- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top-Level
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

FYI, Alan >To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Work Track 5 on >Geographic Names at the Top-Level >Cc: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, Steve Chan ><steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com" ><jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" ><gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, >Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > >It has been brought to my attention that the ALAC never got back to >the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP leadership and staff on >confirmation of the ALAC participation in this Work Track. > >At its monthly meeting of 26 September 2017, the ALAC decided that >it would be formally participating in Work Track 5 on geonames at >the top level. The ALAC reserves the right to consider the >ratification of the WT5 outcomes. Should the ALAC not fully ratify >the outcomes, it will provide a statement which will be included in >any final report and recommendations of the PDP. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC > >At 25/09/2017 09:57 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>I am pleased to report that the ALAC has selected Christopher >>Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> to be the ALAC-Appointed >>Co-Leader of the GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working >>Group WT5 on geonames at the top level. >> >>This appointment notwithstanding, the ALAC is meeting tomorrow to >>decide what, if any, formal conditions we are placing on our full >>participation in WT5. >> >>Regards, Alan Greenberg >>Chair, ALAC >> >> >>At 01/08/2017 08:37 PM, Terri Agnew wrote: >>>** Sending on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG co-chairs >>> >>>Dear Alan, >>> >>>On behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we write >>>to you in your capacity as chair of ALAC. This email is in regards >>>to the topic of geographic names at the top-level, recently >>>discussed during the cross community sessions at ICANN59. In >>>addition, we want to state our agreement with the GAC which in its >>>Communique for ICANN59 stated that "any further process of policy >>>review and development should: (a) continue to allow all >>>stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account >>>the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; >>>and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals >>>for future arrangements" in dealing with Geographic Names as >>>Top-Level Domains. >>> >>>Pursuant to those discussions and the recommendations provided by >>>the GAC, we are establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) within the >>>GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. This new >>>WT5 will focus exclusively on geographic names at the >>>top-level. In order to promote broad participation from across >>>the community, we are seeking to establish a shared leadership >>>model in WT5. We are requesting that one representative from each >>>of the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO be nominated (through whatever >>>mechanism is deemed appropriate by each group) to serve as a >>>co-leader of WT5 by August 18, 2017. >>> >>>We are aware that some members of the community are concerned >>>about this topic being addressed under the auspices of a GNSO PDP >>>WG. That said, we are also aware of recommendations from the >>>recently concluded CCWG on the Use of Country and Territory Names >>>that the work should be consolidated into a single community-wide >>>initiative moving forward as opposed to having each SO and AC >>>working on recommendations independently. >>> >>>As such, we are strongly recommending that the leaders of WT5 >>>operate WT5 similarly to a cross community working group, ensuring >>>that each SO and AC participate equally to achieve consensus on >>>any recommendations proposed by the Work Track. While we believe >>>that ultimately, it will be up to WT5 itself to draft the terms of >>>reference for WT5 and determine its structure and operating >>>procedures, we recommend that the co-leaders discuss these issues >>>with the PDP co-chairs and staff first in order to frame the >>>issues and structure for the group. Setting up this arrangement >>>within the GNSO PDP seems to strike a balance between establishing >>>an inclusive and collaborative structure while maintaining the >>>ability to develop policy as determined by ICANN's Bylaws. After >>>the co-leaders are appointed and have had a chance to discuss >>>plans, we will issue a call to each of the SOs and ACs seeking >>>volunteers from the community to participate in WT5. >>> >>>We hope that you support our proposed multi-stakeholder approach >>>to work with the community in addressing a topic that is clearly >>>of great importance to many. We hope to be able to organize an >>>introductory meeting the first week of September 2017, in order to >>>allow the co-leaders to come to agreement on WT5's draft terms of >>>reference . Finally, while we as co-chairs of the overall PDP WG >>>support WT5's independence, we nevertheless remain available to >>>facilitate and provide assistance to the co-leaders as the need or >>>desire arises. >>> >>>If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Briefing note: Use of gTLD Auction Proceeds for ICANN Reserve
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

