- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Or maybe not - https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Net_Complaint_-_FILED.pdf. Four states sue to halt transition... Alan At 28/09/2016 11:48 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >According to reports, both the US House of Representatives and >Senate have passed the Continuing Resolution funding the US >government for the period starting October 1 through early December >WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. > >The implication is that the IANA Contract with the NTIA will lapse, >the new ICANN Bylaws will be in effect and the stewardship >transition will be a done-deal. > >Alan

8 10

Transition is a GO!
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

The application for declaratory and injunctive relief has been denied. Barring something else innovative happening (which I would not expect), the IANA contract will lapse in a few hours and the stewardship transition will have its place in history. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Sala, this letter is not about the transition proper. The ALAC has already supported that in numerous ways. This addresses how specific intellectual property is to be handled *IF* the transition goes through. For the record, IANA has nothing to do with privacy with respect to website content OR Whois. With respect to names, it only manages the database saying where each g or cc TLD can be found. Alan At 30/09/2016 03:32 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Hi Alan, > >My views are that just because they are >demanding various ACs and SOs to provide a statement does not mean we should. > >I would prefer the ACs bide their time and wait >a bit more before issuing commentary. Let >things playout for a bit. The IANA transition is >very political and will get turbulent in days to come as it already has been. > >If the ACs were to release a statement, it >should merely state or reiterate the: > >1)values based positions of the ACs such as high level vision, mission etc; >2)urge stakeholders to consider the necessity of remaining "calm"; >3)regardless of transition or shocks that >coordination group should not deviate from core values. > >The world is facing major shocks and upheaval >with increasing terrorist attacks that will >cause massive shifts in Privacy laws. We already >see Clinton expressing that she will use the >internet to hunt down terrorists etc. >Australia's Attorney General in his recent media >release is revising privacy law that impacts >deanonymity of data etc and there will be impacts on Whois etc. > >If anything, ALAC should bide its time. > >Kind Regards, >Sala T >Former ALAC member > >On 1/10/2016 7:21 am, "Glenn McKnight" ><<mailto:glenn.mcknight@ieee.org>glenn.mcknight(a)ieee.org> wrote: >I as well support the proposal >Glenn McKnight > > > >Glenn McKnight, B.A, M.A >Chair: Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities(FBSC) >IEEE HIC Committee Member >IEEE PES CSI Committee Member >ICANN NARALO Member >Oshawa, Ontario Canada ><mailto:glenn.mcknight@ieee.org>glenn.mcknight(a)ieee.org >SKYPE: gmcknight > > >On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Tijani BEN >JEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: >I too support the proposal regarding the >handling of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 > <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>Le 29 sept. 2016 Ã 21:38, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a Ã©crit : >> >>Thanks for catching that Seun. I had a conflict >>for that meeting of the CWG and could not >>attend, so was not aware of the change. >> >>I have let Trang know and she will update the document. >> >>Alan >> >>At 29/09/2016 02:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>>This is fine, just a minor correction; the initial CCG members are: >>> >>>Maarten Simon, Christopher Wilkinson and Greg Shatan, as CCG Names Co-Chair. >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Sent from my LG G4 >>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>>On 29 Sep 2016 7:10 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>>The following has just been brought to my attention. >>>As described in the message forwarded below, >>>the ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >>>CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >>>the proposal regarding the handling of the >>>IANA-related intellectual property and domain >>>names. They will be transferred to the IETF >>>Trust with the three IANA communities >>>overseeing IETF Trust. The oversight will be >>>carried out through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). >>> >>>In summary: >>>- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >>>agreements on behalf of the Names Community >>>- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >>>direction to ICANN in this respect. >>>- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >>>the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >>>collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >>>- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >>>shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan >>>who has overseen the entire IP process. >>>There has been extensive discussion within the >>>CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >>>plan more than meets ICANN's needs. >>>The US Congress has not blocked the >>>transition, but a number of US States are >>>attempting to do so through the courts. At >>>this point we are presuming that the >>>Stewardship will go through and accordingly, >>>the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. >>>Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no >>>other explicit responsibilities and is not >>>empowered to make substantive decisions on the >>>part of the ALAC unless urgency or >>>confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. >>>In such a case, the decision needs to be >>>ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. >>>I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >>>agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, >>>I will come back to the ALAC for ratification. >>>IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >>>ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. >>>Alan >>> >>>From: Trang Nguyen <<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>trang.nguyen(a)icann.org > >>>Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to >>>the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship >>> Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >>>Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 >>>Dear Chairs, >>>Please see below a note from the Jonathan >>>Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >>>-- >>>Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, >>>As part of the transition implementation work, >>>representatives from the names community, the >>>numbers community, the protocol parameters >>>community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >>>drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >>>transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the >>>IETF Trust and to govern the relationships >>>amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. >>>These agreements are: >>>- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This >>>agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. >>>- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >>>the names, numbers, and protocol parameters >>>IANA services.): These agreements allows for >>>the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. >>>- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This >>>agreement explains the rights and obligations >>>of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. >>>After a public comment period last month, the >>>agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. >>>One of the decisions that the CWG had to make >>>as part of the work was to identify who would >>>be the signatory of the Community Agreement on >>>behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >>>made by the group, with input from CWG >>>external counsel, was to ask ICANN to play >>>that role. An instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. >>>The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >>>confirms the request of the Cross Community >>>Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >>>Transition Proposal on Naming Related >>>Functions (Ã¢ÅÅCWGÃ¢ ) for the benefit of >>>those of its listed chartering oorganizations >>> the Country Code NNames Supporting >>>Organization (ÃÃ¢ccNSOÃ¢ ), the Security >>>and Stability Advisovisory Committee >>>(Ã¢SSACÃ¢ ), the Generic Namesames >>>Supporting Organization (Ã¢GNSOÃ¢ ), the >>>Ahe At Large Advisory Committee (Ã¢ALACÃ¢ ) >>>and and the Governmental Advisory Committee >>>(Ã¢GACÃ¢ââ¬ ) that have affirmed or >>>hereafter affirm in writinng that theey agree >>>to be included herein (each a Ã¢Consenting >>>SO/ACACÃ¢ and collectively, the Ã¢Names >>>CommunitynityÃ¢ ) that ICANN serve as the >>>signatory for the Names Communityy under the Community Agreement." >>> >>>This makes reference to the COs affirming in >>>writing that they agree to be included in the >>>instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. >>>As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >>>obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >>>agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >>>kindly ask that you provide such a written >>>confirmation as a matter of urgency by >>>replying to this email, preferably on or >>>before September 30th, 2016, so that the >>>signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. >>>Thank you for your cooperation, >>>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs. >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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… > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Thanks for catching that Seun. I had a conflict for that meeting of the CWG and could not attend, so was not aware of the change. I have let Trang know and she will update the document. Alan At 29/09/2016 02:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >This is fine, just a minor correction; the initial CCG members are: > >Maarten Simon, Christopher Wilkinson and Greg Shatan, as CCG Names Co-Chair. