- ALAC - lists.icann.org

FOR DECISION: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 19, 2016

Dec. 19, 2016

For discussion and decision at tomorrow's ALAC meeting. This is patterned after the abbreviated for of Review that was proposed for the WHOIS/RDS Review. I am not as convinced of the overlap as I was for that review, but at this stage, we have enough ICANN introspection going on and I support the proposal (despite the implication that I might be a good RT member!). Alan >Dear SO & AC Chairs, > >The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to >face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki >considered the implications of the collision of >topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and >Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a >detailed consideration of this issue). > >In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: >· Collision of topics between WS2 and >ATRT3 - There is potential for significant >overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of >ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are >accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. >· Timing of the two activities - WS2 >began in July 2016 with an objective of >completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, >which is expected to take 12 months to complete, >is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 >but could potentially be delayed until February >2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT >every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for >every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at >best, to have both of these activities working >on the same topics independently, while drawing >on the same pool of community volunteers. At >worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue >recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. > >· Implementation of recommendations >The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations >greater weight when it comes to board >consideration, relative to recommendations from >an ATRT organized under the AoC. > >While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its >preferred approach, as communicated in our >8-Aug-2016 ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann…>letter >to the Board of ICANN: > >Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the >limited scope of assessing implementation of >ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new >recommendations for accountability and >transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene >before 2022 and would assess all accountability >and transparency topics and make recommendations > >The ICANN Board ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-…>replied >to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, > >It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope >of this important community review. While we >share the concerns raised of avoiding >duplication of resources, it is essential that >the broader ICANN community have a voice in >determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in >alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the >ICANN Organization stand ready to support the communitys direction. > >Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to >community leadership the following approach: > > Requesting that the SO/AC leadership >select (following the new Bylaws) a small group >of review team members that have either >participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. > > Requesting the ICANN organization to do >a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent >to which each recommendation was followed and/or >implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing >the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. > > Specifically request that the Review >Team exclude the issues that are already covered >by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). > > Suggesting that the work be conducted & >completed more quickly than normal, such as >asking that the Final Report be issued within six months > >If the suggested approach above is agreeable to >SO/AC community, the next steps would be: > > SO/AC leadership to issue a public >statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board >Chair that explains why limited scope is >appropriate and articulates that they have broad >support of the ICANN community > > Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought > > Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team >members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team > > Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review >Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope > > > >Best regards, > >Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill

1 0

Special Board Meeting 13 December 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

2 1

FY 17 At-Large Captioning Pilot Project to start in JAN 2017!
by Judith Hellerstein Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

1 0

Update on At-Large Review
by Holly Raiche Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Folks For those not on the WP list, we had a good meeting today discussing the report. First, a reminder: the agreed process is that comments on the initial Report must be made through the WP membership. That said, both Cheryl and I have watched what has been said on various lists, and raised any issues in the WP meetings. Comments on the Draft Report are due by 23.59 hrs 22 December (your local time). The WP will hold at least one more meeting - a week from today, so please raise any further issues before then if possible. (remembering that the Report will be released for public comment in January) The discussion today centred around the issues of membership (in ALS, RALOs and ALAC) and participation. The issues included: individual memberships (rather than ALSs’ membership) in ALAC: rules vary as between RALOs and the ITEMS team is asking for more uniformity of rules on the issue discussion should distinguish between participation in At-Large matters and membership and the rules for each on voting rights, two issues were raised: for the most part, ALAC and RALOs operate by consensus, with voting required for only a very few circumstances. That said, there is an issue on the extent to which individual voting rights should be equal to ALS voting rights, when ALSs may represent large numbers of people it was also noted that, in some circumstances, it may be easier (for a variety of reasons) for an individual to participate than form a group in order to participate One very helpful suggestion was, in discussion, to link issues identified by the report, with proposed solutions. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to raise them with me or any member of the WP. Thanks Holly

1 0

Historical ALAC Membership.
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

For those with an interest in history, attached is a spreadsheet of ALAC Members going back to when the ALAC was formed. It is ordered by RALO and ALAC member based on when their terms started. Columns E-G give the years served (E-F for most people and G-H for those who have served a second non-consecutive term). For each person each column J-BE shows the ICANN meetings during which they have served as an ALAC Member. The entry in each cell indicates who appointed them (Board for the initial 10 members of the Interim ALAC prior to the existence of RALOs, NomCom, or the appropriate RALO). Column I shows the numbers of ICANN meetings for which they were ALAC Members the end of their current term. It does not reflect the number of actual ICANN meetings they attended. For instance, I was first appointed in late 2006 and attended ICANN 27 and people occasionally miss meetings when they are in office. In light of recent criticism on the lack of turnover in ALAC member, it is interesting that up until the Hyderabad meeting, we have had only three ALAC members who have served single terms longer than four year (that is, two two-year terms). Those are indicate with dark shading in column I. Factoring in the terms starting after Hyderabad, the number increases to five (all ignoring terms served as Board appointees to the Interim ALAC and a few of the first RALO transition terms that were longer than two years). Three or five out of 76 total ALAC Members. If see any errors (and I am sure there are a few), please let me know. Alan

