- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] IO recommends .amazon reconsideration
by Carlton Samuels July 19, 2017

July 19, 2017

Yes mam, this is indeed the key strategic implication from the IRP. In my own view however, ALAC [re]action may be premature for objective. Recent developments, especially this empowered community model, has already undermined the "GAC advises, Board follows" scheme. I see this IRP decision as adding grist to the mill in any downstream federal court action. If and when a federal district court makes that pronouncement, then stick a fork in it. It is roasted. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jacqueline Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > wrote: > But to me, far more important in the long term is the very clear rejection > of "the GAC advises, the Board follows" model. The ruling has chipped away > at the power of the GAC "advice" , and may change the dynamic of the > stakeholder roles in ICANN. > Might this be an opportunity for At-Large to work towards balancing the > roles of the ACs? Given that the relationship with the Board is different > for the various ACs, based on the bye-laws. > Jacqueline > > On 18 Jul 2017 11:38, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The IRP decision: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-amazon-final >> -declaration-11jul17-en.pdf >> >> Dev Anand >> >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Carlton Samuels >> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Adds to the kerfuffle surrounding geographic names in the DNS. >> > >> > http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big- >> win-domain-battle-may-yet-get-amazon-domain/ >> > >> > >> > -Carlton >> > >> > ============================== >> > Carlton A Samuels >> > Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >> > ============================= >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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+Advisor >> y+Committee+(ALAC) >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> >

1 0

IO recommends .amazon reconsideration
by Carlton Samuels July 18, 2017

July 18, 2017

Adds to the kerfuffle surrounding geographic names in the DNS. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/07/18/amazon-com-gets-big-win-domain-battle-… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

Fwd: [CCT-Review] ICANN59: Blog Post
by Carlton Samuels July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

Please see the blog post which succinctly outlines the CCT RT's work at ICANN59. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:15 AM Subject: [CCT-Review] ICANN59: Blog Post To: Jordyn Buchanan via CCT-Review <cct-review(a)icann.org> Dear CCTRT Members, The following blog post was published today to provide the community with an update on the CCTRT face-to-face meeting in Johannesburg and the next steps of the review team https://www.icann.org/news/ blog/new-gtlds-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer- choice-review-team-icann-59-update-next-steps. We encourage you to spread the word. Thanks! Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste _______________________________________________ CCT-Review mailing list CCT-Review(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cct-review

1 0

ALAC Decision on Fundamental Bylaw Change
by Alan Greenberg July 14, 2017

July 14, 2017

The ICANN Board has requested Empowered Community approval for a change to an ICANN Fundamental Bylaw as documented at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en. The change creates a new Board Committee (Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee - BAMC) and assigns responsibilities associated with ICANN Accountability Mechanisms to it. Following the Community Forum on the change held during the Johannesburg meeting, we have 21 day following the close of the meeting during which we may approve or reject the Bylaw change. For the change to take effect, at least three of the five Empowered Community Members (GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, ALAC, GAC) must approve the change and no more than one may reject the change. The ALAC comment said that we would have appreciated more detail in the charter (which is pointed to by the link above). The response was only that this would be done by the Board in due time. At the Community Forum, I made it clear that this answer was not an encouraging one. The Board member representing the Board, Chris Disspain agreed that the staff reply was not good. That being said, I beleive that the Charter that was provided does give sufficient information to allow me to feel comfortable in recommending that the ALAC approve the Bylaw change. During discussion in Johannesburg, Sebastien raised the issue of why it was essential to make this change now, and not to wait until the CCwG Accountability had completed. During the Community Forum in Johannesburg, the rational was described in some detail. The core of it being that the current committee had a lot on its plate, and the Accountability actions were diverting it from its core work. Moreover, there is little dependency on other CCWG activities, so there is not a lot of linkage. Moreover, although not the reason for acting now, but an added benefit is the ability to "test" the Empowered Community processes on an issue that is not as onerous as some of the powers. With this message, I am requesting that Staff initiate, a BigPulse vote of the ALAC on the motion below. The vote should start as soon as possible and must end no later that 12:00 UTC on 20 July 2017. To pass, in accordance with ALAC RoP 24.1, the motion must receive the support of at least 10 ALAC Members. Motion: Whereas: - The ICANN Board has proposed a revision to the ICANN Fundamental Bylaws; - As prescribed by the ICANN Bylaws on the Empowered Community, the revision was discussed at a Community Forum held in Johannesburg on 26 June 2017 Therefore: - The ALAC wishes to exercise its power as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community by supporting the Fundamental Bylaw revision creating the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee.

