- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: ALAC Participation in Work Track 5 of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 1, 2017

Dec. 1, 2017

FYI. Reply to the statement that the ALAC would participate in the GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Work Track on the use of Geographic names aas TLDs (WT5), with the understanding that should we decide to to ratify the outcomes we will prepare a statement which we expect to be included in any final report. Alan >From: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, >Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, >"gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, >"ICANN At-Large Staff" ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, >"cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu" ><cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>, Julie Hedlund ><julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "Emily Barabas" <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> >Subject: ALAC Participation in Work Track 5 of >the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:07:51 +0000 > >** Sent on behalf of Jeff Neuman and Cheryl >Langdon-Orr, co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG ** > >Dear Alan, > >On 26 October 2017, we received your message >regarding the ALAC's participation in Work Track >5 of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG. >We have reflected upon the concerns raised in >your message and have formulated the attached response. > >If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to let us know. > >Best regards, > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeff Neuman (PDP WG Co-Chairs) > >Steven Chan >Policy Director, GNSO Support > >ICANN >12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536â¨ ><mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan(a)icann.org >mobile: +1.310.339.4410 >office tel: +1.310.301.5800 >office fax: +1.310.823.8649 > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our >i<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses…>nteractive >courses and visiting the ><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>GNSO >Newcomer pages. > >Follow @GNSO on Twitter: ><https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO>https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO >Follow the GNSO on Facebook: ><https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/>https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/>http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >

1 1

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Reserve Fund
by Maureen Hilyard Nov. 29, 2017

Nov. 29, 2017

Fair enough, Vanda you are right. I was focusing on auction proceeds documents and concentrating on the original intent of the funds and probably missed the point. But I think I have to agree with Andrei, the reserve will never be big enough for what ICANN may need for all its contingencies... and what will that leave for our projects? Maureen On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)etges.com.br> wrote: > As a former Audit Committee chair, when board member, I believe the > internal process related to reserve fund in ICANN is clear and any action > related to its use is also clearly approved. I really do not see a need of > more details – the prioritization of FUND use only can be define facing the > unbudgeted situation.. pre define a particular use, in my opinion is > taking out the condition of Reserve. > > My 2 cents > > > > *From: *ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan > Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > *Date: *Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 18:57 > *To: *Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> > *Cc: *'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Reserve Fund > > > > At 28/11/2017 03:35 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: > > I agree that there needs to be more transparency with regards to the > proposed use of the reserve fund. > > > I don't understand. The report is quite explicit on that. > > 1. Replenishing Operating Fund levels depleted by unbudgeted and > unmitigated short-term events or maintenance and replacement of assets, or > payment of liabilities, > > 2. Undertaking major downsizing or significant restructuring of > ICANN‚s operations. > > 3. Mitigating major security and stability threats and attacks. > > 4. Covering unplanned legal costs. > > 5. Undertaking new and major programs resulting from a new > strategic plan or exceptional unforeseen external events. > > 6. Continue operations after a disaster.‰ > > > > > > If we were going to add a particular purpose for additional funds to help > ICANN do their work, I would recommend some of the high priority or > prerequisite recommendations of the CCTRT report - especially those that > suggest support for outreach and the new gtld application process for the > Global South. > > > Those sound like things we should budget and not unexpected > contingencies.... > > Alan > > > > Maureen > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > wrote: > > See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968. > > Sebastien identified a number of important issues related to the reserve > fund, following discussion with him, I have drafted the following short > statement (also posted to the Wiki). As the PC closes on Thursday, and I > believe it is essential that we make a strong statement, I would like to > discuss this on the ALAC call in a few hours. > > Alan > > ---------------- > > The ALAC strongly supports having the Reserve Fund at the level of 12 > months expenses, and higher if there is a practical way of achieving that > without unduly impacting ICANN's ability to provide necessary services, > ensure the current and ongoing security, stability and resiliency of the > DNS, and adequately support its ACs and SOs. > > Since the Reserve Fund level is clearly tightly coupled to the level of > ICANN operational expenses, any discussion of the reserve should have > included a recent history and projection of ICANN operational expenses > along with the employee/contractor levels and the Reserve Fund levels over > the same period. > > At whatever level the Reserve Fund target is set, ICANN must publish a > plan on how and when this will be achieved. Given that the proposed target > level(s) are significantly above the current Reserve Fund level, and it is > unrealistic to believe that we will sustain or exceed this year's > return-to-reserve of $5m, ICANN should expeditiously investigate > alternative methods of building the reserve to ensure ICANN's future > stability. Sources such as the Auction Proceeds, the surplus from the last > round of new gTLD, or a levy on any future new gTLD fees should be > considered. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

