- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Call for Volunteers ALAC Liaison to the SSAC
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2017

Sept. 11, 2017

The current Liaison to the SSAC, Julie Hammer, is stepping down and the ALAC is soliciting volunteers as possible replacements. The ALAC Liaison to the SSAC is a full SSAC member and as such, the ALAC will only suggest possible candidates to the SSAC, subject to their decision to admit the person in accordance with their own rules and processes. Among the characteristics to be considered by the ALAC in considering possible volunteers are: - Technical knowledge of the Internet and DNS; - Knowledge of and prior experience with security and stability issues. - Knowledge of the ALAC and the ability to consult with and speak on its behalf; - Maturity, good judgement and diplomacy. - Willingness to act as the ALAC Liaison in addition to SSAC internal responsibilities Prospective volunteers are encouraged to review: - SSAC overview at <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac. - SSAC Introduction pointed to in above page. - SSAC Operational Procedures pointed to in above page, with a specific focus on section 2.3 on New Member Selection. - SSAC Reports at <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents Process to be followed: - from among the volunteers, one preferred candidate will be selected by the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (AASC) with the assistance of Julie, subject to ratification by the ALAC. Alternate candidates may also be selected. An interview may be included as part of the selection process. - The SSAC will be informed of the selection and the preferred candidates will formally apply to the SSAC as per SSAC operational procedures. - If the SSAC accepts the preferred candidate, that person will be designated the ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. - If the SSAC does not accept the preferred candidate, either a backup candidate may be presented to the ALAC for ratification and will formally apply to the SSAC as per SSAC operational procedures, or the call for volunteers may be reopened. As the process within SSAC is quite a substantial one and must be scheduled after other applications already in process, the date by which the appointment will be concluded cannot be determined, but it is hoped that the entire process will be completed before the end of 2017. Expressions of Interest addressing the characteristics above should be submitted to At-Large Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> no later than 23:59 on Tuesday, 26 September 2017. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Why aren't more At-Largers involved in PDPs? (was: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2017

Sept. 8, 2017

Evan, there is a lot of truth in what you say (although I am far less sure that your 3-part formula is the answer). But I return to the original question of Community gTLD Applications. If this is an important issue to us (and it does seem to be), how can we get more involvement in the issue so the outcomes have a higher chance of meeting what we believe is needed? Alan At 07/09/2017 02:54 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 6 September 2017 at 23:43, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >*IF* this matter is really important, it is >problematic that so few people are participating in the PDP. > > >âOf course it is problematic. It is also >completely predictable and understandable and >always has been; it is has been a built-in ICANN >process design to handicap our efforts. > >At-Large, by definition, is here to represent >the interests of end-users. Its membership does >not have domain buying or selling as primary >livelihoods (if they are they really ought not >to be here as their interests are being >represented elsewhere in the ICANN ecosystem). >As a result, most participants here have day >jobs and Other Things To Do. To them, Internet >governance is a sideline, an interest, maybe >even a passion. But they are at a MASSIVE >disadvantage compared to those for whom ICANN >awareness and manipulation is a job. ICANN >processes are heavily biased in favour of those >who commit their lives, and against the typical >ALS or individual member. This is fine for the >paid staff, consultants and academics for whom >involvement in ICANN and Internet governance >pays their rent. The rest of us, not so good. > >Look at the time consumption of even the most >trivial PDP. High-level issues are shunted aside >while trivial details and definitions consume >person-hours by the hundreds. A WG that Alan and >I now attend regarding the process for >allocating ICANN auction funds has been spending >weeks on the definition of "what is an open >Internet". In my decades of public service, >ICANN's rate of >accomplishment-per-volunteer-hour is massively >less than anything else I have done in my life. > >So it's no wonder At-Large participation in WGs >is so rare. The number of people able to cope >with the time commitment, the many other >barriers (no language interpretation!!), small >groups of aggressive speakers who dominate the >debates and shut down dissent through derision >and legalese. WGs usually meet at ICANN >meetings, putting those who don't travel to them >at a disadvantage. It can easily be >overwhelming, especially when it so often leads >to our not being heard anyway unless we agree with the pack. > >Let's please be honest. At any given time, the >number of people in At-Large who can cope with >all this, and put in the heroic levels of >commitment of folks like Alan, usually requires >only one hand to count. Most others have three >choices when a PDP (or similar WG) offer arises: > * Have a substantially diminished personal > life for the duration of the PDP to do it > right, in a way that may well impact their actual income-producing work > * Be involved in the PDP at a reduced rate, > but then eventually get lost by falling behind > * Sit it out, and get involved instead in > outreach or infrastructure (still challenging, > but not on the scale -- or with the hostility -- of the policy work) >Compounding the problem is that PDPs are >commissioned by the GNSO with few exceptions, >and if the WG is not designated as cross >community (rare), At-Large's ability to frame >the topics and counter the agenda of a >determined and unified domain industry is ... weak. > >There are some steps that may be taken to improve the situation: > * Dedicate At-Large staff to policy > development support to assist those At-Large people who choose to get involved > * Deal with responses at a higher level so > that our people can make informed input without > having to be involved in every step of the inevitable minutiae > * Create an annual strategic plan for policy > to highlight the areas of concern, and stick > faithfully to only participate in, and respond > to, process that impact those areas >Without these steps (and maybe even with them) >our volunteer resources simply are not able to >match the involvement and relentlessness of the domain industry communities. > >The answer is not to scare off newcomers or burn >out veterans. Rather, At-Large must recognize >the limitations with which we must work in >policy development, and develop creative ways >within the ICANN bylaws to make our voice most >effective given who we are and what we are able to do. > >Cheers,. > >- Evan

