from ICANN Organization (current name for staff) or the Board. It is from a number of the community members of the CCWG-Accountability group looking at recommendation to make to the AC/SOs and the Board. Alan At 14/02/2018 01:54 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Fully agree. It is astounding that ICANN wants >to consider growing its bureaucracy just as budgets are shrinking. > >Perhaps our advice should encourage the Board >and senior staff to show leadership to its >community as it moves to an increasing culture >of austerity. Before ICANN asks its volunteers >to sacrifice (through reduced support and/or >increased workload) it should engage in some of its own. > >(Also funny how ICANN wants to take diversity >seriously only AFTER it has set in place >policies - on gTLD expansion and the concept of >domains as rental property, for instance - that >can't really be undone even if a newly-diverse >community disagrees with that path.) > >- Evan > > >On Feb 14, 2018 12:46 PM, "Kan Kaili" ><<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I fully agree with the comments initiated by >Alan and the points by Maureen, Holly and others. > >That is, ALAC should issue a statement against >establishing this office. I believe comments of >Holly, Maureen and others would suffice as the main body of the statement. > >Kaili > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>Maureen Hilyard >To: <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>Holly Raiche >Cc: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC ; ><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:19 AM >Subject: Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS > >+1 Holly > >On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Holly Raiche ><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >Folks > >Part of me absolutely supports any moves that >support diversity. At one point in my life, I >headed up the Equal Opportunity Unit in the >Aust. Broadcasting Corporation so diversity was my job. >Putting that aside, I have serious doubts about the concept in this context. > >If they talking about just ICANN staff, there is >already an ICANN HR function that would (or >should) be charged with addressing the issue. > >If they talking about the various organisations >that attend the SOs/ACs? I have even more >concern. Just for starters, it is up to each >SO/AC - and then individual members within each >SO/AC as to who participates. Is ICANN seriously >going to tell GAC members that some of them must >send more women representatives/more Asian >members/more members from non-English speaking >backgrounds? And who is going to tell each >registry/registrar whom they can send to represent them! > >If the idea is to have diversity in the make-up >of ICANN committees, I would hope the first >basis for selection is qualifications for the task. > >In short, I support Alanâs comments. If the >concept is diversity WITHIN ICANN staff, it is >covered by HR. Otherwise, I have real doubts >about the concept, other than - at best -it could be just a score card. > >Holly > > > > >On 14 Feb 2018, at 11:18 am, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>I would like to call your attention to this >>paper that was just circulated by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 on Diversity. >> >>The ALAC was silent on the question of an >>Office of Diversity (OOD) that was mentioned in >>the draft recommendations (see >><https://community.icann.org/x/Z5tEB>https://community.icann.org/x/Z5tEB) >> >>As important as diversity is, I find it >>troublesome that ICANN might be dedicating more >>bureaucracy to it. As I noted in my recent >>comments on the Specific Reviews Operating >>Standards ( >>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17oct17/2018q1/00… >>), I find that for the best of reasons, ICANN >>is building more and more complex process, >>rules and bureaucracy. At a time when it is >>clear we are going to have increasing budget >>constraint, this must be controlled. If we >>consider issues such as this as sacred , then >>we will see more and more other more >>discretionary budgets cut (and I am predicting >>that if we don't change our philosophy, budget issues will get MUCH worse). >> >>According to the original recommendations >>document ( >>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-divers… >>): The role of this office would be to >>independently support, record and keep track of >>issues including complaints from the community >>on diversity issues within the organization. >> >>I presume that by "organization" the document >>means all of ICANN (ICANN Organization as the >>staff are now known, the volunteer community >>and the Board). For ICANN Organization, I see >>this as falling directly under Human Resources >>and the Complaints Officer. For the volunteer >>part of ICANN, and the Board, I think it quite >>reasonable to