- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Board Resolutions from 15 September 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear ALAC, The Board had a special meeting on 17 September 2016 and made a decision that tasked the CEO to undertake an independent review of staff interaction with the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) provider - the Economist Intelligence Unit - in the CPE process. I have pasted the full resolution below. Best regards, Rinalia 17 September Board Meeting: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/ resolutions-2016-09-17-en Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 17 Sep 2016 1. *Main Agenda: <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1>* 1. *President and CEO Review of New gTLD Community Priority Evaluation Report Procedures <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1.a>* - *Rationale for Resolution 2016.09.17.01 <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-09-17-en#1.…>* 1. Main Agenda: 1. President and CEO Review of New gTLDCommunity Priority Evaluation Report Procedures Whereas, the Board has discussed various aspects of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process, including some issues that were identified in the Final Declaration from the Independent Review Process (IRP) proceeding initiated by Dot Registry LLC. Whereas, the Board would like to have some additional information related to how ICANN staff members interact with the CPE provider, and in particular with respect to the CPE provider's CPE reports. Resolved (2016.09.17.01), the Board hereby directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to undertake an independent review of the process by which ICANN staff interacted with the CPE provider, both generally and specifically with respect to the CPE reports issued by the CPE Provider. *Rationale for Resolution 2016.09.17.01* Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) is a method to resolve string contention for New gTLDapplications. It occurs if a community application is both in contention and elects to pursue CPE. The evaluation is an independent analysis conducted by a panel from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). As part of its process, the CPE provider reviews and scores a community applicant that has elected CPE against the following four criteria: Community Establishment; Nexus between Proposed String and Community; Registration Policies, and Community Endorsement. An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in a community priority evaluation. At various points in the implementation of the New gTLDProgram, the Board (and the Board New gTLD Program Committee) have discussed various aspects of CPE. Recently, the Board has discussed some issues with the CPE process, including certain issues that were identified in the Final Declaration from the Independent Review Process (IRP) proceeding initiated by Dot Registry LLC. The Board is taking action at this time to direct the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to undertake a review of the process by which ICANN staff interacts with the CPE provider in issuing its CPE reports. The review should include an overall evaluation of staff's interaction with the CPE provider, as well as any interaction staff may have with respect to the CPE provider preparing its CPE reports. The Board's action to initiate this review is intended to have a positive impact on the community as it will help to provide greater transparency into the CPE evaluation process. Additionally, by undertaking additional due diligence in the administration of the CPE process, the Board intends this review to help gather additional facts and information that may be helpful in addressing uncertainty about staff interaction with the CPE provider. As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents: - New gTLD Applicant Guidebook <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 5.9 MB] - Final Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/guidelines-16aug13-en.pdf>[PDF, 803 KB] - Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Panel Process Document <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe/panel-process-07aug14-en.pdf> [PDF, 314 KB] - Dot Registry v. ICANNIndependent Review Process Final Declaration <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-registry-v-icann-2014-09-25-en> There may be some minor fiscal impact depending on the method of review that the President and CEO chooses to undertake, but none that would be outside of the current budget for administering the New gTLD Program. Initiating a review of the process by which ICANN staff interacts with the CPE provider is not anticipated to have any impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment. Published on 20 September 2016

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by Barrack Otieno Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