3 2

Why aren't more At-Largers involved in PDPs? (was: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

On 6 September 2017 at 23:43, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > *IF* this matter is really important, it is problematic that so few people > are participating in the PDP. > Of course it is problematic. It is also completely predictable and understandable and always has been; it is has been a built-in ICANN process design to handicap our efforts. At-Large, by definition, is here to represent the interests of end-users. Its membership does not have domain buying or selling as primary livelihoods (if they are they really ought not to be here as their interests are being represented elsewhere in the ICANN ecosystem). As a result, most participants here have day jobs and Other Things To Do. To them, Internet governance is a sideline, an interest, maybe even a passion. But they are at a MASSIVE disadvantage compared to those for whom ICANN awareness and manipulation is a job. ICANN processes are heavily biased in favour of those who commit their lives, and against the typical ALS or individual member. This is fine for the paid staff, consultants and academics for whom involvement in ICANN and Internet governance pays their rent. The rest of us, not so good. Look at the time consumption of even the most trivial PDP. High-level issues are shunted aside while trivial details and definitions consume person-hours by the hundreds. A WG that Alan and I now attend regarding the process for allocating ICANN auction funds has been spending weeks on the definition of "what is an open Internet". In my decades of public service, ICANN's rate of accomplishment-per-volunteer-hour is massively less than anything else I have done in my life. So it's no wonder At-Large participation in WGs is so rare. The number of people able to cope with the time commitment, the many other barriers (no language interpretation!!), small groups of aggressive speakers who dominate the debates and shut down dissent through derision and legalese. WGs usually meet at ICANN meetings, putting those who don't travel to them at a disadvantage. It can easily be overwhelming, especially when it so often leads to our not being heard anyway unless we agree with the pack. Let's please be honest. At any given time, the number of people in At-Large who can cope with all this, and put in the heroic levels of commitment of folks like Alan, usually requires only one hand to count. Most others have three choices when a PDP (or similar WG) offer arises: - Have a substantially diminished personal life for the duration of the PDP to do it right, in a way that may well impact their actual income-producing work - Be involved in the PDP at a reduced rate, but then eventually get lost by falling behind - Sit it out, and get involved instead in outreach or infrastructure (still challenging, but not on the scale -- or with the hostility -- of the policy work) Compounding the problem is that PDPs are commissioned by the GNSO with few exceptions, and if the WG is not designated as cross community (rare), At-Large's ability to frame the topics and counter the agenda of a determined and unified domain industry is ... weak. There are some steps that may be taken to improve the situation: - Dedicate At-Large staff to policy development support to assist those At-Large people who choose to get involved - Deal with responses at a higher level so that our people can make informed input without having to be involved in every step of the inevitable minutiae - Create an annual strategic plan for policy to highlight the areas of concern, and stick faithfully to only participate in, and respond to, process that impact those areas Without these steps (and maybe even with them) our volunteer resources simply are not able to match the involvement and relentlessness of the domain industry communities. The answer is not to scare off newcomers or burn out veterans. Rather, At-Large must recognize the limitations with which we must work in policy development, and develop creative ways within the ICANN bylaws to make our voice most effective given who we are and what we are able to do. Cheers,. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Going beyond ICANN mission? (Was Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Thanks for raising this Seun. I am not sure that characterizing my position as wanting to go beyond ICANN's mission" is quite accurate. The issue of the mission (in regard to the auction funds) comes out of a dual need: a) to "support" ICANN's Mission and Core values, and b) to protect ICANN's non-profit status. Since the original auction fund was conceived, we of course have significantly altered the words describing ICANN's mission and core values. That may be for the good or bad depending on how you view things, but it is unlikely that we will roll that change back and equally unlikely that the entire community could be convinced to alter the Bylaws explicitly for wider use of the auction funds. So we are constrained. But I think it is really important that we use the mission and core values as a constraint, and not the driving objective. We are talking about well over #200,000,000 (exactly how