keep records but that does not >>warrant a staffed office. Selection of >>volunteers is not done centrally, and >>complaints presumably should go to the Ombudsman. >> >>Should the ALAC issue a further statement on >>this? And if so, what are your views? >> >>Alan >> >> >>>From: Bernard Turcotte >>><<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> >>>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:28:23 -0500 >>>To: ws2-diversity <<mailto:ws2-diversity@icann.org>ws2-diversity(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: [Ws2-diversity] >>>CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Diversity - PAPER ON >>>OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS >>> >>>All, >>> >>>As promised at the last meeting of the >>>diversity sub-group please find below and >>>attached the document prepared by Fiona and Rafik on this topic. >>> >>>Bernard Turcotte >>>ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 >>> >>>For Fiona and Rafik. >>> >>>DIVERISTY SUB-GROUP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS >>> >>> >>> >>>Preamble: >>> >>> >>> >>>The Diversity sub-group presented a report for >>>public comments that presented diversity at >>>ICANN identified by a number of elements by >>>which diversity may be characterized, measured >>>and reported. The report was informed by >>>feedback from ICANN Supporting >>>Organization(SO)/Advisory Committee >>>(AC)/groups through a Diversity Questionnaire. >>>In the report the Sub-group proposes a number >>>of recommendations by which ICANN may define, >>>measure, report, support and promote >>>diversity. It also indicated that there was a >>>lack of consensus on the establishment on an >>>office of diversity and sought to receive >>>public comments on the position of the office of diversity. >>> >>> >>> >>>Summary of Responses from Public Comments: >>> >>> >>>Total of 15 comments >>> >>> * 6 had no comments on an office of diversity >>> * 3 supported an office of diversity or a panel >>> * 3 supported an office of diversity >>> * 3 rejected the notion of an office of diversity. >>> >>> >>>Breakdown by major categories >>> >>> * 7 SO/ACs/Board (those which will have to >>> approve the WS2 final report): >>> >>> >>> * 4 had no comments >>> * 3 Rejected the notion of an office of diversity >>> >>> >>> * 2 Governments: >>> >>> >>> * 1 had no comments on an office of diversity >>> * 1 supported an office of diversity >>> >>> >>> * 6 Individuals/Associations: >>> >>> >>> * 1 had no comments on an office of diversity >>> * 3 supported an office of diversity or a panel >>> * 2 supported an office of diversity >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Summary of Positions relating to the OOD from Public Comments: >>> >>> >>> >>>1. Establishment of an office of >>>diversity or a panel similar to what is proposed in the Ombuds recommendations. >>> >>>2. Establishment of an office of diversity >>> >>>3. Rejection of an office of diversity in >>>favour of staff performing this work. >>> >>> >>> >>>Required Actions: >>> >>>The Sub-group on diversity does not have one >>>solid position from the public comments but >>>has instead received a number of options that >>>need to be discussed further and weighed in >>>order to determine how oversight of diversity can be pursued. >>> >>> >>> >>>Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Office Of Diversity OptionsV1.2.pdf" >>>Content-Disposition: attachment; >>> filename="Office Of Diversity OptionsV1.2.pdf" >>>X-Attachment-Id: f_jdkm12g20 >>>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>> >>>1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:5Mxd449bwS/HOp/iuqOwk4pTsHsOLwp4Urd2lAQC+LxH4sZOpA5H5EWy2W2rBs7gToTighaGdY2nGhYw4nbnkMhHj+A5OHljcCMG4yzy5c5s6+66WnCi//rOuNRtAQcG >>>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >>> >>>ApKEtrCYhRKl3UPpOM0fLBOZkaTcY6QwBeeGtAqZw+OgOzfrvYEk+AotEDu2+rNWAMq6958Jvp+c+glyW7W4EQn8cXBw9UBrowrCZ+P5ytgQVR8nbfFnqRajG4VJuLLwZc6022IzI09Frtk3p2uxpg== >>> >>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>Content-Disposition: inline >>>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>> >>>1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:5Mxd449bwS/HOp/iuqOwk4pTsHsOLwp4Urd2lAQC+LxH4sZOpA5H5EWy2W2rBs7gToTighaGdY2nGhYw4nbnkMhHj+A5OHljcCMG4yzy5c5s6+66WnCi//rOuNRtAQcG >>>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: >>> >>>ApKEtrCYhRKl3UPpOM0fLBOZkaTcY6QwBeeGtAqZw+OgOzfrvYEk+AotEDu2+rNWAMq6958Jvp+c+glyW7W4EQn8cXBw9UBrowrCZ+P5ytgQVR8nbfFnqRajG4VJuLLwZc6022IzI09Frtk3p2uxpg== >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Ws2-diversity mailing list >>><mailto:Ws2-diversity@icann.org>Ws2-diversity(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity >><Office Of Diversity >>OptionsV1.2.pdf>_______________________________________________ >>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… > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