Thanks Seun. There is no question of the "legality" of ICANN using the auction find to top up the reset. Or at least I have never heard mention of such a concern. Whether operating costs are reasonable and justified is an ongoing issue. It might be addressed in the current public comment, or in the one to be opened on the FY19 Plan and Budget. Alan On October 25, 2017 4:49:51 AM GMT+01:00, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello Alan, On the assumption that ICANN can legally use part of the proceeds to fund reserve, I'd be also can live with up to a 20% of whatever is the accessible amount of the AP. However on a related note, I do personally think ICANN operating cost is quite on the high side in the first place and while effort is being made to get a 1 year reserve, i will be interested to know how much effort the Board is putting on 2 specific items: 1. Avoid continuous increase on the operating cost which could then make a year target meaningless. 2. Minimize operating cost as much as possible (of course without affecting the SO/AC part of things) so a 1 year reserve could end up sufficient for many more months when the need arises. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 25, 2017 2:07 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: This is a briefing note in preparation for the discussion in AbuDhabi current scheduled for 9:30 am, local time, on Sunday. As is common for non-profit organizations, and particularly ones where their income or expenses might be subject to unexpected fluctuations, ICANN maintains a "Reserve Fund" to allow it to cover unexpected expenses or below expectations income. Currently the target for the fund is one year's regular expenses, but due to unexpected expenses (primarily associated with the IANA transition and accountability exercise), it is below that. There is an open Public Comment where you can find out more about the fund - <https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB>https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB. It has been suggested that some portion of the proceeds of the new gTLD Auctions (currently about $235m, although there is some chance it could be as low as $105m) be used to help build back the reserve. Excluding this possibility, the target use of the Auction Funds will be projects that are aligned with ICANN's mission and enhance the Internet (wording still under debate). This brief discussion will be to solicit thoughts on whether this would be a good idea or not. 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…

6 7

ALAC Public Comments
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

We have a discussion of Public Comments scheduled to occur on Sunday. The intent is that come to an agreement on how to decide on issuing a comment and the process to follow. Currently, when a new Public Comment opens, or we receive a request for input from some group, either the ALAC or the ALT reviews the issue at one of its meeting. If it is an ALT meeting and a recommendation is made, it is conveyed to the ALAC. Typically we either decide not to respond, or ask someone for a more detailed analysis. Sometimes a comment is written at that stage, without really "deciding" to do so. This process is problematic for a number of reasons. The time lost before a meeting or before someone looks at the issue is critical and tends to use most of the available time. This results in little time for review and revision. A new method must be found. The question of when to respond is perhaps easier: - We have something SUBSTANTIVE to say - We feel a token Thank you (we agree) is felt to be important - There are users implications - There are implications related to ICANN's overall organization, effectiveness, finance or credibility.

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Briefing note: Use of gTLD Auction Proceeds for ICANN Reserve
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 25, 2017

Oct. 25, 2017

It is a short item in the 9 am Sunday meeting. Scheduled for 15 minutes but might run into the break. Alan At 25/10/2017 08:31 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >Alan: > >I was checking the main meeting schedule and could not find this >meeting on Sunday. Can you confirm where and when is this happening? >I am interested in hearing this discussion. > >-ed > >On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:07 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >This is a briefing note in preparation for the discussion in AbuDhabi >current scheduled for 9:30 am, local time, on Sunday. > >As is common for non-profit organizations, and particularly ones >where their income or expenses might be subject to unexpected >fluctuations, ICANN maintains a "Reserve Fund" to allow it to cover >unexpected expenses or below expectations income. Currently the >target for the fund is one year's regular expenses, but due to >unexpected expenses (primarily associated with the IANA transition >and accountability exercise), it is below that. There is an open >Public Comment where you can find out more about the fund - ><https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB>https://community.icann.org/x/GJNEB. > >It has been suggested that some portion of the proceeds of the new >gTLD Auctions (currently about $235m, although there is some chance >it could be as low as $105m) be used to help build back the reserve. > >Excluding this possibility, the target use of the Auction Funds will >be projects that are aligned with ICANN's mission and enhance the >Internet (wording still under debate). > >This brief discussion will be to solicit thoughts on whether this >would be a good idea or not. > >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…