To add on Wafa's point, users need to understand the product and its eco-system to enable them appreciate and provide feedback for improving the system in future. I agree with the proposal Wafa has made. Regards On Sep 21, 2016 1:37 AM, "Wafa Dahmani" <wafa(a)ati.tn> wrote: Hi Alan, I have just one comment for the point number 1.DNS and Content Regulation agree with you about the audiance but I think that the topic is relevant. We are used to say that content is not of the remits of ICANN but this issue was usually disscussed in the DNS forums I attended. it would be interesting to see how we can extend the ICANN perimiter. Best Le 20/09/2016 04:33, Alan Greenberg a écrit : See the following message. An extension to Friday has been requested and I hope will be honoured. See my following very hastily prepared comments. Let me know how they match yours. Alan 1. DNS and Content Regulation 1 This session does not seem to allow for significant audience participation and I beleive some of the premises are false. 2. gTLD Marketplace Health index 2 Unclear if the session is on the marketplace or the index and I think more prep is needed prior to this being a high interest session. 3. How to do outreach within each SO/AC 3 Could be of interest if only to demonstrate the differences between groups and what outreach means to each. 4. ICANN Contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda 1 Although I personally would find this interesting, I am not sure it is really within the ICANN mandate nor would be of general interest. 5. ICANN Support for Multistakeholder Initiatives for Advancing Online Child Protection 3 Although the format is not detailed, this topic is very much in line with ALAC concerns about the lack of controls on new gTLDs. 6. Internet Governance - Public Session 3 I would support this. Fragmantation is an issue that will be of increasing interest, particularly if the IANA transition does not go through. 7. Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs 3 Again, no indication of session format, but presuming an opportunity for audience participation I think that this would be of interest to us. 8. Operational session on KPIs, regarding ICANN's reach, spending, and engagement strategies ? I don't have a dgood feeling for this one. 9. Public Interest 3 Definitely 10. The role of the No-Commercial stakeholders within ICANN. A dialogue to foster understanding and co-operation within ICANN. 1 This description talks about non-commercial stakeholders within ICANN, but seems to focus purely within the GNSO. If indeed it was wider than that, I would support it. 11. Transparency on legal advice given to ICANN [to preserve its principles and openness 3 I would support this, although I am dubious on the outcomes. 12. Underserved Regions in ICANN 3 Again no info on session format, but the topic could be of interest. 13. Universal Consumer Awareness about the largest ever expansion of the Internet 3 I agreed tat the ALAC would partiicpate in this session, but explicitly said we would not likely support a Ry request for ICANN to embark on a program to support growth in use of new gTLDs. 14. Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives 3 There is so much going on that such an update would be of use. 15. What ICANN does not do and why! 3 I like the idea! From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> <david.olive(a)icann.org> To: Katrina Sataki <katrina(a)nic.lv> <katrina(a)nic.lv>, "thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> <thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "paf(a)netnod.se" <paf(a)netnod.se> <paf(a)netnod.se> <paf(a)netnod.se>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, "louie(a)louie.net" <louie(a)louie.net> <louie(a)louie.net> <louie(a)louie.net>, "tsinha(a)umd.edu" <tsinha(a)umd.edu> <tsinha(a)umd.edu> <tsinha(a)umd.edu>, "bverd(a)verisign.com" <bverd(a)verisign.com> <bverd(a)verisign.com> <bverd(a)verisign.com>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com> <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, "hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr" <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr> <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr> <hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> <ocl(a)gih.com>, "tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org" <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org> <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org> <tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org>, "'mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'" <'mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'> <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com> <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "sb(a)inapp.com" <sb(a)inapp.com> <sb(a)inapp.com> <sb(a)inapp.com>, "cwilson(a)21cf.com" <cwilson(a)21cf.com> <cwilson(a)21cf.com> <cwilson(a)21cf.com>, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org> <klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, "gbunton(a)tucows.com" <gbunton(a)tucows.com> <gbunton(a)tucows.com> <gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "Oscar Robles" <oscar(a)lacnic.net> <oscar(a)lacnic.net>, "hcarrascob(a)gmail.com" <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> CC: Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org> <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:34:58 +0000 A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. Regards David --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear SO-AC Leaders: A total of 15 potential topics for high-interest session slots have been identified by your groups for ICANN57 in Hyderabad. With just seven slots available for these, we’d like to invite you to take one more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting.Â Please see details for the potential topics at https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews and a corresponding review form atÂ https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/ icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. As noted on the form, please use the following high-interest session criteria to support your selections: - Topic has potential to attract a large audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. - Proposed format allows for adequate audience participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. - Topic has clear goals and objectives which are closely aligned with ICANN’s mission and core values. Your responses will be used to identify seven (7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. Please submit your reviews as soon as possible but no later than EOD 18 September. Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN OfficeÂ Â +1 310 301 5800 MobileÂ +1 310 995 3038 EmailÂ Â Â king(a)icann.org www.