1 0

Fwd: invitation to present at the ccNSO Members Meeting (Wed, 14 March): ICANN61
by Maureen Hilyard Feb. 9, 2018

Feb. 9, 2018

FYI. Anyone who is available is invited to attend to contribute to this discussion (in person in Puerto Rico or remotely) It coincides with the WT5 meeting. M ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 5:32 AM Subject: invitation to present at the ccNSO Members Meeting (Wed, 14 March): ICANN61 To: Pablo Rodriguez <pablo(a)nic.pr>, Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Leonid Todorov <l.todorov(a)aptld.org>, Miguel Ignacio Estrada <gm(a)staff.lactld.org>, Barrack Otieno < otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>, Peter Van Roste <peter(a)centr.org> Cc: Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso(a)cctld.gt>, Katrina Sataki < katrina(a)nic.lv> Dear all, This e-mail is to invite you to give a presentation at the session on the *Impact of natural disasters on ccTLDs, registrars and registrants, and mitigation of the impact*, held during the ccNSO Members at ICANN61 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The session will take place on Wednesday morning, 14 March (Room 209 BC). Below please find some information on the timing and further practical details, including the deadline to submit your presentation slides. May I kindly invite you to confirm your participation at your earliest convenience? Thank you! = = = = 09:00 09:05 *Impact natural disasters on ccTLDs, registrars and registrants and mitigation of the impact* Session Chair: Katrina Sataki 09:00 09:05 introduction by the session chair 09:05 09:20 recent experience for .pr: Pablo Rodriguez (.pr) 09:20 09:35 Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) 09:35 10:05 Survey results regional organisations: presenter(s) TBC 10:05 10:15 Q&A ad wrap-up = = = = *Background on this session:* Javier Rua-Jovet, ALAC member from Puerto Rico has asked the ALAC if it would be possible to investigate the possibility of some global ICANN protection and/or mitigation measures to help people who might experience a similar situation (anywhere in the world, for whatever disaster situation). The idea was raised to give some consideration to a flexible policy that could alleviate the anxieties of registrants whose domain names may be at risk of expiry if they are not resumed within the critical time frames. This would be especially relevant to areas that are more susceptible to similar types of natural disasters that can wipe out essential internet related infrastructure and access. The ALAC is seeking support from other SO/ACs for developing a strategy that they might propose to the Board. The “helping ccTLDs, registrars and registrants in case of natural disasters”-session was placed on the agenda of the ICANN61 ccNSO Members Meeting, based on a conversation Katrina had with ALAC, and a mutual commitment to turn this session into something valuable for both communities, while we meet in San Juan. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171118_icann_guidance_to_ domain_registrars_registries_about_hurricane/ https://www.icann.org/news/blog/assisting-registrants-in- areas-affected-by-hurricane-maria *The deadline to submit your presentation slides: * Tue, 27 February 2018, end of day. Please send your slides to Kim ( kimberly.carlson(a)icann.org ) with me (joke.braeken(a)icann.org ) in copy. Kindly let us know if you do not intend to use any slides, or if the deadline cannot be met. *Tips to make your presentation interactive: * Being asked to participate in a presentation makes listeners more interested and engaged. Simple movements like a show of hands can reinvigorate a distracted audience. Having audience interaction makes your presentation more interesting and easier on everyone. Presenters can either take a seat at the head table or use a roving microphone. *Format presentation slides: * .pdf AND the original (for instance in .ppt). The ccNSO Secretariat would appreciate to have both versions to make the broadcast in the AdobeConnect room a success. Should your slides have animations, a correct display cannot be guaranteed. Kim is available to assist you regarding any questions you might have about the format or display of the presentation slides. *ICANN61: links* - ccNSO Members Meeting agenda: https://buff.ly/2DEc1od - Consult the https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ ICANN61+-+San+Juan,+PR+2018 , including remote participation details, noting that the ICANN meeting schedule will be posted on Monday, 19 February 2018. - Visa information: https://meetings.icann.org/en/sanjuan61#travel If you require a visa, please make sure to start the application process in a timely manner. - The comprehensive meeting schedule will be posted on Monday, 19 February 2018. - ICANN61 meeting site: https://meetings.icann.org/en/sanjuan61 Please make sure to register for the meeting - ICANN60 Mobile App: meetingapp.icann.org We look forward to seeing you in Puerto Rico. Do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you! Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

