- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC-Announce] Call for Volunteers: Advisory Panel on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Christopher, thank you for your comments. Please be so kind to find my comments inline: On 26/08/2016 23:53, CW Mail wrote: > Dear Olivier: > > I regret that I was not aware that this activity had been going on during the past year. > Actually, I do not understand the rationale for conducting a 'market health' activity in parallel with the CCCT review. They both address the same underlying issues. Yes and no. The CCCT review is a review that looks at the program as a whole and sees whether it has delivered what it promised to deliver. The Marketplace Health Index is a program implementation based on the CCCT review's prior work. > > Regarding the proposed metrics, I am rather perplexed. Interesting as they may be, they do not address any of the fundamental measurements of 'market health'. > Rather, we need to be looking at some basic - indeed classic - measurements of market performance (most of which are already reported to national statistical authorities), such as: > > 1. Financial turnover in recent years (e.g. last 5 years) of Registries and Registrars, normalised to a common exchange rate. Distinguish existing and new Registries and Registrars. Frankly I do not know how that would be obtained bearing in mind the significant number of Registries and Registrars that operate in jurisdictions or have an operational vehicle that do not mandate for the publication of audited accounts. > > 2. Market share data; degree of concentration or competition, rate of penetration of the 'new' gTLDs since they were launched. How have new gTLD registrations been financed? The first part of your suggestion is, I think, covered by the proposed ALAC comments made under "Competition", where we ask for the share of the market. As for the second part, how have new gTLD registrations been financed, how would you suggest this be found considering ICANN has absolutely no visibility over this? > > 3. Investment data: how much has been invested in the creation of new gTLDs; how much is invested by existing gTLDs. How was the investment financed? Again - where would this data be found when a significant number of actors operate without being required to submit such data? > > 4. Employment data: How many people work in this new industry? Distributed by Registries and Registrars. Distinguish existing large, medium sized entities and new gTLD entrants. > Distributed by geographic area. Again - how? I don't even think that the DNA (Domain Name Association) knows this. > > 5. Trade Data: We are looking at a branch of international trade in IT services. What proportion of existing and new turnover of Registries and Registrars derives from domestic (national) business and from international business (e.g. Registry business with Registrars in third countries and registrations by registrants in third countries.) I agree that this would be very helpful, but how would this data be gathered? Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

ALAC Liaisons to AC/SO/.mobi
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

In recent years, the ALAC, as provided in its RoP, has on occasion renewed some or all of its Liaisons without opening a formal call for nominations. In each case this was done as a conscious decision of the ALAC. Following last year's appointments, a few ALAC Members raised concerns about this process. Accordingly, I polled the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee this year. Of the 10 members, 6 responded and 5 of those recommended that we open full nominations for all positions. That of course includes the GAC Liaison where we had already decided to follow this path this year. Accordingly, a Call for Nominations will be issued shortly for the Liaisons for the GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and .mobi. Alan

2 1

URGENT: SAC084 SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314) a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process >Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 >August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: ><https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents >with the file at ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf. >It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: ><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…. > > >In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP >does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and >stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that >have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these >principles is critical for the continued interoperability and >stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk >of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, >including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that >Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is >why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as >a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it >simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that >increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone. > >The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed >guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to >the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a >revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the >principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability. > >For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I >believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report. > >Cheers, Julie

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Revised Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2016

Sept. 3, 2016

We have confirmation from ICANN Legal and the IANA Transition team that the proposed changes to our RoP satisfy the requirements for the Empowered Community. Alan At 31/08/2016 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Following our discussion during the ALAC meeting on 23 August 2016, >I have incorporated the discussed changes and present them here. > >The changes include: > >Section 2: Definitions - a revised definition of Empowered Community. > >Paragraph 23.1: Minor corrections > >Paragraph 23.2: re-wording to address concern expressed by Tijani > >Paragraph 24.2: Clarification that unless extraordinary >circumstances warrant it, all decisions including those related to >Directors will be done by open vote. > >Paragraph 24.3: As per discussion, the change of the EC >Administrator will be done by standard ALAC Super-majority vote. > >Paragraph 24.4: Transition provision re-appointing current At-Large >Director under EC rules. > >I am requesting that Heidi check with ICANN Legal to ensure that the >new 23 and 24 cover our responsibilities under the new Bylaws. > >Alan >

4 3

Revised Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

Following our discussion during the ALAC meeting on 23 August 2016, I have incorporated the discussed changes and present them here. The changes include: Section 2: Definitions - a revised definition of Empowered Community. Paragraph 23.1: Minor corrections Paragraph 23.2: re-wording to address concern expressed by Tijani Paragraph 24.2: Clarification that unless extraordinary circumstances warrant it, all decisions including those related to Directors will be done by open vote. Paragraph 24.3: As per discussion, the change of the EC Administrator will be done by standard ALAC Super-majority vote. Paragraph 24.4: Transition provision re-appointing current At-Large Director under EC rules. I am requesting that Heidi check with ICANN Legal to ensure that the new 23 and 24 cover our responsibilities under the new Bylaws. Alan

1 0

New incoming ALAC Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

I would like to welcome and congratulate our new ALAC Members appointed by the Nominating Committee, Andrey Kolesnikov from Europe, and Javier Rua-Jovet from North America. For those of you who have not yet reviewed their bios, you can find them at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom-bios-2016-08-29-en#khaled-koub…. Although the appointments do not become effective until the end of the Hyderabad meeting, as is our standard practice, they have now been added to all of our mailing lists. Alan

12 11

My email
by Javier Rua Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Hi, please add my email javrua(a)gmail.com to the At Large mailing list. Javier Rúa-Jovet

1 0

Re: [ALAC] New incoming ALAC Members
by javrua＠gmail.com Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

Thanks to all! See you in India! Javier ------ Original message------From: Barrack OtienoDate: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 1:58 PMTo: Siranush Vardanyan;Cc: ALAC Working List;Alan Greenberg;Subject:Re: [ALAC] New incoming ALAC Members Congratulations Andrei and Javier. On Aug 30, 2016 8:56 PM, "Siranush Vardanyan" <siranush_vardanyan(a)hotmail.com> wrote: My heartest congratulations to Andrei and Javier. Welcome on board. Best Siranush > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:16:46 -0400 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: [ALAC] New incoming ALAC Members > > I would like to welcome and congratulate our new ALAC Members > appointed by the Nominating Committee, Andrey Kolesnikov from Europe, > and Javier Rua-Jovet from North America. > > For those of you who have not yet reviewed their bios, you can find > them at > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom-bios-2016-08-29-en#khaled-koub…. > > Although the appointments do not become effective until the end of > the Hyderabad meeting, as is our standard practice, they have now > been added to all of our mailing lists. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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… _______________________________________________ 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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] New incoming ALAC Members
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 30, 2016

Aug. 30, 2016

One minor correction, Andrei prefers his name ending with an I instead of Y. Alan At 30/08/2016 01:16 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I would like to welcome and congratulate our new ALAC Members >appointed by the Nominating Committee, Andrey Kolesnikov from >Europe, and Javier Rua-Jovet from North America. > >For those of you who have not yet reviewed their bios, you can find >them at >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom-bios-2016-08-29-en#khaled-koub…. > >Although the appointments do not become effective until the end of >the Hyderabad meeting, as is our standard practice, they have now >been added to all of our mailing lists. > >Alan

2 1