ALAC Statement on reserve fund
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 29, 2017

Nov. 29, 2017

As discussed during yesterday's ALAC meeting, the final statement on the reserve fund is now posted to the Wiki - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968. It has been modified to remove any reference to possible future sources of funds for the reserve. Alan

1 0

ALAC Statement on Reserve Fund
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 29, 2017

Nov. 29, 2017

See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968. Sebastien identified a number of important issues related to the reserve fund, following discussion with him, I have drafted the following short statement (also posted to the Wiki). As the PC closes on Thursday, and I believe it is essential that we make a strong statement, I would like to discuss this on the ALAC call in a few hours. Alan ---------------- The ALAC strongly supports having the Reserve Fund at the level of 12 months expenses, and higher if there is a practical way of achieving that without unduly impacting ICANN's ability to provide necessary services, ensure the current and ongoing security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, and adequately support its ACs and SOs. Since the Reserve Fund level is clearly tightly coupled to the level of ICANN operational expenses, any discussion of the reserve should have included a recent history and projection of ICANN operational expenses along with the employee/contractor levels and the Reserve Fund levels over the same period. At whatever level the Reserve Fund target is set, ICANN must publish a plan on how and when this will be achieved. Given that the proposed target level(s) are significantly above the current Reserve Fund level, and it is unrealistic to believe that we will sustain or exceed this year's return-to-reserve of $5m, ICANN should expeditiously investigate alternative methods of building the reserve to ensure ICANN's future stability. Sources such as the Auction Proceeds, the surplus from the last round of new gTLD, or a levy on any future new gTLD fees should be considered.

6 6

TLD Slowdown Says CENTR
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Storm in a teacup you think? http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171127_tld_slowdown_partly_due_to_deletes_b… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Reserve Fund
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