3 4

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 5, 2018

Feb. 5, 2018

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 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 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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… >> >

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by bartlett.morgan Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

As something of an aside, the underlying suitability of the current wiki to our policy drafting needs might need to be considered. TTF? Re the issue on the table. For right now, I'm drawn towards manually inserting the newer version of a statement at the top with relevant identifying info (date erc). The prior statement(s) would remain beneath for reference. Inelegant? Yes. Sent from Samsung Focus <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> </div><div>Date: 2/2/18 5:12 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> </div><div>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template </div><div> </div>Hi all, I agree with Maureen Best Judith Sent from my iPhoneJudith(a)jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we are working towards an appropriate statement that reflects all related views then, does it matter? The page can be as long as we like as long as we get to the end product. You asked for our opinions but you are still stating your own as THE view. (and I'm not being grumpy about it, Im just stating my piece. :)) And as you say it happens infrequently, but when it does, why are we sticking to a dumb rule. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> 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 <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 < 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 < 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 <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 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 _______________________________________________ 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… _______________________________________________ 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… _______________________________________________ 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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Suggested revision of At-Large Policy Development template
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 2, 2018

Feb. 2, 2018

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 >âfirst draftâ of the privacy stuff, I >couldnât, and so put stuff in the >âcommentâ space. While that whole wiki >reflects pretty much what the discussion was, it >doesnât follow the concept of first 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 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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >

2 1

Board Public Meetings
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Jan. 31, 2018

Jan. 31, 2018

Dear all, First I want to wish you all, belatedly, a happy new year and I hope this email finds you all well. Second, you might have already seen the newsletter that announces that the Board will be holding three public sessions at its LA workshop these coming days. In case you haven’t read the news, or the newsletter got lost in your inbox, you can get the details in the following link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-01-23-en The topics for the sessions are: 1. Community work on geo names as TLDs 2. FY19 Draft Budget Review 3. Board FY18 Priorities The Board will also hold a public Board meeting. I have been following the FY19 Draft Budget comments closely on the list and I am aware of the concerns that have been raised. I thank you all for your input and welcome any further feedback you can provide on this and other issues you consider relevant to the At-Large community. I hope to see many of you soon in Puerto Rico. Kind regards, León Enviado desde mi iPad

2 1

Re: [ALAC] GDPR Model Comments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2018

