- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Empowered Community Action to appoint new directors
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2017

Sept. 3, 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 Deutch 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 2018. Alan

1 0

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

Sept. 3, 2017

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" <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. 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" <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, < 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 â€‹Holly is exactly right. At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources Â-- notably in those who have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such matters and write cogent, relevant responses.â€‹ 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: bikeshedding <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/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 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)

2 2

Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 2, 2017

Sept. 2, 2017

On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, <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 > > Holly is exactly right. At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources -- notably in those who have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such matters and write cogent, relevant responses. 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: bikeshedding <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/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

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 2, 2017

Sept. 2, 2017

Seun, I will note that there is a page of upcoming public comments - 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 > > >âHolly is exactly right. > >At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources >Â-- notably in those who have the time, skills >and background necessary to analyze such matters >and write cogent, relevant responses.â > >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

Re: [ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 2, 2017

Sept. 2, 2017

Evan, as you say, it is responsibility of staff to alert us to available comments, we should only reply if we think there is merit. To a large extent, I think we are doing a reasonable job, although there is still room for improvement. These days, we rarely issue an ALAC comment just because one person has a personal stake or view on the issue, and we less often issue a "rah-rah great job" comments. During the review, it was suggested that we have "standards" and although we implicitly have imposed some, perhaps it is time to put them into words. Things that come to mind are: - Is there a significant impact on users? - Is there a significant impact on ICANN as a viable organization? - Do we have something to say that should or may alter the outcomes? Your reference to the Re-opened PDP on Red Cross names is worth a comment. Although I will not necessarily attribute the same causes to it as you do, we do have various parties arguing the fine (and not so fine) points of international accords and local laws. I don't recall if you were on the call where I intervened (I think the 2nd one). Someone, perhaps the Chair had said that we must establish policy in accordance with the applicable laws. I said (perhaps in only slightly different words) that this was hogwash (for non-English speakers http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hogwash, http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hogwash, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hogwash) Much of the gTLD policy that ICANN sets is a compromise based on special interests. Rarely is "law involved" and although we should not set policy that is clearly illegal, the basis in law is almost never considered (if it were we would be more sensitive to privacy issues). The answer was: true, but the GNSO Council will want to verify that we have good reason for making recommendations. I didn't bother answering, and although I am not known for being quiet on ICANN calls, I have not been very active since. SO yes, we need to pick our battles, and to a large extent, I think we are getting reasonably good at it. Alan At 02/09/2017 12:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch 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 > > >âHolly is exactly right. > >At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources >Â-- notably in those who have the time, skills >and background necessary to analyze such matters >and write cogent, relevant responses.â > >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

1 0

Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

The GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has decided to initiate a Work Track on the use geographic names at the top level, and the ALAC, along with the GNSO, ccNSO and GAC, has been invited to participate. As a first step, co-leaders are being requested and as you know from http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html, the ALAC is seeking someone to take on this role on behalf of the ALAC. The co-leaders, once selected, will work with the PDP WG Co-Chairs to establish the further procedures and the full terms of reference will likely be established by the WT itself However, it is envisaged that this new Work Track will operate with procedures comparable to a CCWG. If this is indeed what happens, the Work Track, unlike most GNSO PDP efforts, may include: - Members formally appointed by the AC/SOs; - Participants; - A decision process wherein Members only may take part (used only if necessary) - The . The ALAC needs to decide how it will participate, and the criteria for selecting Members (presuming this is the path chosen). The first part, I think, is relatively simple. I believe the ALAC should agree to be a full participant with the understanding that we agree to the terms of reference, and that we are not bound by the outcomes until and unless we ratify them at the conclusion of WT5 work. The selection of Members (if there are any) is more complex. Normally, we are allotted five Members and I would expect that to be the case here. We typically solicit volunteers and the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee makes recommendations to the ALAC, with the expectation is that there be one candidate per region. This situation is more challenging in that the ALAC and At-Large may have a variety of positions ranging from: - National or local governments should have absolute control over the use of their names (or other geographic identifiers); to - We have many examples of the use of geographic names in existing domains and there is no evidence of harm, so we should allow a very liberal use of geographic names in the new TLDs. - In between, there are views that there should be a mechanism to arbitrate when there are different parties seeking a name, or a process like the Trademark Clearinghouse where parties can register their "interest" in a name. It is therefore really important to understand the variety of views and make sure that our delegation to the WT represents all of these. In order to do this, I think we need a discussion of what positions are held. This is NOT an opportunity to agree or disagree with positions presented, but to simply understand how views vary within At-Large. I would like to open the discussion on this list to start with, and once we have a good idea of ideas, to validate them with the wider At-Large Community. With this mail, I am soliciting input on three questions: 1. Do you agree with my proposal on the conditions for participating or if not, what do you propose instead? 2. Assuming we will be asked to appoint Members, should we try to balance their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice on the WT? This *might* mean we end up balancing views and not have all five regions represented. 3. What are your views on how to address the use of geographic names in Top Level Domains? Alan

14 23

Re: [ALAC] Call for Volunteers: Co-Leader for WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2017

