- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: ALAC Decision on ATRT3
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

>To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambia <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Mathieu Weill ><mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>, MSSI >Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Decision on ATRT3 > >ALAC Statement on the Proposal for Limited Scope of the Third >Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Review > >During the ALAC Monthly Meeting on 20 December 2016, the proposed >limited scope of the ATRT3 Review has been discussed. After >consultation with ALAC Members who have participated in ATRT2, >closely tracked ATRT2, and/or actively engaged in the Cross >Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability >(CCWG-Accountability), the ALAC has reached agreement on the following: > >The ALAC supports the CCWG-Accountability proposal of convening a >narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team as soon as possible, which is >tasked with assessing the implementation of ARTR2 recommendations >only as per the message from Mathieu Weill dated 02 December 2016. >The ALAC also supports the proposal of requesting ICANN Staff to do >a "self-assessment" triage report on ATRT2 recommendations and their >implementation, which will facilitate the completion of the ATRT3 >work in an efficient manner. Should this go forward, the ALAC will >encourage At-Large Community members who participated in previous >ATRT Review Teams to apply for the ATRT3 Review Team and contribute >to its Charter development process. > >Nevertheless, the ALAC stresses that the proposed limited scope of >ATRT3 should be considered exceptional. Future ATRT rounds should >have the original full scope to cover accountability and >transparency topics and make recommendations, as per requirements in >the original Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Reviews. Furthermore, >the fourth ATRT should convene sooner before the maximum five years. > >Lastly, the ALAC is concerned that the evaluation of the overall >composition and balance of stakeholder representation in ICANN's >Multistakeholder Model is long overdue, an issue raised during the >Second At-Large Summit. This review should either be addressed under >ATRT4, or by a special review convened by the ICANN Board ensuring >that appropriate consideration is given to all views from all >stakeholders, proportionally to their scope, relevance, and >decision-making requirements in ICANN. > >Alan Greenberg >Chair, ALAC

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Accountability
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

I have had no comments on this via e-mail or on the Wiki. Last call for comments (or at least an intent to make comments and the expected date). Alan At 26/01/2017 08:37 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you are aware, the CCWG- Accountability WS2 subgroup on SO/AC >Accountability is tasked with (among other things) evaluating the >accountability and transparency of ICANN SOs and ACs. > >In the interest of transparency, I note that Cheryl Langdon-Orr is a >Co-Rapporteur of the group and I, Avri Doria, Christopher Wilkinson, >Sebastien Bachollet, Seun Ojedeji and Sivasubramanian Muthusamy are >members (some more active than others). > >In carrying out its task, the groups has posed a number of questions >to each AC/SO. I have attempted to draft a reply that covers >At-Large (ALAC plus RALOs). A copy of the the draft is attached. > >I ask all ALAC Members and RALO leaders to review this draft and >feed any comments back to me (in Word version or just e-mail >referencing line numbers will be fine). I am also asking staff to >post this on a wiki page so that the wiki can be used for comments. >The intent is that we can formalize this well before Copenhagen. > >Alan

