- ALAC - lists.icann.org

PLEASE REVIEW: Comments on the FY18 Draft Operational Plan and Budget
by Alan Greenberg April 28, 2017

April 28, 2017

Please see https://community.icann.org/x/37XRAw for the two comments to be submitted (subject to final editing) to the Public Comment on the FY18 Operational Plan and Budget. The first one is our comment on the draft document. The original draft authored by Tijani has been posted for several days. It was modified based on comments received and the final contents were discussed during today's Finance and Budget Subcommittee meeting. There was one comment suggesting a stronger caveat to the approval of the extension of the CCWG Accountability budget to FY18 (there is no additional allocation but the change allows unspent FY17 funds to be carried over to FY18). At the ALT meeting today, the ALT discussed this suggestion and unanimously is recommending to the ALAC that the form of condition in the current version be unchanged (specifically that the CCWG monitor progress and ensure that there be no further such extensions). We are also submitting a second comment (again present in an earlier form from Tijani and discussed and agreed upon in the FBSC) will be submitted requesting travel funding for the GAC Liaison as well as for (as a pilot program) five additional traveller who are active workers in At-Large or other ICANN WGs. This is patterned after the At-Large Review analysis which correctly identified the need for such travellers (although we did not agree on how they made such slots available). The comment period closes at 23:59 today (Friday, 26 April 2017). IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR NOTICE ANY ERRORS, PLEASE LET US KNOW IN TIME FOR CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED AND MADE PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN as a 501(c)(3) Organisation
by Gbruen April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN as a 501(c)(3) Organisation
by Gbruen April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

4 3

Elise Gerich retiring
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

FYI Elise Gerich to Leave ICANN After Seven Years of Service - ICANN Blog by Akram Atallah https://www.icann.org/news/blog/elise-gerich-to-leave-icann-after-seven-yea… Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim

2 2

Statement on ICANN Transparency
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

The CCWG Accountability WS2 group on ICANN Transparency has issued a set of recommendation which were out for public comment. The ALAC is very late in providing its input (the official deadline was 10 April) but a draft comment is now posted at https://community.icann.org/x/9KXRAw. It is quite short and should not long to review. Please provide any comment on the wiki by Saturday, 22 April at 23:59 UTC. In particular, if ALAC Members feel that they will not be able to support this statement, please post an objection and rationale. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Elise Gerich retiring
by Seun Ojedeji April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

Wow! This is with mixed feelings for me. Apart from ICANN world, I will particularly miss her within the numbers (RIR) community. I look forward to bidding her farewell physically. Thanks for the share Rinalia. Regards On Apr 17, 2017 21:27, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: FYI *Elise Gerich to Leave ICANN After Seven Years of Service - ICANN Blog by Akram Atallah* https://www.icann.org/news/blog/elise-gerich-to-leave- icann-after-seven-years-of-service Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

1 0

Blog related to first empowered community action in ICANN
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 17, 2017

April 17, 2017

FYI https://www.icann.org/news/blog/the-chairman-s-blog-reconsideration-request… Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2017