much will depend on how long the funds last, because there will be growth along the way). This is a one time opportunity to do some real good, and I would like to help ensure that we have as much flexibility as absolutely possible. Among the original uses that were described in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook was: "include formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds to projects that are of interest to the greater Internet community". My hope is that we can get as close to that as possible, and interpret the various parts of the mission and core values to give us the utmost possible flexibility. We do not want to endanger ICANN, but we also do not want to squander the money. If we ONLY do things that are strictly within ICANN's scope in how it uses its operational funds, then we may as well just roll the money into the ICANN operational budget. We need to be innovative. My classic example is Internet Exchange Points. They are not what I would consider something that is strictly within ICANN's mission. But they are very important to parts of our community including ISPs and the RIRs (the second N in ICANN). And they even (typically) require Autonomous System Numbers, one of the unique identifiers that we are here for. And they create great benefit for the "greater Internet community", and perhaps even more important, they help strenghten the relatively weak infrastructure in places not necessarily well served by the Internet. More specifically, I want the CCWG to leave the door as wide open as possible while meeting the Board's concerns, to allow project requesters to be innovative in creating viable links from their projects to the constraints that we must meet. I hope this helps. Alan At 06/09/2017 03:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >There has been ongoing discussion in reaction to the attached letter >from the Board. The discussion has been around using the auction >funds for purpose beyond the ICANN mission. I was of the opinion >that her mission though has a scope was broad enough to ensure the >funds have a global reach as much as possible. >However I have also noticed some members (notably Alan) have the >view that the funds should be used beyond the ICANN mission scope. >While it's not important that we share same opinion I also don't >want to take lightly veterans view on this matter, perhaps am >missing something :-) > >Specifically, is there a disadvantage for At-Large if the auction >funds is used within ICANN mission that makes it so important for us >to support acting outside of the ICANN mission? > >The specific thread can be followed here: ><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht…>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht… > >I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation. > >Regards >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Erika Mann" <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com> >Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM >Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP >To: <<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >Cc: > >Dear All - > >herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. > >We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG >AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will >discuss the Board letter then for the first time. > >Best, >Erika > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Steve Crocker ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >To: Erika Mann <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com>, >Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika >Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Cc: Steve Crocker ><<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, >Marika Konings ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org>, >Icann-board ICANN ><<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria ><<mailto:avri@apc.org>avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" ><<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board >Operations ><<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally >Costerton ><<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org>sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, >Samantha Eisner ><<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, >Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>lauren.allison(a)icann.org> > > >Dear Erika and Ching, > >Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the >Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) >in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. > >On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in >our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. >Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a >letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. > >Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. > >Steve > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list ><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kAfTkegi2gCP9wBV7y1t2Pta3rBAyLtX29O/VKLY/8KH0/vdhnduKFRutXIrhL4AKhSA2l4FX5kvlUOCsuRWx8T5WWy7kRQENXkS34+CJnaUyZfMIpCArNreF3W32RNR >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