Aug. 29, 2017

This Call is being re-opened and extended until 15:59 UTC on Wednesday, 30 August 2017. Alan Greenberg At 23/08/2017 12:36 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is >establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) which will focus exclusively >on geographic names at the top-level. This has been a very >contentious issue with a wide variety of difficult-to-reconcile >positions, but one that must be resolved prior to any future new >gTLD availability. > >In order to promote broad participation from across the community, >the WG is seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5 with >co-leaders from the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. > >Past efforts in this area have included a ccNSO Study Group and a >Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of country names as >Top Level Domains (TLDs). (See >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm and >https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm.) > >We are looking for a person who is well acquainted with the multiple >views on the subject within ICANN, has knowledge of and preferably >experience in the past efforts, and who can work closely with the >ALAC and an At-Large WG supporting the effort. > >We note that to a large extent, the person serving in this capacity >is a facilitator for the Work Track and not there to put forward >their personal positions. > >Interested candidates should send an Expression of Interest >detailing their experience and willingness to serve in all aspects >of this role to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org no later than 23:59 UTC on >Monday, 28 August 2017. > >The ALAC will also be looking for volunteers to participate in the >WT5 once it is established, but this Call for Volunteers is >exclusively for the position of Co-Leader. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2017

Aug. 28, 2017

Evan, regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong", it looks like this group will exist so the question is whether we want to be present or not. It is not yet clear how other groups and particularly the GAC will react, but we need to make a decision for ourselves. If it is the wish of the ALAC that we sit this one out, that would not have MY support, but then, my support is not needed for such a decision. Alan At 27/08/2017 03:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Personally, I see this all as just laying down >and letting the process run over us. Yet once >more At-Large is driven to be reactive to >industry whims rather than proactive of the >interests of the Internet-using community who we exist to serve (1). > >Here we are, getting into the details of what >subsequent rounds will be like, while there are >significant pockets of opinion that that no >expansion AT ALL proceed until sufficient study >has been done of the benefits/harms of previous rounds. > >âIndeed, the feedback received from such >research might have direct impact on issues such >as geographic names, so IMO this WG is FAR FAR >premature. The industry compact of domain >sellers and speculative buyers -- the >overwhelming beneficiaries of the expansion(2) >-- is driving this to happen through the GNSO, >and ALAC is one of the few voices that even has >the ICANN-given mandate to slow it down and have it done right (if at all). > >That something as significant as the >subsequent-round process is GNSO driven and not >a full CCWG is cause for concern. Obviously too >few lessons have been learned from the debacles of the past. > >So At-Large is back in reaction mode just like >we were the first time. Likewise, that the GAC >is "invited to participate" in the discussion of >geo names, rather than itself be the driver, is >an indictment of ICANN's process. The result of >this mess is a continuation (and perhaps >escalation) of the kind of problems that exist >with Amazon and the Red Cross, a continued >erosion of trust in ICANN's stewardship of >domains, and a further undermining of multistakeholderism in general. > >I would consider unacceptable any participation >in such a WG without explicit disclaimer that >its work -- as that of the other WGs involved in >this PDP -- cannot be considered finished until >a substantial review of the previous round has >taken place and that the results of any such >review be integrated in the WGs' outcomes. > >(1) It is most tempting here to use the term >"public interest", but I prefer not to re-enter that hurricane >(2) To be honest, ICANN itself is a beneficiary >of the expansion, as it is now financially dependent on maximizing domain sales > >- Evan

2 1

Review of WG Web and Wiki pages
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 27, 2017

Aug. 27, 2017

As I mentioned during the last ALAC meeting while discussing the At-Large Review Recommendation 7 on the Working Groups, I have asked our support staff to begin a review of all of the web and wiki pages associated with WGs, SCs, etc. with an aim to: - updating (and if appropriate correcting) the information; - using standardized formats where appropriate; - making it clearer to those looking at the pages what the groups do and which groups are open for membership. Evin Erdogdu has been asked to do this work, overseen by Heidi and me. As a result, over the coming weeks, you can expect to see these pages updated, and if you are leading any of these groups, you may be contacted by Evin to answer questions she has or provide information needed to improve our online presence. Please give Evin your full cooperation. We will from time to time provide updates on how the work is progressing. Alan

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Co-Leader for WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

The GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is establishing a new Work Track 5 (WT5) which will focus exclusively on geographic names at the top-level. This has been a very contentious issue with a wide variety of difficult-to-reconcile positions, but one that must be resolved prior to any future new gTLD availability. In order to promote broad participation from across the community, the WG is seeking to establish a shared leadership model in WT5 with co-leaders from the ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO. Past efforts in this area have included a ccNSO Study Group and a Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) on the use of country names as Top Level Domains (TLDs). (See https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unctwg.htm and https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm.) We are looking for a person who is well acquainted with the multiple views on the subject within ICANN, has knowledge of and preferably experience in the past efforts, and who can work closely with the ALAC and an At-Large WG supporting the effort. We note that to a large extent, the person serving in this capacity is a facilitator for the Work Track and not there to put forward their personal positions. Interested candidates should send an Expression of Interest detailing their experience and willingness to serve in all aspects of this role to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org no later than 23:59 UTC on Monday, 28 August 2017. The ALAC will also be looking for volunteers to participate in the WT5 once it is established, but this Call for Volunteers is exclusively for the position of Co-Leader. Alan Greenberg Chair, ALAC

1 0