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Criteria/Selection for Additional Travel Slots to ICANN50.
by Alan Greenberg July 14, 2017

July 14, 2017

Thanks Satish. At 10/07/2017 09:14 PM, Satish Babu wrote: >Hi Alan, > >I'll represent APRALO in this group. > > > > > > >satish > > >On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >As discussed in Johannesburg, The ALAC has requested additional >revel slots to be used for "At-Large workers who are active >participants in At-Large and other ICANN policy activities". > >We were allocated two such slots as a pilot program for FY18 >starting at ICANN60. > >To use these slots, we must establish criteria to be met. > >As we must decide on who is attending this before the end of July, >time is tight. > >I am requesting a small group, one person per RALO to be created to >work with the ALT to develop criteria and recommend participants to >the ALAC. My strong preference is that the RALO representative be >the current or incoming RALO Chair. > >Whoever is selected must be available to work over the next few >weeks. It is not expected to be a heavy workload, but the timing is tight. > >With this message, I am asking each RALO Chair to identify who will >participate from their RALOs, with a deadline of no later than >Friday, preferably earlier. > >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… >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - survey charter questions #4 and #7 now live
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

No, not really, since the fact that the Auctions funds came from gTLD auctions is really peripheral to how the funds will be used, which is the subject og the CCWG. The funds could well have come from selling lollipops and the questions in the CCWG would be largely the same. Alan At 13/07/2017 10:43 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Wouldn't the gTLD WG be fit for this since its dealing with processes >related to gTLD auctions? > >Dev Anand > >On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > At the moment, we have little choice but to respond on our own behalf, but > > with whatever knowledge is available about other At-Large opinions. > > > > We really need to convene a support group for this though! > > > > Alan > > > > At 06/07/2017 04:15 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I just responded to one of these forms then it occurred to me that I > > probably should have consulted to know how we intend to go about this since > > am participating as a member. > > > > So @Chair how do we go about responding to the questions? Should each > > member/participant go ahead independently or does ALAC intend to agree on > > default set of response? > > > > Regards > > > > Sent from my mobile > > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > > On Jul 6, 2017 8:13 AM, "Marika Konings" <marika.konings(a)icann.org > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > The surveys for charter question #4 and #7 are now live. Thank you for the > > input received Ã¢â some updates have been > made as a result. Please respond > > to the survey by Wednesday 12 July at 18.00 UTC at the latest. > > > > Survey Charter Question #4: > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4 Survey Charter Question #7: > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Marika > > > > > > > > Marika Konings > > > > Vice President, Policy Development Support > GNSO, Internet Corpooration for > > Assigneed Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > > > > > > Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting > > the GNSO Newcomer pages. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list > > 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:ZNFQPdjB4oe/ZcURoduuTT5gbMtBc4N4I0ShrHGNrPGa9H35H5hINVYMriWA8RS0rekDtdTfv82Y9v3nV6RRiOjrNQPEt1UVgl7rXYJHZ6hSyVCwVItlDAi+bzE190BAHnvLsTSkNDdhDRWswRAVEQ== > > X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > > > > > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(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… > > ) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 1

Re: [ALAC] [Ccwg-auctionproceeds] Please participate - survey charter questions #4 and #7 now live
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

At the moment, we have little choice but to respond on our own behalf, but with whatever knowledge is available about other At-Large opinions. We really need to convene a support group for this though! Alan At 06/07/2017 04:15 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >I just responded to one of these forms then it >occurred to me that I probably should have >consulted to know how we intend to go about this >since am participating as a member. > >So @Chair how do we go about responding to the >questions? Should each member/participant go >ahead independently or does ALAC intend to agree on default set of response? > >Regards > >Sent from my mobile >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On Jul 6, 2017 8:13 AM, "Marika Konings" ><<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >The surveys for charter question #4 and #7 are >now live. Thank you for the input received â >some updates have been made as a result. Please >respond to the survey by Wednesday 12 July at 18.00 UTC at the latest. > > >Survey Charter Question #4: ><https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4>https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion4 > >Survey Charter Question #7: ><https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7>https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/charterquestion7 > > > >Thanks, > > > >Marika > > > >Marika Konings > >Vice President, Policy Development Support >GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigneed Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>marika.konings(a)icann.org > > > >Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO > >Find out more about the GNSO by taking our ><http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>interactive >courses and visiting the ><http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>GNSO >Newcomer pages. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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:ZNFQPdjB4oe/ZcURoduuTT5gbMtBc4N4I0ShrHGNrPGa9H35H5hINVYMriWA8RS0rekDtdTfv82Y9v3nV6RRiOjrNQPEt1UVgl7rXYJHZ6hSyVCwVItlDAi+bzE190BAHnvLsTSkNDdhDRWswRAVEQ== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > >ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(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 1