Jan. 31, 2018

I found this letter refreshing. Looking at: - the presence of words such as "pragmatic" and "workable" (both of which occur twice); - a strong focus not only on law enforcement but the investigations that lead up to legal action; - the references to the public interest/policy (5 references); - acknowledgement of ICANN's statement "to ensure compliance with the GDPR while maintaining WHOIS to the greatest extent possible" gives me some hope that we may get through this mess without destroying the usability of the Internet. Alan At 30/01/2018 06:23 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Here's some grist for the mill, this intriguing letter from the EC. > >Read the footnote associated with lawful >purposes for processing personal data and then >look at the recitals they lay out for considering solutions. > ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-…>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/avramopoulos-et-al-to-… > >-Carlton > > > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > >On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Holly Raiche ><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >Thanks Alan > >And because we did not manage to agree on a >model, I have also submitted a statement >(attached) that largely repeats what I put on >the list. And for those who supported other >models, I would urge you to also make >submissions on the models (I note both >Christopher and Seun supported Model 3 - now you >need to say so directly to ICANN Org > >Holly > > > > >On 31 Jan 2018, at 5:33 am, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>Regarding our deliberations on GDPR models - >><https://community.icann.org/x/HQa8B>https://community.icann.org/x/HQa8B >> >>The message below says that they are not >>formally extending the deadline, but will >>consider new input - presuming it comes in relatively quickly. >> >>At this point, as far as I can see, I have been >>the only At-Large person to submit a personal >>comment, and no RALO or At-Large comments have been submitted. >> >>Alan >> >>>From: GDPR Questions >>><<mailto:gdpr-questions@icann.org>gdpr-questions(a)icann.org> >>>To: Evin Erdogdu <<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >>>CC: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Ariel Liang >>> <<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension >>>Request for GDPR Model Comments >>>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:00:07 +0000 >>>user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.28.0.171108 >>> >>>Thank you for the notes requesting an >>>extension. As you may be aware, we are >>>receiving significant input from a wide range >>>of stakeholders over the past days, a full >>>list can be found at: >>><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en >>>and we are updating this continuously. >>> >>>Unfortunately, we are unable to provide an >>>extension. We would encourage you to provide >>>any additional input as soon as possible, and >>>would welcome to hear from you how youÃ¢d >>>like to proceed ad as feedback is important. >>> >>> >>>From: Evin Erdogdu <<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >>>Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 21:31 >>>To: GDPR Questions >>><<mailto:gdpr-questions@icann.org>gdpr-questions(a)icann.org>, >>>"<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org" <<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >>>Ariel Liang <<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension >>>Request for GDPR Model Comments >>> >>>Dear GDPR Staff, >>> >>>Has the comment period been formally extended? Please advise. >>> >>>Kind Regards, >>>Evin >>> >>>From: GDPR Questions >>><<mailto:gdpr-questions@icann.org>gdpr-questions(a)icann.org> >>>Date: Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM >>>To: Evin Erdogdu >>><<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org>, >>>"<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org" <<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >>>Ariel Liang <<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension >>>Request for GDPR Model Comments >>> >>>Dear Alan, we acknowledge receipt of your request and it will be published. >>> >>> >>>From: Evin Erdogdu <<mailto:evin.erdogdu@icann.org>evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >>>Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 15:15 >>>To: "<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org" >>><<mailto:gdpr@icann.org>gdpr(a)icann.org> >>>Cc: Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >>>Ariel Liang <<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >>>Subject: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension Request for GDPR Model Comments >>> >>>Dear Staff, >>> >>>In light of the importance of the GDPR issue >>>and the ongoing discussion within At-Large and >>>elsewhere in ICANN, Alan Greenberg, ALAC Chair >>>requests an extension of no less than 10 days for submission of comments. >>> >>>Please confirm this extension request has been received. >>> >>>Kind Regards, >>> >>>Evin Ashley ErdoÃdu >>>AC/SO and Policy Support >>>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >

1 0

GDPR Model Comments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2018

Jan. 31, 2018

Regarding our deliberations on GDPR models - https://community.icann.org/x/HQa8B The message below says that they are not formally extending the deadline, but will consider new input - presuming it comes in relatively quickly. At this point, as far as I can see, I have been the only At-Large person to submit a personal comment, and no RALO or At-Large comments have been submitted. Alan >From: GDPR Questions <gdpr-questions(a)icann.org> >To: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >CC: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Ariel Liang > <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension Request for GDPR Model Comments >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:00:07 +0000 >user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.28.0.171108 > >Thank you for the notes requesting an extension. >As you may be aware, we are receiving >significant input from a wide range of >stakeholders over the past days, a full list can >be found at: ><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdpr-legal-analysis-2017-11-17-en >and we are updating this continuously. > >Unfortunately, we are unable to provide an >extension. We would encourage you to provide any >additional input as soon as possible, and would >welcome to hear from you how youâd like to proceed as feedback is important. > > >From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 21:31 >To: GDPR Questions <gdpr-questions(a)icann.org>, >"gdpr(a)icann.org" <gdpr(a)icann.org> >Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension Request for GDPR Model Comments > >Dear GDPR Staff, > >Has the comment period been formally extended? Please advise. > >Kind Regards, >Evin > >From: GDPR Questions <gdpr-questions(a)icann.org> >Date: Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM >To: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org>, "gdpr(a)icann.org" <gdpr(a)icann.org> >Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >Subject: Re: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension Request for GDPR Model Comments > >Dear Alan, we acknowledge receipt of your request and it will be published. > > >From: Evin Erdogdu <evin.erdogdu(a)icann.org> >Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 15:15 >To: "gdpr(a)icann.org" <gdpr(a)icann.org> >Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> >Subject: TODAY/URGENT: At-Large Extension Request for GDPR Model Comments > >Dear Staff, > >In light of the importance of the GDPR issue and >the ongoing discussion within At-Large and >elsewhere in ICANN, Alan Greenberg, ALAC Chair >requests an extension of no less than 10 days for submission of comments. > >Please confirm this extension request has been received. > >Kind Regards, > >Evin Ashley ErdoÄdu >AC/SO and Policy Support >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >

3 4