>Once created, this policy can/should take form >of Formal Advice to the Board, which is still >ALAC's primary (and only bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard. That is simply not the case. Relying on Advice to the Board on a matter being considered by a PDP is a recipe for disaster. Yes, when this review is completed we should comment. It is unlikely that we will not have something to say. And yes, if the ultimate policy decision in the PDP is not to our liking, we should say so, forcefully, to the Board. But if this matter is of importance to people, they should be involved in the discussion within the PDP where the policy will be drafted. Advice to the Board where we did not already provide strong input into the PDP is going to be a really hard sell. Alan At 05/09/2017 02:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Given that this issue (the way communities were >evaluated -- and in the view of At-Large, mostly >unfairly rejected) is big one for At-Large. why >is the review being done by outside consultants and not the community? > >I would like to flag this -- the treatment of >communities in the allocation of gTLDs -- as a >major At-Large issue should ICANN be foolish >enough to engage in more rounds. Perhaps it is >worth the effort of the community to draft a >comment, using the work of this Review and the >existing community efforts to engage in new >rounds of gTLD allocations, as a catalyst from >which we may draft a coherent high-level ALAC >policy on the issue. Once created, this policy >can/should take form of Formal Advice to the >Board, which is still ALAC's primary (and only >bylaw-mandated) channel to make itself heard. > >In a recent post I referred to the too-frequent >practice of being distracted by the trivial >while major issues of concern -- that are more >complex and difficult for reaching consensus -- >are bypassed. I would like to suggest that this >issue -- the treatment of communities -- become >one of the primary concerns of At-Large should >ICANN consider further namespace expansion. We >have a number of case studies -- .music, .gay, >.kids among them -- as clear communities that >were denied (or cheated, depending on opinion) >out of the ability to apply. The problem with >community evaluation also completely rendered >useless the Applicant Support Program that >At-Large and the GAC championed in the last round. > >I offer to help draft such a policy but I won't >do it alone. There must be broader desire within >the community for this than one person, should >this issue be given the weight of authority that >IMO it needs. But I am happy to coordinate and add what I can. > >- Evan > > > >On 5 September 2017 at 13:54, ICANN At-Large >Staff <<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > > ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFaQ…>[icann.org] > > > >News Alert > > > ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-09-01-en[icann.org] > >---------- > > >ICANN Provides Update on Review of the Community Priority Evaluation Process > > > >LOS ANGELES 1 September 2017 The Internet >Corporatiotion for Assigned Names and Numbers >(ICANN) today issued an ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>update[newgtlds.icann.org] >on the review of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process. > >Community Priority Evaluation is a method to >resolve string contention, described in full >detail in section 4.2 of the ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>Applicant >Guidebook (AGB)[newgtlds.icann.org]. The >evaluation determines if the community based >application qualifies to earn priority and >eliminate all non-community applicants in the >contention set as well as any other >non-prevailing community applicants. In CPE, the >application is evaluated against the following >four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus >between Proposed String and Community; >Registration Policies, and Community >Endorsement. The