2 2

Volunteers needed - New Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
by Ariel Liang Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

Hello All, Is anyone willing to volunteer and read the public comment materials on the ‘Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition’: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en. 26 days left for this public comment, and the ALAC needs to decide whether a Statement is necessary. If you’d like to volunteer, please contact ariel.liang(a)icann.org. Thank you, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 11:18 AM To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: New Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the ‘Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition’ has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en. Public comment will end on 09 January 2017 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-ithi-definition-29nov16(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/MJnDAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge

1 0

Consensus Call: ALAC Approval of Co-Chairs for Reactivated At-Large gTLD WG
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

We have been discussing re-activating the New gTLD WG for quite some time, and did so again in Hyderabad. We have two volunteers to co-chair the group (now the At-Large gTLD WG), John Laprise and Seun Ojedeji. Following a discussion with the ALT and with the two candidates, I would like to propose that the ALAC agree to name them as co-chairs of the At-Large gTLD WG. Both John and Seun are relatively new to the world of new gTLDs, but both have agreed to work to get up to speed (with mentors) and to join the relevant GNSO WGs The next steps would be: - Draft a mission statement for the WG - Put out a call for members - Schedule the first meeting, which will be a level-set of where we have come from and current processes With this message, I am initiating a Consensus Call of the ALAC to appoint John Laprise and Seun Ojedeji (in alphabetic order) as Co-Chairs of the At-Large gTLD WG. The Consensus Call will end at 23:59 on Monday Wednesday, 19 December 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

13 13

Re: [ALAC] Consensus Call: ALAC Approval of Co-Chairs for Reactivated At-Large gTLD WG
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

Thanks Evan, I had of course already assumed you would help! Alan At 13/12/2016 05:19 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I support the choice of co-chairs and offer my >participation in the WG if you'll have me. I >recall ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+gTLD+WG+Officers+and+Members>having >a historical interest in the subject and might >be able to offer some institutional memory ;-). > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Geneva, CH >â (for one more week)â >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

1 0

Reminder - 2017 Capacity Building
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

On behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa Chair of the At-Large Capacity Building Working Group On behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 06:58 To: At-Large Capacity Building WG <capacity-building-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:capacity-building-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: [ALAC] 2017 Capacity Building Dear all, We are about to start a new year for the Capacity Building Working Group, and we need to prepare the program for 2017. Wether you are member of the WG or not, please provide your preferred topics for 2017 program by 20 December 2016 so that the Capacity Building Working Group establish the first draft of the program. of course, you may send topics at any time after the deadline since the program is dynamic. Thank you for your involvement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IRTP Part C implementation
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 4, 2016

Dec. 4, 2016

Interesting. I agree that the PDP did not contemplate this particular case. But it is less than clear what the process is to fix it, if indeed a fix is required. I don't think the letter is entirely accurate, as it describes only the case of a P/P provider that is the Registrar itself. They may be the case in a large percentage of such registrations, but is not the only case. In fact, another of the IRTP PDPs spent a LOT of time focusing on cases where the P/P provider is unrelated to the registrar. I am going to reach out to James on this and will get back. I note that the letter refers to an attached Appendix A which outlines four use cases. The Appendix is not attached to the letter as posted by ICANN. Alan At 03/12/2016 05:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >The Board has received the following correspondence from the GNSO >Council regarding IRTP Part C: > ><https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf>https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf > >Please consider whether you wish to provide comment or advice to the >Board and/or Staff. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > >-- >Rinalia > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:kk7h51U5HMSVMcmTmVcTMaOdN8fnC0vveprZt8BIOBcA9tAA31YQmUPWpF8iNHxrgM4dxeqoUumGpQ3DsP31l4VMaQUPELFCTMtkoRQ1qr2nkmgOW3Mnlm85fJUhJUD2nLMV3PV6Ko9PhQ/3vlAVVyC38utwm9kcGSMNXWIBcW5D2vb1Rdc7Q0uHp+W7LBhgtL/gjU29oq1DUmL6StpNO+J6q9Ta4sJZrLynHVSGOWDL08EyoWDAeJNW5roJTur9QRu0d/LYo2HamuujrW2rgyxezJWURzidEvBOujLNC8bwK6OK6dO5cyOI4FzeGc2GPAs07uxiCU7I+L+zSi469UJWlaZByn+kiz+iqzfps0ypsx3r25A/UxJ1G8StXQ/yNn2ZOjX7K/1l6VGmkioOQ+JlFR6saDx7VrHDeJzQICJIkVt6+KEtpc63PXGZs8M4 >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