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 29 Sep 2016 7:10 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The following has just been brought to my attention. > >As described in the message forwarded below, the >ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the >CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support >the proposal regarding the handling of the >IANA-related intellectual property and domain >names. They will be transferred to the IETF >Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing >IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out >through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). > >In summary: >- ICANN will act as the signatory to the >agreements on behalf of the Names Community >- The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide >direction to ICANN in this respect. >- In the event that the CWG no longer exists, >the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will >collectively direct ICANN in this respect. >- Initial Names Community CCG representatives >shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who >has overseen the entire IP process. > >There has been extensive discussion within the >CWG on this and I believe that the resultant >plan more than meets ICANN's needs. > >The US Congress has not blocked the transition, >but a number of US States are attempting to do >so through the courts. At this point we are >presuming that the Stewardship will go through >and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. > >Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other >explicit responsibilities and is not empowered >to make substantive decisions on the part of the >ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes >consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the >decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. > >I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC >agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I >will come back to the ALAC for ratification. > >IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE >ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. > >Alan > >From: Trang Nguyen <<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship > Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 > >Dear Chairs, > >Please see below a note from the Jonathan >Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >-- >Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, > >As part of the transition implementation work, >representatives from the names community, the >numbers community, the protocol parameters >community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. > >These agreements are: > >- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. > >- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA >services.): These agreements allows for the IANA >functions operator to use the IPR. > >- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement >explains the rights and obligations of the IETF >Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. > >After a public comment period last month, the >agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. > >One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as >part of the work was to identify who would be >the signatory of the Community Agreement on >behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >made by the group, with input from CWG external >counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. > >The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >confirms the request of the Cross Community >Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >(âCWGâ) for the benefit of those of its >listed chartering organizations the Country >Code NNames Supporting Organization >(âccNSOâ), the Security and Stability >Advisory Committee (âSSACâ), the Generic >Names Supporting Organization (âGNSOâ), the >At Large Advisory Committee (âALACâ) and the >Governmental Advisory Committee (âGACâ) >that have affirmed or hereafter affirm in >writinng that they agree to be included herein >(each a âConsenting SO/ACâ and collectively, >the âNames Communityâ) that ICANN serve as >the signatory for the Names Community under the Community Agreement." > >This makes reference to the COs affirming in >writing that they agree to be included in the >instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. > >As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >kindly ask that you provide such a written >confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >to this email, preferably on or before September >30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. > >Thank you for your cooperation, > >Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs. > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Please note that we need any concerns raised with utmost haste. Alan At 27/09/2016 12:31 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Somehow this got lost and never went to the ALAC. We will clearly >not meet the deadline, but I have said we would reply as soon as possible. > >A bit of background. As the draft Charter says, the work of the CCWG >will not be to allocate funds, but to develop a process for doing >this. A lot of work has gone into the draft charter, and I believe >that it is close to ready. There are many constraints on what the >funds can be used for based on the ICANN Bylaws, and given the >amount of money (currently $235,000,000 if the .web auction stands) >conflict of interest is a very serious matter. > >Please get any comments to me by the end of Monday at the very latest. > >Of crucial importance are matters of substance which would stop the >ALAC from ratifying the charter. If you find typos and such, please >let me know but that is not the focus. > >Alan > > >>Subject: For your review - proposed charter new gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG >>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:41:28 +0000 >> >> >>Sending on behalf of Jonathan Robinson, new gTLD Auction Proceeds >>Drafting Team Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair: >> >>Dear SO/AC Chairs, >> >>On behalf of the new gTLD Auction Proceeds Drafting Team (DT), we >>are delighted to submit to you and your respective SO/ACs, the >>proposed charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD >>Auction Proceeds. As you may recall, representatives of all ICANN >>SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO (which decided not to take part in the >>DT effort), participated in the DT deliberations (see >><https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw>https://community.icann.org/x/AR_AAw >>for DT members). >> >>This proposed charter is the result of extensive input and >>deliberations, including careful review of input that was received >>as part of the cross-community session at ICANN 56 in Helsinki (see >><https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw)>https://community.icann.org/x/fgmbAw) >>and we believe it now represents a careful balance between the >>different viewpoints and perspectives, including from both the DT >>Members and the ICANN Board liaisons to the DT. As such, the DT >>would like to request you review the proposed charter with this >>careful balance in mind and only flag to the DT any pertinent >>issues that would prevent your respective SO/AC from adopting this >>charter. We would like to request you highlight such pertinent >>issues by 30 September 2016 at the latest, including an indication >>of when you anticipate your respective SO/AC to be in a position to >>consider the charter for adoption following 30 September, provided >>that no pertinent issues have been identified by any of the ICANN SO/ACs. >> >>Of course, should you have any clarifying questions, please do not >>hesitate to respond to this message. The DT looks forward to >>receiving your feedback. >> >>Best wishes, >> >>Jonathan Robinson, DT Chair & Alan Greenberg, DT Vice-Chair >Content-Type: application/msword; > name="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September 2016.doc"; > x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September" > 2016.doc" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September 2016.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="CCWG Auction Proceeds - clean - FINAL Charter - 9 > September" > 2016.pdf" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:1gmqnEhp7gkCouELrLqnZyNOqReRcVRm6NYT5thEWR36TD1tnCgjJL/PlgcB0SdatHpmKhDmZUbEzBvB6AoEKNqG9VjIUmW9DThrIu0Ejx92/6ruy0N4kEDXc395WldzfI+EmEZ/j5DSERwf9MzBb6FpVQCUVJAwJoqLlFub9ytahPHLevWmvt5o86/ZV60BYHI0UPGqpLgrMu/0Cv25xQ== > >_______________________________________________ >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 2