evaluations were conducted by >the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU >was selected for this role because it offers >premier business intelligence services, >providing political, economic, and public policy >analysis to businesses, governments, and organizations across the globe. > >At various times in the implementation of the >New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board has considered >aspects of CPE process, including certain >concerns that some applicants have raised >regarding the process. On ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>17 >September 2016[icann.org], the ICANN Board >directed the President and CEO, or his >designees, to undertake a review of the process >by which ICANN has interacted with the CPE >provider. In his ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_syste…>letter >of 26 April 2017 to concerned parties[icann.org] >[PDF, 405 KB], Chris Disspain, the Chair of the >Board Governance Committee, provided additional >information about the scope and status of the >review. Below is additional information about >the review, as well as the current status of the >CPE process review. On ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>2 >June 2017[newgtlds.icann.org], the ICANN >organization published an update on the Review. > >Below is the current status of the Review since the last update. > > >Current Status of the Review > > > >The ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>2 >June 2017 update[newgtlds.icann.org] made clear >that the Review is being conducted in two >parallel tracks by ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fticonsulting.com_&…>FTI >Consulting Inc.âs (FTI)[fticonsulting.com] >Global Risk and Investigations Practice (GRIP) >and Technology Practice. The work of the first >track, which focuses on gathering information >and materials from the ICANN organization, has >been completed. The work of the second track, >which focuses on gathering information and >materials from the CPE provider, is still >ongoing. The interview process of the CPE >provider personnel that had involvement in CPEs >has been completed. FTI is also working with the >CPE provider to obtain the reference materials >for the evaluations that are the subject of >pending ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>Reconsideration >Requests[icann.org]. The CPE provider has been >producing documents on a rolling basis. FTI is >currently evaluating whether the CPE >providerâs production is complete. Once the >underlying information and data collection is >complete, FTI anticipates that it will be able >to inform ICANN of its findings within two weeks. > >Recently, the ICANN Board and the ICANN >organization have received numerous inquiries >for documentation and information about the >Review. These inquiries have been and will >continue to be addressed through ICANNâs >Documentary Information Disclosure Policy >(DIDP), and are published on the DIDP page at ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en[icann.org]. > >The ICANN Board recognizes the desire by many to >conclude this Review and proceed with the >process. The ICANN Board also looks forward to >concluding the Review and proceeding as appropriate. > >For more information about the CPE process, >please visit ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe[newgtlds.icann.org]. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list ><mailto:ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > >At-Large Official Site: ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto, Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kXDHQ1axyti7GTscBY0i8r/IDsC3Ah7Fqjc3061mvZ+lYhOTkoh3+Vj1y2/WPigRMKhRXX51lGgIig6PaXXCj2ljsrtjUJl/FaaQEudVWv1aFqeqVSigjYffIrELwsdq >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); > >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Going beyond ICANN mission? (Was Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 2017