At 28/11/2017 03:41 PM, Ricardo Holmquist wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1139e45af8856a055f110a29" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:DmTDXd+tKF+hsFQy4y1hx2iwKk33s8fKijLdC8LJFxt0/Zzfn4dbhUCRAQ0yQYRvOMyqPoJQKPPD6/7vXPWySVlKLrsIvq0YiYIVjz6Z7fwEXz36Ie12KRi/2umAA+HO > >Hi, >First, I do agree with Alan and Sebatien it should be at least one >year of opex. But also I understand the reserve fund will be used >for extraordinary issues, not foreseen right now, and the actual >opex is coming from regular incomes, and it seems it will be so at >least for FY19 (and FY20). So the reserve can be replenished over an >ammount of time. Sources for this replenishment, other than gTLD >auctions, can be the actual interest paid to the different funds >ICANN have, and a inclusion of certain ammounts in the budget. Interest on regular funds is a standard income item and is already in ICANN budgets. Interest on segregated funds currently goes back to those funds. >Lastly, a point not mentioned in the draft is the need for ICANN to >be cautious with its expenses. The original fund covered a year of >opex, and it was expected to decrease due to the IANA transtion, but >in fact the ammount of depletion of the reserve is larger than the >ammount shown for IANA transtion, so it seems it is covering not >only extraordinary events (The IANA transition), but also regular >costs. Altough the incomes seems to be flattening, the budget is >increasing, that is particularly true with PTI and IANA budgets, >where the actual draft increases the FY19 in almost 10% over FY18 My understanding is that the amount that has been taken from the reserve ($36m) is only for the IANA transition and Accountability. At least, that is what the report seems to say. Alan >Thanks > >Ricardo > >2017-11-28 15:23 GMT-05:00 Judith Hellerstein ><<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>judith(a)jhellerstein.com>: >Hi Alan and Sebastien, > >Thank you for posting this comment and I look forward to the >discussion. I too agree that the ALAC needs to strongly support >having an adequate reserve fund, however, I think we should identify >more than 2 sources for funds as the Auction proceeds is a one time >possibility and the problems with the reserves need something that >is a more concrete and longer term option. I would like to see more >suggestions for sources of funding. I would also prefer that we >switch around the order of the sources of possible funds to put >Auction Proceeds as the last item and a levy on any future new GTLDs >as the first item on the list. Also I was a bit confused by your >statement in that Auction Proceeds is the surplus from the last >round of gtlds but in this sentence it looks to be a different item. > >Best, > >Judith > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >Hellerstein & Associates ><https://maps.google.com/?q=3001+Veazey+Terrace+NW,+Washington+DC+20008&entr…>3001 >Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >Mobile/Whats app: <tel:%2B1202-333-6517>+1202-333-6517 >E-mail: ><mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com>Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: ><http://www.jhellerstein.com>www.jhellerstein.com >Linked In: ><http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/>www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > >On 11/28/2017 2:26 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >See ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968. > >Sebastien identified a number of important issues related to the >reserve fund, following discussion with him, I have drafted the >following short statement (also posted to the Wiki). As the PC >closes on Thursday, and I believe it is essential that we make a >strong statement, I would like to discuss this on the ALAC call in a few hours. > >Alan > >---------------- > >The ALAC strongly supports having the Reserve Fund at the level of >12 months expenses, and higher if there is a practical way of >achieving that without unduly impacting ICANN's ability to provide >necessary services, ensure the current and ongoing security, >stability and resiliency of the DNS, and adequately support its ACs and SOs. > >Since the Reserve Fund level is clearly tightly coupled to the level >of ICANN operational expenses, any discussion of the reserve should >have included a recent history and projection of ICANN operational >expenses along with the employee/contractor levels and the Reserve >Fund levels over the same period. > >At whatever level the Reserve Fund target is set, ICANN must publish >a plan on how and when this will be achieved. Given that the >proposed target level(s) are significantly above the current Reserve >Fund level, and it is unrealistic to believe that we will sustain or >exceed this year's return-to-reserve of $5m, ICANN should >expeditiously investigate alternative methods of building the >reserve to ensure ICANN's future stability. Sources such as the >Auction Proceeds, the surplus from the last round of new gTLD, or a >levy on any future new gTLD fees should be considered. > >_______________________________________________ >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;YQXPR0101MB1589;27:DmTDXd+tKF+hsFQy4y1hx2iwKk33s8fKijLdC8LJFxt0/Zzfn4dbhUCRAQ0yQYRvOMyqPoJQKPPD6/7vXPWySVlKLrsIvq0YiYIVjz6Z7fwEXz36Ie12KRi/2umAA+HO > >_______________________________________________ >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] ALAC Statement on Reserve Fund
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

At 28/11/2017 03:35 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >I agree that there needs to be more transparency with regards to the >proposed use of the reserve fund. I don't understand. The report is quite explicit on that. * Replenishing Operating Fund levels depleted by unbudgeted and unmitigated short-term events or maintenance and replacement of assets, or payment of liabilities, * Undertaking major downsizing or significant restructuring of ICANN's operations. * Mitigating major security and stability threats and attacks. * Covering unplanned legal costs. * Undertaking new and major programs resulting from a new strategic plan or exceptional unforeseen external events. * Continue operations after a disaster." >If we were going to add a particular purpose for additional funds to >help ICANN do their work, I would recommend some of the high >priority or prerequisite recommendations of the CCTRT report - >especially those that suggest support for outreach and the new gtld >application process for the Global South. Those sound like things we should budget and not unexpected contingencies.... Alan >Maureen > >On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >See ><https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71602968. > >Sebastien identified a number of important issues related to the >reserve fund, following discussion with him, I have drafted the >following short statement (also posted to the Wiki). As the PC >closes on Thursday, and I believe it is essential that we make a >strong statement, I would like to discuss this on the ALAC call in a few hours. > >Alan > >---------------- > >The ALAC strongly supports having the Reserve Fund at the level of >12 months expenses, and higher if there is a practical way of >achieving that without unduly impacting ICANN's ability to provide >necessary services, ensure the current and ongoing security, >stability and resiliency of the DNS, and adequately support its ACs and SOs. > >Since the Reserve Fund level is clearly tightly coupled to the level >of ICANN operational expenses, any discussion of the reserve should >have included a recent history and projection of ICANN operational >expenses along with the employee/contractor levels and the Reserve >Fund levels over the same period. > >At whatever level the Reserve Fund target is set, ICANN must publish >a plan on how and when this will be achieved. Given that the >proposed target level(s) are significantly above the current Reserve >Fund level, and it is unrealistic to believe that we will sustain or >exceed this year's return-to-reserve of $5m, ICANN should >expeditiously investigate alternative methods of building the >reserve to ensure ICANN's future stability. Sources such as the >Auction Proceeds, the surplus from the last round of new gTLD, or a >levy on any future new gTLD fees should be considered. > >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [ALAC] O & E SC for 2017-18
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