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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+(ALAC)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Thanks everyone. Note that the request was not to pick our favorites, but which ones met the criteria (wide audience, good format, clear goals aligned with ICANN mission and core values). Alan At 20/09/2016 12:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Your selections are largely okay, though I would >select have selected 3,5,6,8,9,14,15 instead >which is not so different from yours > >Cheers! >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On 20 Sep 2016 4:34 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >See the following message. An extension to >Friday has been requested and I hope will be >honoured. See my following very hastily prepared >comments. Let me know how they match yours. Alan > >1. DNS and Content Regulation > 1 This session does not seem to allow > for significant audience participation and I > beleive some of the premises are false. > >2. gTLD Marketplace Health index > 2 Unclear if the session is on the > marketplace or the index and I think more prep > is needed prior to this being a high interest session. > >3. How to do outreach within each SO/AC > 3 Could be of interest if only to > demonstrate the differences between groups and what outreach means to each. > >4. ICANN Contribution to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda > 1 Although I personally would find this > interesting, I am not sure it is really within > the ICANN mandate nor would be of general interest. > >5. ICANN Support for Multistakeholder >Initiatives for Advancing Online Child Protection > 3 Although the format is not detailed, > this topic is very much in line with ALAC > concerns about the lack of controls on new gTLDs. > >6. Internet Governance - Public Session > 3 I would support this. Fragmantation > is an issue that will be of increasing > interest, particularly if the IANA transition does not go through. > >7. Mitigation of Abuse in gTLDs > 3 Again, no indication of session > format, but presuming an opportunity for > audience participation I think that this would be of interest to us. > >8. Operational session on KPIs, regarding >ICANN's reach, spending, and engagement strategies > ? I don't have a dgood feeling for this one. > >9. Public Interest > 3 Definitely > >10. The role of the No-Commercial stakeholders >within ICANN. A dialogue to foster understanding >and co-operation within ICANN. > 1 This description talks about > non-commercial stakeholders within ICANN, but > seems to focus purely within the GNSO. If > indeed it was wider than that, I would support it. > >11. Transparency on legal advice given to ICANN >[to preserve its principles and openness > 3 I would support this, although I am dubious on the outcomes. > >12. Underserved Regions in ICANN > 3 Again no info on session format, but > the topic could be of interest. > >13. Universal Consumer Awareness about the >largest ever expansion of the Internet > 3 I agreed tat the ALAC would > partiicpate in this session, but explicitly > said we would not likely support a Ry request > for ICANN to embark on a program to support growth in use of new gTLDs. > >14. Update on WHOIS-Related Initiatives > 3 There is so much going on that such an update would be of use. > >15. What ICANN does not do and why! > 3 I like the idea! > > >>From: David Olive <<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>david.olive(a)icann.org> >>To: Katrina Sataki >><<mailto:katrina@nic.lv>katrina(a)nic.lv>, >>"<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" >> >><<mailto:thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch>thomas.schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, >>"<mailto:paf@netnod.se>paf(a)netnod.se" >><<mailto:paf@netnod.se>paf(a)netnod.se>, "James M. >> Bladel" >> <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, >> "<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net" >> <<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net>, >> >>"<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha(a)umd.edu" >><<mailto:tsinha@umd.edu>tsinha(a)umd.edu>, >>"<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>bverd(a)verisign.com" >><<mailto:bverd@verisign.com>bverd(a)verisign.com>, >> >>"<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, >> >>"<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com" >><<mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com>tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, >> >>"<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com" >><<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, >>"<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr" >> >><<mailto:hilaliaziz@yahoo.fr>hilaliaziz(a)yahoo.fr>, >>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com>, >> >>"<mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org>tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org" >><<mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org>tapani.tarvainen(a)effi.org>, >> >>"'<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com'" >><<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Paul Diaz >> >><<mailto:pdiaz@pir.org>pdiaz(a)pir.org>, >>"<mailto:sb@inapp.com>sb(a)inapp.com" >><<mailto:sb@inapp.com>sb(a)inapp.com>, >>"<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com" >> >><<mailto:cwilson@21cf.com>cwilson(a)21cf.com>, >>Klaus Stoll >><<mailto:klaus.stoll@gkpfoundation.org>klaus.stoll(a)gkpfoundation.org>, >>Rafik Dammak >> >><<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, >>"<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>gbunton(a)tucows.com" >><<mailto:gbunton@tucows.com>gbunton(a)tucows.com>, "Oscar >> Robles" >> <<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>oscar(a)lacnic.net>, >> "<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>hcarrascob(a)gmail.com" >> <<mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> >>CC: Nick Tomasso >><<mailto:nick.tomasso@icann.org>nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" >> <<mailto:tanzanica.king@icann.org>tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> >>Subject: ICANN57 - High Interest Topics - Next Steps >>Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:34:58 +0000 >> >>A message from the Meetings team asking for your inputs. >> >>Regards David >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>Dear SO-AC Leaders: >> >>A total of 15 potential topics for >>high-interest session slots have been >>identified by your groups for ICANN57 in >>Hyderabad. With just seven slots available for >>these, weâd like to invite you to take one >>more step towards finalizing topics for the meeting.Ã >> >>Please see details for the potential topics at >><https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews>https://meetings.icann.org/en/hitreviews >>and a corresponding review form >>atÃ >><https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/>https://icann.wufoo.com/forms/icann57-hit-proposal-review-form/. >> >> >>As noted on the form, please use the following >>high-interest session criteria to support your selections: >> >>- Topic has potential to attract a large >>audience (200+) and be of interest across most, if not all SO/ACs. >>- Proposed format allows for adequate audience >>participation within a 75-90 minute session slot. >>- Topic has clear goals and objectives which >>are closely aligned with ICANNâs mission and core values. >> >>Your responses will be used to identify seven >>(7) topics for the main meeting room high-interest session slots. >> >>Please submit your reviews as soon as possible >>but no later than EOD 18 September. >> >>Tanzanica S. King >>Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design >>ICANN >> >>OfficeÃ Ã <tel:%2B1%20310%20301%205800>+1 310 301 5800 >>MobileÃ <tel:%2B1%20310%20995%203038>+1 310 995 3038 >>EmailÃ Ã Ã <mailto:king@icann.org>king(a)icann.org >>www.icann.org >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >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