Parts extracted to keep things concise and my further comments. At 06/09/2017 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >On Sep 6, 2017 6:56 PM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >We do not want to endanger ICANN, but we also do not want to >squander the money. If we ONLY do things that are strictly within >ICANN's scope in how it uses its operational funds, then we may as >well just roll the money into the ICANN operational budget. We need >to be innovative. > > >SO: Hmm...we should not be very strict but at the same time we have >to be mindful of being within ICANN mission. The funds for instance >should not be used to digitize content of a museum library. I also >don't think the idea of staying within ICANN mission implies we >should put the funds into ICANN operational budget. There are many >many activities/projects within ICANN mission that their budget >doesn't cover and rolling back a one time amount into operational >budget isn't a good idea for not-for-profit. AG: My suggestion to put the funds into ICANN's operational budget was not serious, but I was trying to highlight that *IF* we were going to constrain too tightly, the net effect would be the same and a lot lest costly interms of this CCAG working for another year or so and then setting up or contracting for some operational entity to do the work. Even I would find it hard (or impossible) to justifying digitizing a library. Unless of course, it was the library associated with early IAN or related documentation. That is why we WILL have constraints and the applicants will have to make a strong connection to them. >My classic example is Internet Exchange Points. They are not what I >would consider something that is strictly within ICANN's mission. >But they are very important to parts of our community including ISPs >and the RIRs (the second N in ICANN). And they even (typically) >require Autonomous System Numbers, one of the unique identifiers >that we are here for. And they create great benefit for the "greater >Internet community", and perhaps even more important, they help >strenghten the relatively weak infrastructure in places not >necessarily well served by the Internet. > > >SO: IMO am not sure why you think IX probably falls outside of ICANN >mission. Espcially if it comes to capacity building and providing >relevant resources to get them more operational to ensure open >Internet because some IX does host registry copies. Section IV of >ICANN mission seem to allow that. That said, I don't think having >ICANN build an IX from scratch for instance should be within scope. AG: I wasn't saying *I* think that. But I have had the reaction from some that ANYTHING that smells of infrastructure is definitely off-limits. If everyone now playing in the sandbox thinks it is fine, I am delighted. I am not sure that providing the rather minimal capital cost of the equipment, when it is part of an overall program is off-limits, but it is certainly something that could be decided. >More specifically, I want the CCWG to leave the door as wide open as >possible while meeting the Board's concerns, to allow project >requesters to be innovative in creating viable links from their >projects to the constraints that we must meet. > > >SO: Okay so it seem we do not necessarily have a significantly >different view on this after all. AG: I don't think so. My concern is that there are some people in the group that REALLY want to constrain things, and while we may not go as liberal as I would prefer, I really want to make sure we do not end up in a position where we cannot make really good use of the funds. Alan >I hope this helps. > > >SO: Yes it does. > >Regards > >Alan > > > > >At 06/09/2017 03:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>There has been ongoing discussion in reaction to the attached >>letter from the Board. The discussion has been around using the >>auction funds for purpose beyond the ICANN mission. I was of the >>opinion that her mission though has a scope was broad enough to >>ensure the funds have a global reach as much as possible. >>However I have also noticed some members (notably Alan) have the >>view that the funds should be used beyond the ICANN mission scope. >>While it's not important that we share same opinion I also don't >>want to take lightly veterans view on this matter, perhaps am >>missing something :-) >> >>Specifically, is there a disadvantage for At-Large if the auction >>funds is used within ICANN mission that makes it so important for >>us to support acting outside of the ICANN mission? >> >>The specific thread can be followed here: >><http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht…>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht… >> >> >>I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation. >> >>Regards >>Sent from my mobile >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>From: "Erika Mann" <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com> >>Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM >>Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>To: <<mailto:ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org> ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> >>Cc: >> >>Dear All - >>herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. >>We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our >>CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we >>will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. >>Best, >>Erika >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>From: Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org> >>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> >>Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM >>Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP >>To: Erika Mann <<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>erika(a)erikamann.com>, >>Ching Chiao <<mailto:chiao@brandma.co>chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika >>Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org > >>Cc: Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve.crocker@board.icann.org> >>steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Marika Konings >><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org >, >>Icann-board ICANN >><<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria >><<mailto:avri@apc.org>avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" >><<mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com>sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com >, Board >>Operations >><<mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org >, Sally >>Costerton <<mailto:sally.costerton@icann.org> >>sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner >><<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, >>Lauren Allison <<mailto:lauren.allison@icann.org>lauren.allison(a)icann.org > >> >>Dear Erika and Ching, >> >>Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the >>Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds >>(CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. >> >>On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned >>in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original >>email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find >>attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and >>requested clarifications. >> >>Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. >> >>Steve >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list >><mailto:Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org>Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds >> >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Disposition: inline >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:kAfTkegi2gCP9wBV7y1t2Pta3rBAyLtX29O/VKLY/8KH0/vdhnduKFRutXIrhL4AKhSA2l4FX5kvlUOCsuRWx8T5WWy7kRQENXkS34+CJnaUyZfMIpCArNreF3W32RNR >>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >> >>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(750103)(520002050)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095); >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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