Expression of Interest
by Yrjö Länsipuro Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear all, Below please find my Expression of Interest in continuing to serve as the ALAC Liaison to GAC, now on an interim basis, for the next regular term. I also attach my CV. Both can be posted on public lists. Best, Yrjö Expression of Interest in serving as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC I’m interested in continuing my service as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC (now on an interim basis) for the regular 2016-2017 term. Enhancing communication and exploring common ground for joint action between the ALAC and the GAC present a great opportunity for strengthening ICANN’s public interest orientation. ALAC and GAC both cater to the interests of end-users/consumers/citizens , and are natural partners on many policy issues. However, their institutional cultures and operational procedures are rather different. That is why the ALAC Liaison needs to be thoroughly familiar with the GAC – someone with a foot in both camps. I believe that my background enables me to act successfully in this role. After a long career in print and TV journalism, I served in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 1992-2009. As the Press Counselor at the Finnish Embassy in Washington DC and later as the Director General of the Department for Press and Culture, I can say I played a leading role in pushing through the early adoption of Internet tools into the service of Finnish public diplomacy. In 2005, the Ministry put me in charge of coordinating international ICT and Information Society issues, including WSIS and its many-faceted follow-up. In 2006-2009, I represented the Finnish government on the GAC, defended the emerging multistakeholder concept of Internet Governance on a variety of inter-governmental fora such as ITU and CSTD and arranged Finnish funding for the initial phases of the IGF and EuroDIG. On a personal basis, I was a member of the ICANN President’s Strategy Committee that produced guidelines for improving the institutional confidence in ICANN. After leaving government service I became active in ISOC Finland, an ALS of the At-large and EURALO. I’m a member of its Board, as well as of the EURALO Board, since 2010, and since 2012 the President of ISOC Finland. At EURALO’s suggestion, ALAC delegated me as their voting representative in ICANN’s Nominating Committees for 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. I served as the Chair of the 2013 NomCom and as the Associate Chair of the 2014 NomCom. Since my appointment as ALAC’s interim Liaison to the GAC, I have worked to establish the ground principles and working modalities that would draw the maximum benefit for both bodies of the new arrangement. I have been remarkably well received by my former colleagues on the CAG – many are still there – as well as other GAC members and staff.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