April 13, 2017

Two things to keep in mind. - The Jo'burg meeting is over 2 1/2 months from now, and I may be naive, but I hope this will have been settled by then. - I could not attend the scheduling meeting this week, so perhaps Leon or someone else who attended can confirm, but the rules used to be that the group suggesting a topic had to take responsibility for organizing it (ie setting the detailed agenda, identifying the moderator and speakers , etc.) In the past several HIT topics have been cancelled not due to lack of interest, but the lack of anyone actually putting the session together. Alan At 06/04/2017 04:46 AM, you wrote: >Me too.. +1 > >On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: >+1 on this > >On 6 Apr 2017 7:55 a.m., "Andrei Kolesnikov" ><<mailto:andrei@rol.ru>andrei(a)rol.ru> wrote: > SSAC + ALAC + ccNSO over string confusability > (EPSRP) and roadmap to risk assessment > >--andrei > >2017-04-06 2:57 GMT+03:00 LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez >AmbÃa <<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>: >Dear all, > >in preparation for ICANN 59 please help us >submit high interest topics so we can add them >to the pool that will be discussed by the planning team. > >The deadline to submit topics is April 13 so we >would really appreciate receiving your >submissions on April 12 at the latest as we >still need to fill the corresponding forms. > >You will also find a draft block schedule of the >meeting so you can begin to have a taste of how our schedule will look like. > > >Best regards, > > >LeÃ³n > >>Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >> >>De: "Tanzanica S. King" >><<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >>Asunto: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form >>Fecha: 5 de abril de 2017, 10:35:33 GMT-5 >>Para: >>"<mailto:soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org" >><<mailto:soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org> >> >>Dear Community Leaders: >> >>As discussed, please find a document attached >>with links to submit your topic proposals as >>well as a copy of our latest block schedule. >> >>Also, I thought it would be helpful to provide >>this group with the definition of outreach >>created by the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). >> >>Outreach Activities are defined as activities >>conducted by SO/AC groups or cross-community >>groups with the intention of increasing >>awareness and interest in ICANN with >>individuals and organizations outside of the ICANN community. >> >>â These activities are consistent with >>ICANNâs function and mission. In ICANNâs >>global multistakeholder model, policy is >>developed in a bottom-up fashion, a process >>that is enhanced and strengthened by reaching >>out to external communities, educating them >>about ICANN and encouraging them to participate if they wish. >> >>Outreach takes many forms; Fellowships, >>NextGen, Newcomerâs Day, Tech Day, DNSSEC >>Workshops, OCTO Trainings, Regional Engagement, and more. >> >>Thanks again for your participation on todayâs call. >> >>Best regards, >>Tanzanica >> >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>Tanzanica S. King >>Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >>ICANN >> >>Office <tel:+1%20310-301-5800>+1 310 301 5800 >>Mobile <tel:+1%20310-995-3038>+1 310 995 3038 >>Email <mailto:king@icann.org>king(a)icann.org >>www.icann.org > >>_______________________________________________ >>Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list >><mailto:Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org>Soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59 > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:IS6cxMftPhfBdsywJ2EissCp6c+6bLPm23yU+nWHP/U5Z3COOighbCAgIramc0sATjmnR0uBG0f1S+708a/hjthptqeGDCErOzJ47nWHnZNWwXWH2b4AUOimtxrDtpFiD64e0ZvDncBKFw3EN2cFdw== >X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: > ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); > >_______________________________________________ >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 3

Improving Contractual Compliance
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 11, 2017

April 11, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, FYI below. At-Large views would be extremely valuable for continuous improvement of ICANN compliance. Best regards, Rinalia Jamie Hedlund's bog that was just posted on improving contractual compliance: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-contractual-compliance *Improving Contractual Compliance* About ten days ago, members of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) submitted a document entitled, “Joint Recommendations for ICANN Compliance <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/rysg-ipc-to-compliance…>.” A few months into my new role leading Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, I appreciated the constructive input from these two constituencies. At a session <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494&preview=/…> at the Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional 2017 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63144494> in Reykjavik, in sessions at the ICANN58 Community Forum with the At-Large Community <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/9f/I58CPH_Sun12Mar2017-A…> , the Registry Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/03/Transcript%20RySG_Par…> , the Registrar Stakeholder Group <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/2c/Transcript%20RrSG%20m…> , the Security and Stability Advisory Committee <https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnX/ssac-private-meeting-c>, the Business Constituency <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/6c/Transcript%20BC%2014%…> , the Intellectual Property Committee <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/90/2017_03March_14%20IPC…>, and the Governmental Advisory Committee <https://participate.icann.org/p3rrfzfm4p9/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&p…> in Copenhagen, and during formal and informal calls with community members, there were lively discussions regarding the need for improvements in Contractual Compliance. To help us succeed in making desired changes, I asked for examples of where we could do better, as well as specific and concrete recommendations that we could implement. I was specifically asking for more than general statements such as “ICANN isn’t transparent” or “ICANN is bad at compliance”. The RySG-IPC Joint submission, which I understand was underway before these recent discussions, includes recommendations that are clear and specific and can be assessed for feasibility, cost and effort. And that’s just what we in Contractual Compliance will do. There is another effort underway that also recommends improvements to Contractual Compliance. In the “Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team Draft Report of Recommendations for New gTLDs <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en>,” the Review Team seeks input on recommendations related to Contractual Compliance. In particular, Recommendation 23 urges ICANN to “Include more detailed information on the subject matter of complaints in ICANN publicly available compliance reports.” The draft recommendations are now out for public comment. This is an excellent opportunity for community members to provide input just as RySG and IPC representatives have done. (Full disclosure – I am a member of the CCT-RT). If you have examples of where Contractual Compliance could improve, especially on its commitment to transparency, and specific and concrete recommendations on how to improve ICANN’s Contractual Compliance function, please consider submitting them to the CCT-RT Public Comment forum. Alternatively, please submit them by email to me at jamie.hedlund at icann.org <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org>. Once the public comment period on the CCT-RT’s closes, we will review all of the input we receive and provide a report on changes that we will undertake as well as a rationale for not undertaking others. Please send us your good ideas! END