CORRECTION: Empowered Community Action to appoint new directors
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and following the announcement of the NomCom selections (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-09-01-en) I have notified the Empowered Community Administration that I support naming Avri Doria and Sarah Deutsch to sit on Seats 7 and 8 respectively of the ICANN Board for the term beginning at the conclusion of ICANN's Annual Meeting in 2017. Alan

2 2

Fwd: Re: SADAG Public Comment
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

I asked Olivier to look at whether we needed to comment on a recent study on DNS abuse (commissioned by the CCT-RT). His report followed and is an excellent example of what we should be doing to evaluate whether ALAC action is required. See https://community.icann.org/x/bRUhB. In this case, Olivier is recommending no comment, a recommendation I support. Alan >Subject: Re: SADAG Public Comment >To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, Alan >Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: 'At Large Staff' <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >From: Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 03:07:33 +0200 > > >Dear Ariel, >Dear Alan, > >thanks for your follow-up. I have read the SADAG >report and have found it very interesting. > >First thing, I was surprised to see that >.pharmacy was seen as community TLD. (p.2) but >then that's not the topic of the report. There >are a few other grammatical errors, but that's >no big deal either. What matters is the substance of the paper. > >It basically confirms our suspicions when we >spoke of misuse of TLDs and made our case >regarding sensitive strings. Alan will remember >this episode in Singapore when Alan, Evan and I >had a meeting with the NGPC and several members >of the GNSO - including contracted parties. What >we are seeing now is the proof of the pudding - that: > >"While legacy gTLDs collectively >had a spam-domains-per-10,000 rate of 56.9, in the last quarter of >2016, the new gTLDs experienced a rate of 526.6which is almostt >one order of magnitude higher. " > >The methodology and technical details of the >analysis are of good quality. The model which >they used to perform the crawl of the domain >name space appears to be thorough, thus I have >no reason to believe that the analysis would be flawed. > >Some of the report's findings show that some new >gTLDs are very affected by misuse/malware domains. >Gibraltar (surprise!) figures on the top of >Registrars with most malware domains. >Community gTLDs are less likely to be used for malware that standard gTLDs. >Cheaper domains appear to be more used for >malware - although the authors do writein their >conclusions: "It is not clear, however, if >pricing is the only factor driving high concentra- >tions of maliciously registered domains." > >But they do also say: > >"Our findings suggest that some new gTLDs have become >a growing target for malicious actors." (page 25) > >Well, nothing really new in this, but it >corroborates the work that ICANN has done, as >well as many other groups like the APWG. > >But at present, short of congratulating the >authors of the report and asking the CCT-RT to >take strong note of the report's finding, >including expressing the concern that we have >about the use of new gTLD for malware, I don't >see any other reason to write a Statement/Comment. >I asked Tatiana Tropina to also go through the >report. She did note that one thing was missing: >whether abuse correlates with semantic >properties of the gTLD names, e.g. some names >are more attractive to abuse because of the >words themselves. As the authors are explaining >that they are seeing some potential for further >work, it might be interesting to suggest this to them. > >Last, I note that there is a Webinar about the >topic: ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-31-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-08-31-en >I would encourage At-Large participants to >participate in the Webinar. Perhaps during that >Webinar should many At-Large participants express their concerns. > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier > > >On 01/09/2017 22:10, Ariel Liang wrote: >>Hello Olivier, >> >>Any update on this public comment? >><https://community.icann.org/x/bRUhB>https://community.icann.org/x/bRUhB >> >>Saw this action item has been checked but just >>want to reconfirm whether a statement will be needed or not. >> >>Thank you, >>Ariel

4 3

Going beyond ICANN mission? (Was Fwd: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP)
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Hello, There has been ongoing discussion in reaction to the attached letter from the Board. The discussion has been around using the auction funds for purpose beyond the ICANN mission. I was of the opinion that her mission though has a scope was broad enough to ensure the funds have a global reach as much as possible. However I have also noticed some members (notably Alan) have the view that the funds should be used beyond the ICANN mission scope. While it's not important that we share same opinion I also don't want to take lightly veterans view on this matter, perhaps am missing something :-) Specifically, is there a disadvantage for At-Large if the auction funds is used within ICANN mission that makes it so important for us to support acting outside of the ICANN mission? The specific thread can be followed here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-September/000470.ht… I like to read comments from folks here to better inform my participation. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Erika Mann" <erika(a)erikamann.com> Date: Sep 4, 2017 3:29 PM Subject: [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Fwd: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: <ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org> Cc: Dear All - herewith I'm forwarding Steve's reply to our letter. We will have a first exchange on Thursday this week, during our CCWG AP call. I send Steve already a quick reply, saying that we will discuss the Board letter then for the first time. Best, Erika ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org> Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:19 PM Subject: Board reply to CCWG-AP To: Erika Mann <erika(a)erikamann.com>, Ching Chiao <chiao(a)brandma.co>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)board.icann.org>, Marika Konings < marika.konings(a)icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board(a)icann.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)apc.org>, "Sarah B. Deutsch" <sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com>, Board Operations <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton < sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>, Lauren Allison <lauren.allison(a)icann.org> Dear Erika and Ching, Thank you for your letter received on May 22, 2017 on behalf of the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) in response to the Board email of March 2nd 2017. On behalf of the Board, I am delighted to see that we are aligned in our thinking regarding the points discussed in the original email. Specifically, in response to your letter, please find attached a letter including additional acknowledgements and requested clarifications. Thank you again for your efforts leading this work. Steve _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2017