Board Meeting 15 Sep 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Folks, The ICANN Board will meet on 15 September 2016 in conjunction with its workshop. Here is the link to the meeting agenda https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-09-15-en. Best regards, Rinalia

1 1

Consensus Call: Ratification of BCEC and BMSPC Membership
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

This should have gone out last week but I did not send it as planned. With this message, I cam calling for the a consensus decision of the ALAC ratifying the membership of the 2017 BCEC and BMSPC as recommended by the RALOs. I ask for an ALAC Member to second this motion. BCEC Membership chaired by Julie Hammer: AFRALO Member: Fatimata Seye Sylla AFRALO Member: Mohamed El Bashir APRALO Member: Cheryl Langdon-Orr APRALO Member: Gunela Astbrink EURALO Member: Jordi Iparraguirre EURALO Member: Yrjö Länsipuro LACRALO Member: Carlos Raúl Gutierrez LACRALO Member: Vanda Scartezini NARALO Member: Louis Houle NARALO Member: Eduardo Diaz AFRALO Alternate: Dave Kissoondoyal APRALO Alternate: Anupam Agrawal EURALO Alternate: Wolf Ludwig LACRALO Alternate: Humberto Carrasco NARALO Alternate: Murray McKercher BMSPC Membership chaired by Tijani Ben Jemaa AFRALO Member: Seun Ojedeji AFRALO Member: Aziz Hilali APRALO Member: Ali AlMeshal APRALO Member: Shreedeep Rayamajhi EURALO Member: Oksana Prykhodko EURALO Member: Olivier Crépin-Leblond LACRALO Member: Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Member: Sylvia Herlein-Leite NARALO Member: Glenn McKnight NARALO Member: John Laprise AFRALO Alternate: Baudouin Schombe APRALO Alternate: Maureen Hilyard EURALO Alternate: Wolf Ludwig LACRALO Alternate: Maritza Aguero NARALO Alternate: Gordon Chillcott The consensus call will close at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 20 September. Initial meetings of the two groups should not be delayed pending formal ratification. Alan