1 0

Fwd: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Dear all, FYI -- a response from me, to a thread that came up on the ISOC Chapter leaders mailing list. The topic is specifically the downgrading of At-Large Structures by equalling them to individual membership. With many chapters as At-Large Structures, the Internet Society Chapters would be affected. BTW -- as part of the At-Large Review working group, I submitted over 100 comments on the original document that was presented by the consultants to the Review working group. It appears that most of my comments were ignored. I plan to comment further - when I find the time to do so - and would be happy to contribute to an ALAC comment. Kindest regards, Olivier ps. I admit that I am one of the "big-mouthed" people. :-) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] New version of ICANN At-Large Review - ISOC Chapters role and future Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 01:37:05 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com>, Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> CC: ISOC Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org> On 04/02/2017 21:01, Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > Problems like capture by a few individuals will not be solved and in > fact most likely will be aggravated by the "enhanced membership model." The Review carries anonymous quotes from people who dislike the fact that At-Large and the ALAC are standing in their way to turn ICANN into a domain name business association. Bringing the input of Internet end users to ICANN's technically and legally super-complex processes is a very hard task indeed. I know - I chaired that process for 4 years and to say that it was challenging is an understatement. But the current structure of At-Large which has several tiers for hierarchy of "control" but an entirely open bottom-up model where everybody is allowed to attend any meeting or call and to participate and to voice their opinion, actually provides for a stable environment with stable processes which can actually help in reaching consensus and getting the ALAC to act. That is exactly the thing that bothers other parts of ICANN: that the ALAC is slowly but surely, over time, surmounting the largest hurdle to a multi-stakeholder system which is to get the input of the real end users out there - and that it is doing so with renewed harmony and proven bottom-up processes. Instead, as Alejandro mentions, the Review asks for a return to an unstable, free for all, system based only on individual members speaking for themselves only, a system that was shown to fail miserably as it generates conflict with no safeguards whatsoever and favours those with a bigger mouth than anyone else. The ICANN version 1 experiment failed noticeably in the early 2000s, with ballot stuffing in wide practice and mailing lists that were filled with flame wars fuelled by socio-paths. I remember that so well: having been subscribed to the early DNSO (Domain Name Support Association) mailing list, I quickly got sick of the daily dose of venom from psychos that should have been interned, un-subscribed myself and, after the failed At-Large elections which I predicted were going to fail, removed myself completely from having anything to do with ICANN until it had a meeting in Paris in 2008. The Review is deeply flawed in that it is not an analysis of At-Large and the ALAC. On the contrary, it is a collection of opinions, many of them deeply flawed or factually wrong, and recommendations derived from these flawed opinions. Good opinions of At-Large were ditched and only criticism was kept, whether warranted or unwarranted. It is a lynching of reality and I give it as much truth as the flawed populist campaigns the world has recently seen, thus predicting an equally gruesome future for At-Large. By following the mantra "Let's make At-Large great again", the reviewers are actually proposing to kill it. Kindest regards, Olivier (own opinions) _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

3 2

ICANN statement on travel to and from the USA
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

ICANN statement - https://www.icann.org/news/blog/travel-to-and-from-the-united-states Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Accountability
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

I had neglected to include the WORD version. It is attached here. Alan At 26/01/2017 08:37 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >As you are aware, the CCWG- Accountability WS2 subgroup on SO/AC >Accountability is tasked with (among other things) evaluating the >accountability and transparency of ICANN SOs and ACs. > >In the interest of transparency, I note that Cheryl Langdon-Orr is a >Co-Rapporteur of the group and I, Avri Doria, Christopher Wilkinson, >Sebastien Bachollet, Seun Ojedeji and Sivasubramanian Muthusamy are >members (some more active than others). > >In carrying out its task, the groups has posed a number of questions >to each AC/SO. I have attempted to draft a reply that covers >At-Large (ALAC plus RALOs). A copy of the the draft is attached. > >I ask all ALAC Members and RALO leaders to review this draft and >feed any comments back to me (in Word version or just e-mail >referencing line numbers will be fine). I am also asking staff to >post this on a wiki page so that the wiki can be used for comments. >The intent is that we can formalize this well before Copenhagen. > >Alan

1 0

ALAC Accountability
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2017

Jan. 31, 2017

As you are aware, the CCWG- Accountability WS2 subgroup on SO/AC Accountability is tasked with (among other things) evaluating the accountability and transparency of ICANN SOs and ACs. In the interest of transparency, I note that Cheryl Langdon-Orr is a Co-Rapporteur of the group and I, Avri Doria, Christopher Wilkinson, Sebastien Bachollet, Seun Ojedeji and Sivasubramanian Muthusamy are members (some more active than others). In carrying out its task, the groups has posed a number of questions to each AC/SO. I have attempted to draft a reply that covers At-Large (ALAC plus RALOs). A copy of the the draft is attached. I ask all ALAC Members and RALO leaders to review this draft and feed any comments back to me (in Word version or just e-mail referencing line numbers will be fine). I am also asking staff to post this on a wiki page so that the wiki can be used for comments. The intent is that we can formalize this well before Copenhagen. Alan