Sept. 3, 2017

For comments directly related to WG where we have participants, it is not a problem, They ARE the resource we use to determine if a comment is needed and at times to bring others up to speed. It is for all of the other comments that can be more problematic. ALan At 02/09/2017 05:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Thanks for your response. I think one of the >challenges (which by the way I am also guilty >of) is the lack of significant active At-Large folks in those WGs. > >My question then was whether those active in it >can help flag the issues while staff develop >documents that provides background explanation >which then helps those who are not quite active >to have the opportunity to contribute which may >then serve as sufficient information to improve participation in the WGs. > >Regards > >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Sep 2, 2017 8:09 PM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Seun, I will note that there is a page of >upcoming public comments - ><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en. >Perhaps we have people who would be willing to >review that regularly and identify issues that we want staff to brief us on. > >And of course, it would be good if we had active >WGs on topics that we know are going to be in out view. > >Alan > > >At 02/09/2017 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Hello Evan, >> >>Thanks for this and for raising a point about >>what you think we should be focusing our >>resources upon. May I suggest you kindly >>provide references to the discussion you refer >>so that people like myself can also follow-up. >> >>I think we should consider a issue triggering >>approach to help focus our discussion and spur >>up interest. What I mean by this is that folks >>participating in certain working group >>discussion that find something they believe >>ALAC should weigh in on can flag/raise it and >>that can form discussion topics during ALAC >>calls and on the list. I think that approach >>worked well during the transition. >> >>That said, I wonder whether once someone raises >>an issue of importance, staff can be in a >>position to provide brief documentation that >>helps others have some background understanding >>of the issue in other to better contribute to >>the discussion. Overall we should not be >>waiting for PC before ALAC puts in position >>statements to WG and/or advice to the Board >> >>Regards >> >>Sent from my mobile >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >>On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" >><<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >>On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, >><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> >>I've had a look at all three, and am not sure >>they are of real importance to ALAC >> >> >>Ã¢â¹Holly is exactly right. >>At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources >>ÃÂ-- notably in those who have the time, >>skills and background necessary to analyze such >>matters and write cogent, relevant responses.Ã¢â¹ >> >>While it is wholly appropriate of staff to >>ensure that we don't accidentally miss >>anything, it is also incumbent upon At-Large >>(and especially its leadership) to show the >>discipline necessary to ignore that minutiae >>and concentrate on the larger picture of how >>ICANN actions impact end-users globally. We >>have not always succeeded in this discipline. >>In fact, yesterday a software developer friend >>of mine introduced me to a term I hadn't heard >>before, that IMO well describes ALAC's historic >>tendency to get caught up in the flurry of >>responding to ICANN's trivia and losing sight >>of the real bylaw-mandated purpose we are here >>to serve: <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding>bikeshedding . >>Right now I am involved in a GNSO working group >>in which domain industry representatives are >>insisting to pore over every word of the Geneva >>Convention to determine whether the Red Cross >>has the right to ask that its names not be in >>the pool of domains for sale in gTLDs. At least >>from an end-user standpoint this is absolutely >>absurd; we don't need this kind of time wastage >>for At-Large to tell the Board and community of >>ICANN that enabling commercial (ab)use of Red >>Cross/Crescent/Diamond/etc domain names is morally repugnant. >>Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most >>reliably emerges any time the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst. >>Industry advocates paid to divert stakeholders >>from the big picture have created an ICANN >>process designed to distract and waste >>resources from those of us without the >>financial incentive or means to keep up. >>This is bikeshedding by design. Resist. >>Cheers, >>Evan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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