2 1

Take the At-Large Review Survey!
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear All, Help make At-Large a more efficient and effective part of the ICANN community – all are invited to take part in the At-Large Review survey: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ The At-Large Review is conducted by the Paris-based consultancy firm, ITEMS<http://www.items.fr/> who acts as the independent examiner. Taking (no more than) 30min to participate in the review via the online survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> will be an invaluable contribution to the success of this important review process. Whether you are the representative of an At-Large structure (ALS), a regular participant in ICANN meetings, an ICANN insider or a newcomer to the world of Internet governance, your opinion interests us! ITEMS will share the preliminary evaluation and findings of the survey during the ICANN57 Hyderabad Meeting. We urge you to fill in the survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> at your earliest convenience, make your voice heard! This is your opportunity to share your views on what’s working, what’s not working so well, and improvements that could be made. IMPORTANT: If you have an interruption and cannot complete the form make sure you go to the last page and submit the form first. Your answers will then be saved and you can return at a later stage, using the same device, and complete the survey, clicking ‘submit’ once more. Le sondage sera disponible en français en fin de semaine. Vous recevrez davantage d’information lorsque celui-ci sera en ligne. La encuesta se encontrará posteriormente disponible esta semana en español. Mayor información será notificada tan pronto sea posible. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Board Brussels Workshop: Open Community Sessions
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 12, 2016

Sept. 12, 2016

This is the first that we have seen of the Board's commitment to open up their meetings. Unfortunately, board briefing materials for this meeting are not posted. Meetings are from 12:15-14:30 UTC. Alan >News Alert > > > ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-12-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-12-en > >---------- > > >ICANN Board Brussels Workshop: Open Community Sessions > > > >12 September 2016 > >The next ICANN Board Workshop will be taking place in Brussels, >Belgium, from 14-17 September 2016. During the workshop, the Board >will be holding a series of open sessions, which will be held on >Saturday, 17 September. These sessions will include the following topics: > * The Impact of the New Bylaws on ICANN > * Accountability Work-Stream 2 (WS2) Topics > * A Technical Deep Dive: RIPE to Present > >Everyone in the community is invited to join these sessions, which >will be listen-only. More details, including the times of each >session and ways to join, are available at ><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2016-board-meetings>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2016-board-meetings

1 0

Motion to amend Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

There have been no comments to the version of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Revision 3 (RoP Rev 3) as originally proposed on 18 August 2016 (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009600.html) and revised on 31 August 2016 (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009656.html) The motion below was made in the 18 August 2016 e-mail and seconded by Holly Raiche (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009602.html) Attached are both a redline and clean version of the RoP as well as a log describing the changes. Note that Sections 23 and 24 only become operative if and when the IANA Transition occurs. This motion requires a super-majority (2/3) vote of the ALAC. I request that Staff initiate a vote of the ALAC to begin no later than Monday, 12 September 2016 and to end at 23:59 UTC on 19 September 2016. ===================================== Whereas the At-Large Advisory Committee is currently operating under Rules of Procedure (RoP) approved on 20 June 2016; Whereas a number of changes to these (RoP) have been recommended to correct errors, clarify specific rules, enhance transparency and implement the ICANN Empowered Community; Therefore; The ALAC adopts the attached revisions to the ALAC Rules of Procedure.

1 0

Consensus Call: ALAC Statements on IANA Agreements
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

As discussed on the ALAC call of 23 August 2016 I was asked to draft very brief statements on the IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IANA Naming Function Agreement (the agreement with PTI). I did so later that day. At the ALT meeting there was a wording change suggested to the Naming Function statement, which has since been incorporated. The IPR statement did not take into account changes that have been proposed during CWG meetings, and a minor change has been made so that our statement incorporates those as well. There have been no further comments on either statement. The policy pages can be found at: - <https://community.icann.org/x/tAusAw>IANA IPR Agreements - <https://community.icann.org/x/mAqsAw>IANA Naming Function Agreement For your convenience, the full text of the statements is reproduced below. With this e-mail, I am calling for a Consensus Call of the ALAC on these two statements. I request that another member second this and request that any objections be raised by ALAC Members prior to 14 September at 23:59 UTC. If you support these statements, no action is required. ==================================== The resolution of the Intellectual Property issues related to the IANA transition required significant effort from Members of all three IANA communities, ICANN, and legal counsel. The ALAC supports the final set of agreements and appreciates the efforts that were required to come to agreement in a timely manner. The ALAC supports the IANA Naming Function Agreement and deeply appreciates all of the efforts of CWG Members, ICANN Staff and external legal counsel in finalizing this agreement in a timely manner.

2 1

ICANN CEO responds to questions on IANA transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions

1 0