2 1

Board meeting next week
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

Dear ALAC, FYI: Items on the board meeting agenda next week. Best regards, Rinalia 3 February 2017 – Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - at 16:45 UTC (8:45am in Los Angeles). REGULAR MEETING OF THE ICANN BOARD Consent Agenda • Approval of Board Meeting Minutes from 13 December 2016 • Delegation of the • Security and Stability Advisory Committee Appointment • Amendment to .XXX Registry Agreement • Independent Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Plan of Recommendations • Appointment of Board Designees for New Specific Reviews: Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review Team • Appointment of Board Designees for New Specific Reviews: Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the Domain Name System • GNSO Council Request: Compliance with Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (IRTP-C) • GAC Advice: Hyderabad Communiqué (November 2016) Main Agenda • Consideration of Board Governance Committee’s Advice to form a Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee • AOB

1 0

Volunteer Needed: GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process
by Ariel Liang Jan. 26, 2017

Jan. 26, 2017

Dear All, As per ALAC monthly teleconference, please be so kind to review the public comment on the GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process. If you would like to volunteer to review the public comment in detail and advise the ALAC whether a Statement is necessary, please be so kind to contact me. Thank you, Ariel

1 0

Introduction to At-Large Presentation (January 2017)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

The Outreach and Engagement SC (O&E) created a presentation about At-Large when meeting with the Nextgen students at ICANN56 and ICANN 57. A updated version of this presentation has been refocused as a "Introduction to ICANN At-Large" presentation suitable for ALSes to promote and explain: * What is At-Large * Key Activities of At-Large * How to engage with At-Large The presentation is available at https://community.icann.org/x/qorRAw As always, please review and if you have any comments or suggestions on how to improve on this, let us know Dev Anand O&E chair

6 8

Fwd: Consensus Call: SSR2-RT Endorsements
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Sorry that it has taken a bit of time to finalize this and notify those who were not selected. The Consensus Call resulted in all but one ALAC Member supporting the recommendation of the AASC. Accordingly, Jabhera Matagoro and Ram Krishna Pariyar are endorsed by the ALAC for the SSR-RT. Alan >Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 14:14:54 -0500 >To: ALAC-Internal <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Consensus Call: SSR2-RT Endorsements > >Twelve applicants for the 2nd Security, Stability and Resiliency >Review Team requested ALAC Endorsement. Of those, five has >originally indicated an affiliation with At-Large at the time of the >application. Three self-identified as affiliated with the SSAC and >four applied as Independent Experts (a category that existed at the >time of application but no longer existed when the AoC Reviews were >incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws at the time of the IANA >Transition. All but one of the applicants were male. > >All applicants were given the opportunity to specify who they wished >to be endorsed by in line with the revised Bylaws and twelve >indicated ALAC. A list of those applicants is attached and their >full applications are viewable at >https://community.icann.org/display/SSR/Applications+received. Note >that one of the applicants withdrew his application due to other >commitments and his entry in the table is in red. > >All twelve applicants were asked to reply with brief answers to the >following questions: > >1. What is your connection with At-Large and how have you previously >worked with At-Large or its constituent parts? > >2. If you are endorsed by the ALAC and selected for the SSR-RT, how >do you plan to interact with or report to the ALAC and At-Large >while the SSR-RT is active? > >3. Of the criteria and attributes listed in the Call for Volunteers >(https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en) which of >these do you feel you possess which make you a strong applicant. > >The ALAC Appointee Selection Committee (AASC) met today. In addition >to me as Chair, there were six of the ten members present with a >seventh member submitting comments. All five regions were represented. > >It was the unanimous decision of those present to recommend to the >ALAC that two candidates be endorsed. Both have strong technical >backgrounds well suited to the SSR-RT and both have agreed to work >with the ALAC and At-Large to keep us informed of the RT activities >and solicit input as appropriate. The applicants are: > >Jabhera Matagoro, Tanzania >Ram Krishna Pariyar, Nepal > >With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC to >ratify the endorsement of Jabhera Matagoro and Ram Krishna Pariyar >for the SSR2-RT. > >The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 10 January 2016. > >If there are any questions of comments, please direct them to either >this list or to me directly. > >Although messages indicating support are welcome, they are not >necessary. This Consensus Call will be deemed to have succeeded in >the absence of significant opposition (greater than 20% as specified >by ALAC RoP 12.3.3.1). > >Alan

1 0