Thanks for your thoughts Sala. To be clear, at the moment (and for all of history) there is no explicit At-Large budget, nor do WGs have any budget. Alan At 28/11/2017 03:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > > * The problem is easily solved if the Chair > is appointed on a lottery basis; > * Ensuring rotation of RALO Chairs is also critical; > * The main thing is participation by all the > RALOs and a position should not determine output. > * Ideally, you could have a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary; > * Clear Terms of Reference or Charter etc > and scope of works and deliverables to justify expenditure of meetings; > * An estimated budget of the WG on overall At Large Budget. > * Clear reporting timelines and mechanisms. >Wish you all well, > >Sala > > >On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >For discussion at today's meeting. > > > >Outreach & Engagement Subcommittee > > > >In Abu Dhabi, we agreed to repopulate the >RALOappointed O&E SC, verify that thee other >members still wish to participate and solicit new membership. > >In attempting to implement this, several issues arose: >Â· The leadership structure is rather >confusing: 1 Chair plus five Co-Chairs. >Â· In the past, we could not identify an >explicit call for RALO appointments (and the >lack of it has caused considerable difficulty). >Â· It is not clear how the >âCo-Chairsâ were appointed nor what their role was in relation to RALOs. >Â· There are significant plans in place >with regard to the IGF meeting in Geneva in >December. Reforming the SC now could be problematic. > > > >Proposal > > > >Â· Two members named by RALO, at least >one of which is a member of the RALO leadership >team (Chair, Secretariat, Vice-Chair) >Â· Effective date: 01 January 2018. > > > >To be Decided > > > >Â· Leadership structure (Chair and Vice-Chairs; Co-Chairs; etc.) >Â· If there are regional Co-Chairs or >Vice-Chairs, their relation to the appointed members. > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T >P. O. Box 17862 >Suva >Republic of Fiji > >Cell: +679 7656770; >Home: +679 3362003 >Twitter: @SalanietaT > > >"You will never do anything in this world >without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." > >Aristotle

1 0

O & E SC for 2017-18
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

For discussion at today's meeting. Outreach & Engagement Subcommittee In Abu Dhabi, we agreed to repopulate the RALOappointed O&E SC, verify that the other members still wish to participate and solicit new membership. In attempting to implement this, several issues arose: · The leadership structure is rather confusing: 1 Chair plus five Co-Chairs. · In the past, we could not identify an explicit call for RALO appointments (and the lack of it has caused considerable difficulty). · It is not clear how the Co-Chairs were appointed nor what their role was in relation to RALOs. · There are significant plans in place with regard to the IGF meeting in Geneva in December. Reforming the SC now could be problematic. Proposal · Two members named by RALO, at least one of which is a member of the RALO leadership team (Chair, Secretariat, Vice-Chair) · Effective date: 01 January 2018. To be Decided · Leadership structure (Chair and Vice-Chairs; Co-Chairs; etc.) · If there are regional Co-Chairs or Vice-Chairs, their relation to the appointed members.

2 1

Proposal for Policy WG Reboot
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2017

Nov. 28, 2017

To be discussed at today's meeting.

1 0