Evan, I don't see that one precludes the other. Yes, it is a relief that the initiative to block the transition through the budget proposal seems to have died and I am grateful. But in my mind, the real celebration is the Stewardship transition (not only to ICANN for the names function but to the numbers and protocol communities for their aspects of it). This transition was envisioned (albeit perhaps not in the exact form it has taken) quite a number of years ago, and it appears that it will now happen. Finally. That *is* a cause for celebration in my mind. I and others have spent a very large part of the last two years with this as the target, in many cases at large expense to ones personal and even professional life. To have seen that dissolve into completely wasted time would have been very regretful, at least to me. And yes, some of the accountability work would still bear fruit, but my statement stands. That being said, as with every momentous occasion be it a significant life event or milestone, it is proper to look at how we got here and what we have learned. If ICANN had followed different paths (as, in some cases, both you and I advocated), ICANN would have been deemed more trustworthy and the entire Names Stewardship Transition Proposal would have been *FAR* easier. And simpler. And faster. And cheaper. If ICANN had been as open and transparent as it should have been (in my not at all humble opinion), we might still have had some accountability work to do, but that too would have been much simpler. Would that have eliminated that US-centric effort to "keep the Internet American" with all of its grossly inaccurate rhetoric? Not a chance! But we would have had a better defence. So yes, we have blown a lot over the last nearly two decades. And we need to learn from that. But a bit of a party and self-congratulations for the work we did do and pleasure over the fact that the US government will be out of this aspect of Internet governance is not out of order either. Alan At 29/09/2016 09:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >As I said in the Skype chat: > >This news is not cause for celebration. It is a >moment to pause and reflect on a completely >preventable incident that, thanks to a >combination of timing, frantic activity and a >good dose of pure luck, avoided rejection of >years of hard work and a massive humiliation. > >There WILL be other challenges. The transition >brings benefits, but it also eliminates any >formal state's documented commitment to ICANN's >legitimacy. So long as it is not a treaty >organisation its activity will be subject to >ongoing scrutiny both global and local. And it >is a grotesque mistake to interpret >congressional bypass of Ted Cruz's crass >political initiative as endorsement of ICANN. > >I see no evidence that the broader support >community has learned anything from this >experience, meaning that it remains unprepared >for future, more sophisticated attacks. > >ICANN remains no less out of touch with the >public it claims to serve, than it was before >Ted Cruz learned about it. This incident was not >only a brush with catastrophe, it was a wakeup call. > >- Evan (via mobile) >On 29 Sep 2016, at 07:02, "LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez >AmbÃa" <<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >This is great news Alan. We're witnessing >history. Congratulations to all who have made it possible. > >Saludos, > > >LeÃ³n > >El sep. 29, 2016, a las 4:38 AM, Javier Rua ><<mailto:javrua@gmail.com>javrua(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > >>Great News! >> >>Javier RÃºa-Jovet >> >>+1-787-396-6511 >>@javrua >><http://linkedin.com/javrua>linkedin.com/javrua >> >>>On Sep 28, 2016, at 11:48 PM, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>> >>>According to reports, both the US House of >>>Representatives and Senate have passed the >>>Continuing Resolution funding the US >>>government for the period starting October 1 >>>through early December WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. >>> >>>The implication is that the IANA Contract with >>>the NTIA will lapse, the new ICANN Bylaws will >>>be in effect and the stewardship transition will be a done-deal. >>> >>>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… >>_______________________________________________ >>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:

2 1

Updated IANA Transition IP letter
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

>Hi Alan, > >Previously attached was a draft of the instruction letter. I am attaching >here the final instruction letter that was sent to ICANN, which reflects >the CWG¹s appointment of Greg Shatan, Maarten Simon, and Christopher >Wilkinson. > >Thank you, > >Trang

1 0

IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

According to reports, both the US House of Representatives and Senate have passed the Continuing Resolution funding the US government for the period starting October 1 through early December WITHOUT any rider restricting the IANA transition. The implication is that the IANA Contract with the NTIA will lapse, the new ICANN Bylaws will be in effect and the stewardship transition will be a done-deal. Alan

7 6

URGENT: Decision regarding IANA Transition
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2016

Sept. 29, 2016

The following has just been brought to my attention. As described in the message forwarded below, the ALAC, as a Chartering Organization of the CWG-Stewardship, is being asked if we support the proposal regarding the handling of the IANA-related intellectual property and domain names. They will be transferred to the IETF Trust with the three IANA communities overseeing IETF Trust. The oversight will be carried out through a Community Coordinating Committee (CCG). In summary: - ICANN will act as the signatory to the agreements on behalf of the Names Community - The CWG, as long as it exists, will provide direction to ICANN in this respect. - In the event that the CWG no longer exists, the Chairs of the consenting AC/SOs will collectively direct ICANN in this respect. - Initial Names Community CCG representatives shall be the CWG co-chairs plus Greg Shatan who has overseen the entire IP process. There has been extensive discussion within the CWG on this and I believe that the resultant plan more than meets ICANN's needs. The US Congress has not blocked the transition, but a number of US States are attempting to do so through the courts. At this point we are presuming that the Stewardship will go through and accordingly, the IP-related contracts need to be signed by tomorrow. Under ALAC RoP 6.2: The ALT shall have no other explicit responsibilities and is not empowered to make substantive decisions on the part of the ALAC unless urgency or confidentiality precludes consulting the ALAC. In such a case, the decision needs to be ratified with the ALAC as soon as practical. I will be asking the ALT to provide ALAC agreement by tomorrow and if the ALT does so, I will come back to the ALAC for ratification. IF ANYONE HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALAC SUPPORTING THIS ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY. Alan >From: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen(a)icann.org> >Subject: Note from CWG-Stewardship Chairs to the Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship > Chartering Organizations Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Right >Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:37:38 +0000 > >Dear Chairs, > >Please see below a note from the Jonathan >Robinson and Lise Fuhr, Co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship. >-- >Dear SO/AC chairs and co-chairs, > >As part of the transition implementation work, >representatives from the names community, the >numbers community, the protocol parameters >community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have >drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the >transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF >Trust and to govern the relationships amongst >the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. > >These agreements are: > >- IANA IPR Assignment Agreement: This agreement >transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. > >- 3 IANA IPR License Agreements (one each for >the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA >services.): These agreements allows for the IANA >functions operator to use the IPR. > >- IANA - IPR Community Agreement: This agreement >explains the rights and obligations of the IETF >Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. > >After a public comment period last month, the >agreements have been finalized and are ready to be executed. > >One of the decisions that the CWG had to make as >part of the work was to identify who would be >the signatory of the Community Agreement on >behalf of the Naming Community. The decision >made by the group, with input from CWG external >counsel, was to ask ICANN to play that role. An >instruction letter has been assembled for that purpose. > >The Instruction Letter says: "This letter >confirms the request of the Cross Community >Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship >Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions >(CWG) for the benefit of those of its listed >chartering organizations the Country Code >Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the >Security and Stability Advisory Committee >(SSAC), the Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO), the At Large Advisory >Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental Advisory >Committee (GAC) that have affirmed or >hereafter affirm in writing that they agree to >be included herein (each a Consenting SO/AC >and collectively, the Names Community) that >ICANN serve as the signatory for the Names >Community under the Community Agreement." > >This makes reference to the COs affirming in >writing that they agree to be included in the >instruction letter as a consenting SO/AC. > >As ICANN might formally reach out to us to >obtain confirmation that one or more COs have >agreed to be a consenting SO/AC, we hereby >kindly ask that you provide such a written >confirmation as a matter of urgency by replying >to this email, preferably on or before September >30th, 2016, so that the signing of the agreement may proceed as planned. > >Thank you for your cooperation, > >Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson, CWG co-chairs.

4 3