4 6

Fwd: CCT-Review] Research: Policy-Oriented Evaluation of the Expansion of the TLD Name Space
by Carlton Samuels April 7, 2017

April 7, 2017

FYI On Apr 5, 2017, at 8:18 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for sharing, Brain. Apropos some discussions in the At-Large pertaining types of TLDs that might be supportable for [future] entry in the namespace, this paper certainly provides another point of departure for consideration; essentiality. With your permission, might I share with the ALAC? -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Brian Aitchison <brian.aitchison(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear CCTRT, > > Hitting you with another piece of research, although this time more > relevant to the “Choice” aspect of the review. I met the author of the > attached paper in Copenhagen. He’s a PhD researcher working out of Japan’s > Daito Bunka University. His paper is entitled “Policy-Oriented Evaluation > of the Expansion of the Top-Level Domain Name Space.” > > Abstract: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i > d=2909852[papers.ssrn.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__papers.ssrn.com_sol3_p…> > > > He did an analysis of the “essentiality” of new gTLDs to consumers by > measuring the price elasticity between generic, geographic, and > internationalized gTLDs. He uses a regression model that employs > registration fees and TLD type (geographic, generic, internationalized) as > explanatory variables to predict the number of registrations in a given TLD > (the response variable). > > *The most interesting finding to me pertains to geographic TLDs:* *as > registration fees go up, so too do registration numbers*. This is in > contrast to the generic TLDs, which show the relationship we would expect: > as registration fees go up, registration numbers go down. > > The author concludes that this points to geographic TLDs being more > “essential” to consumers, and therefore they may be willing to pay a higher > price. He also finds that for geographic TLDs representing high income > locales, the fee levels have no effect on registration numbers. However, in > low income locales, registration numbers go down as fees go up. > > Some copy-pasted tidbits: > > Based on the analysis of domain name use and pricing across 418 ngTLD's, > it is found that ngTLD's have significantly different levels of > essentiality for domain name registrants depending on the TLD type. In > particular, geographic and internationalised ngTLD's have a higher degree > of essentiality than generic ngTLD's. > > Although these additions [of new gTLDs] were welcome from the perspective > of increased user choice and competition in the domain name market, the > argument of this kind has not been tested yet against user acceptance or > behaviour. According to the result of the analysis in this study, the > author concludes that newly added gTLD's do reflect the diversity of domain > name demands in the Internet community with varying degrees of > essentiality. > > I hope you find this useful. > > Best, > > Brian > > Brian Aitchison, MRes, PhD > > Lead Researcher > > Operations & Policy Research > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > Direct Line: +1 310 578 8688 <(310)%20578-8688> > > Mobile: +1 424 353 9041 <(424)%20353-9041> > > Email: brian.aitchison(a)icann.org > > Skype: brian.aitchison.icann > > Twitter: @BrianAitch > > LinkedIn: *linkedin.com/in/baitchison[linkedin.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__linkedin.com_in_baitchi…>* > > www.icann.org[icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DwMFaQ&…> > > > >

1 0