Re: [ALAC] WHOIS Element Usage for GDPR Analysis
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

Here is what I have come up with. From a simple "user" perspective, there are not an awful lot of situations when you need to do a WHOIS query. Far more for registrant. But I am sure I have missed some use cases. Please let me know what I am missing and what I have wrong. Alan At 12/07/2017 09:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >ICANN web page on these issues has gone live - >https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy. > >Alan > >At 12/07/2017 08:25 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>This is coming very late, but following Johannesburg I was swamped >>with non-ICANN issues and am trying to dig my way out. >> >>As was discussed at the meeting, ICANN has (finally) woken up and >>is addressing the GDPR. As I understand it, as part of this, ICANN >>needs to get expert legal opinion and present a case to European >>data commissioners. >> >>The first step is to identify how various parties use WHOIS data >>elements today. This is not an exercise in determining whether the >>particular elements are in fact "personal information" nor to >>determine if the usage is legitimate (under any particular rules). >>It is just to identify uses. >> >>I am looking at this from three different perspectives: >> >>1. User >> >>2. Individual registrant >> >>3. What I call user "tech support" - those of us who, for free or >>charge, help non-technical users and registrants solve their problems >> >>Attached you will find. >> >>A. Meeting notes from the introductory meeting held in Johannesburg >> >>B. A list of WHOIS elements >> >>C. Matrix Instructions >> >>D. Usage Matrix ("User Stories") to be filled in. >> >>I will send you what I have completed shortly. >> >>I must submit it by the end of Saturday, so time is short. >> >>Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] WHOIS Element Usage for GDPR Analysis
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

ICANN web page on these issues has gone live - https://www.icann.org/dataprotectionprivacy. Alan At 12/07/2017 08:25 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >This is coming very late, but following Johannesburg I was swamped >with non-ICANN issues and am trying to dig my way out. > >As was discussed at the meeting, ICANN has (finally) woken up and is >addressing the GDPR. As I understand it, as part of this, ICANN >needs to get expert legal opinion and present a case to European >data commissioners. > >The first step is to identify how various parties use WHOIS data >elements today. This is not an exercise in determining whether the >particular elements are in fact "personal information" nor to >determine if the usage is legitimate (under any particular rules). >It is just to identify uses. > >I am looking at this from three different perspectives: > >1. User > >2. Individual registrant > >3. What I call user "tech support" - those of us who, for free or >charge, help non-technical users and registrants solve their problems > >Attached you will find. > >A. Meeting notes from the introductory meeting held in Johannesburg > >B. A list of WHOIS elements > >C. Matrix Instructions > >D. Usage Matrix ("User Stories") to be filled in. > >I will send you what I have completed shortly. > >I must submit it by the end of Saturday, so time is short. > >Alan

1 0

WHOIS Element Usage for GDPR Analysis
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2017

July 13, 2017

This is coming very late, but following Johannesburg I was swamped with non-ICANN issues and am trying to dig my way out. As was discussed at the meeting, ICANN has (finally) woken up and is addressing the GDPR. As I understand it, as part of this, ICANN needs to get expert legal opinion and present a case to European data commissioners. The first step is to identify how various parties use WHOIS data elements today. This is not an exercise in determining whether the particular elements are in fact "personal information" nor to determine if the usage is legitimate (under any particular rules). It is just to identify uses. I am looking at this from three different perspectives: 1. User 2. Individual registrant 3. What I call user "tech support" - those of us who, for free or charge, help non-technical users and registrants solve their problems Attached you will find. A. Meeting notes from the introductory meeting held in Johannesburg B. A list of WHOIS elements C. Matrix Instructions D. Usage Matrix ("User Stories") to be filled in. I will send you what I have completed shortly. I must submit it by the end of Saturday, so time is short. Alan

1 0