1 0

Prep for Session on At-Large Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 25, 2017

Oct. 25, 2017

We have been discussing WGs for ages. The At-Large Review now makes it essential that we take definitive action to clarify WG (under a variety of names) status. At the meeting, we will discuss the groups and my hope is we will take action. Attached is a chart of all groups with their current status (after Evin's Wiki Workspace review and cleanup) and my proposed "strawperson" - an idea to be discussed, adopted, or altered. Also attached is a mission statement for two of the groups that ws previously distributed and I think agreed upon. Some definitions for strawperson words: Membership: Annual review of membership and removal of those no longer active. May involve leadership review of membership and/or mailing lists and/or e-mail confirmations from some/all. Archive: Wiki stays. Marked as Archived. mailing list Archives stay, Mailing list disabled. SME: Subject Matter Expert - no need to a full WG, but need to identify one or more SME to handles questions or issues. Mailing list: No need to a group that meets, but maintain a mailing list for discussion. Repopulate: Groups that have full or partial membership selected by ALAC/RALOs or by office.2

1 0

Board priorities
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 25, 2017

Oct. 25, 2017

Hi, ALAC and Regional Leaders! A post from Cherine on Board Priorities to fuel your discussion with the board in Abu Dhabi. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/about-the-fy18-board-activities-priorities See you soon! Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

CCWG Accountability Co-Chair
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 25, 2017

Oct. 25, 2017

As you are aware, Leon as the incoming Board member will no longer be able to act as Co-Chair of the CCWG-Accountability. The ALAC has considered its options related to whether to appoint a replacement, given that the CCWG is expected to finish its work in the coming (approximately) six months, and if so, who to appoint. It was agreed that the ALAC should appoint a replacement. In considering its options, there was a strong consensus that the person appointed must have been an active participant in the CCWG process to date. I am delighted to announce that the ALAC has appointed Tijani Ben Jemaa to replace Leon Sanchez as the ALAC-appointed Co-Chair of the CCWG-Accountability, effective the end of the ICANN60 meeting in Abu Dhabi. Alan

6 7

Discussion of Subsequent Procedures - New gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2017

Oct. 24, 2017

On Saturday morning, there will be a discussion of several aspects of future availability of new gTLDs. Once of the topics to be covered are Closed Generics. I will be the presenter on this subject and a draft or the presentation to be used is attached. Alan

1 0

DNS WOMEN COCKTAIL - you are invited ! Pleas join us at this already traditional cocktail!
by Vanda Scartezini Oct. 24, 2017

Oct. 24, 2017

[cid:FC3F24C9-A1CB-47E1-969B-03C426A38B59] 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.

1 0

ICANN Evolution session in Abu Dhabi
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Oct. 21, 2017

Oct. 21, 2017

FYI -- see information below for ALAC & Regional Leaders Session Part 5 on Saturday 28th October, 17:00 - 18:30 Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ICANN-Evo] ICANN Evolution session in Abu Dhabi Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:57:29 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: IANA Issues WG <iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear colleagues, several work streams of the CCWG Accountability are meeting in Abu Dhabi on the day prior to the start of the ICANN meeting. This means that there will be quite a few updates to cover during the face to face meeting of our ICANN Evolution working group. We plan to follow an agenda that will reflect our regular agenda, that is, to go through each of the work streams, receive an update from participants that have attended the work day and then open the floor for discussion, leading to action items, if needed. At this stage, may I please ask for volunteers to step forward to take us through work streams? The work streams are (as cut/pasted from the last call agenda). a. Human Rights <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Human+Rights> b. Transparency <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Transparency> c. Jurisdiction <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction> d. Guidelines for Good Faith <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Guidelines+for+Good+Faith+Conduct> e. SO/AC Accountability <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643284> f. Diversity <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Diversity> g. Ombudsman <https://community.icann.org/x/lhWOAw> h. Reviewing the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=59643292> i. Staff Accountability <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Staff+Accountability> j. IRP "Phase 2" - (if needed) k. ATRT2 Please be so kind to also flag which of the work streams we should be focussing on, in your opinion. Please also let us know which ones are now complete. Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0