- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
by Alan Greenberg June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on which option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in Helsinki). The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie for last place, but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner. Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based on a verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection. Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is something called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted for the leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for the person they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate. Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection. Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random selection, it would be internal to the voting system and would not be verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used a truly random selection. Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for Helsinki. Alan

4 3

Draft Helsinki At-Large Leadership Schedule
by Alan Greenberg June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

Attached is the draft schedule for the At-Large Leadership (formerly ALAC & RALO Leadership) meetings in Helsinki. We have a total of 12.5 hours scheduled. Please review this and if you believe that we have omitted something essential, or have too much or too little time for a specific subject, please speak up. Please also let me know if the format is helpful. You can find the overall At-Large Schedule at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+56+-+Helsinki+Meeting+-+J… and the ICANN Schedule at https://meetings.icann.org/en/icann56-sched. Alan

3 6

Re: [ALAC] Draft Helsinki At-Large Leadership Schedule
by Alan Greenberg June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

Please note that the agenda has been sent to translation. Changes will be noted and adjustments made prior to and at Helsinki. Alan At 15/06/2016 12:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Attached is the draft schedule for the At-Large Leadership (formerly >ALAC & RALO Leadership) meetings in Helsinki. > >We have a total of 12.5 hours scheduled. Please review this and if >you believe that we have omitted something essential, or have too >much or too little time for a specific subject, please speak up. >Please also let me know if the format is helpful. > >You can find the overall At-Large Schedule at >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+56+-+Helsinki+Meeting+-+J… >and the ICANN Schedule at https://meetings.icann.org/en/icann56-sched. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings
by Seun Ojedeji June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

Taking my turn to congratulate Olivier and everyone that contributed to this. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 15 Jun 2016 04:04, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: Congrats to all. Per OCL's observations, couldn't have said it better! -Carlton On Tue, Jun 14, 2016, 2:55 AM Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am obviously thrilled about these news. This is due to a lot of people > working on this, planting seeds at various levels, adding their input to > the document and speaking to individual Board members and other community > leaders. Alan and I, as ALAC Chair, might have been the drivers of the > initiative, but the vehicle moved forward thanks to your collective push, > including our past and current selected Board members. So THANK YOU > everyone. > > But you know, only part of the deal has gone through so far: the funding. > Now comes the hard work of actually making good use of this ability to meet > more regularly both at RALO and At-Large level, in order to increase the > end user voice in ICANN. We need to organise ourselves at all levels. We > need to mobilise. We need to search for the input of end users and in this > search, we need to inform them about what is happening at ICANN. We need to > act responsibly, collectively, helping each other out, collaborating > between RALOs, with RIRs, with other organisations. We need to use every > CROPP trip to reach out as hard as we can to expand our footprint. We need > to put to bed the tensions about how we call ourselves, whether we are > civil society or not, whether we can work with NCSG & NCUC or not, and also > agree to willingly and amicably share ALAC seats geographically around the > world *so that no region or sub-region of the world is left out*. > Failing to do any of the above will just waste our time into parochial > internal fights and waste not only ICANN's money, the money which end users > have spent when they have purchased a domain name, but also discredit the > At-Large community at ICANN. We would *fail* miserably at our task. > The ICANN Board has placed its trust in our Community to do the right > thing. Let's not disappoint them. Let's not disappoint Internet end users. > We are *not* going to use this rotation of General Assemblies and Summits > as a calendar of all-paid holidays in exotic locations. Quite the contrary, > we will use it for the public good and we will *denounce* whoever does > otherwise in our community. It is a matter of trust and accountability. > Let's make end users proud of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. > > Olivier > (writing in a personal capacity) > > > > On 14/06/2016 05:24, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > Rinalia beat me to it, but here is the note I received from Xavier along > with my reply. > > This is indeed a landmark decision. My thanks to Olivier who spearheaded > this initiative, and to all others who contributed to its success. > > Alan > > ====================== > > Thanks so much Xavier. I have been at a meeting in Africa and did not see > the announcement. > > We certainly hoped that our proposal would be accepted, but this is faster > and better than we dared hope. > > I am the rest of the ALAC and At-Large do appreciate what you, your staff, > and the Board Finance Committee have done. > > Warm regards, Alan > > From: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, > Cherine Chalaby > <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Asha > Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org> <asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org> > CC: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL)" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com>, "Board > Operations" <board-operations(a)icann.org> <board-operations(a)icann.org> > Subject: Re: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face > meetings > Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:56:30 +0000 > > Dear Alan, > > I am following up on the email below and attached proposal. > > As Cherine and I had indicated, we have addressed this request in the > public comment responses, which were published on 6 June (see link below, > page 116/119). In case, you would not have had an opportunity to review > this document, you will find below the text of the response. Hopefully, > this conveys adequately that the ALAC request is welcome and approved. > > I want to ensure it is clear that the Goal 1.3 of the 5-year Operating > Plan has been adjusted to reflect this proposal, with a mention of the At > Large meetings as relevant in each remaining years of the 5-year plan. > > If you have any questions, please let Cherine or I know. > > Link: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-op-budget-fy17-… > > Response > > Value in Face-to-Face Meetings > ICANN recognizes the fundamental importance of the representation of users > in ICANNâ€™s multistakeholder model, and of the participation of such > representatives in its activities. ICANN also recognizes that the existing > structures of the At-Large organization depend for their effectiveness on > face-to-face meetings, and that the past experience of the value resulting > from such face-to-face meetings has received broad consensus from the > community. > > ICANN Agrees with the At-Large Request > ICANN welcomes the request from At-Large for a multiyear schedule of > General Assemblies and Summits. It is consistent with the organizationâ€™s > efforts to plan more and better in both short and long terms. > It allows the existing meetings and costs to be put in the longer term > perspective of a five-year cycle. This will improve the predictability of > activities and costs for the ICANN organization and allow better planning > and increased efficiency in the organization of such meetings. It also > makes explicit the commitment of the At-Large organization to the suggested > structure of meetings included in the proposal. > > The Way Forward > ICANN plans to integrate the At-Large multiyear schedule of General > Assemblies and Summits, and similar requests from other parts of the > community, into ICANNâ€™s Five-Year Operating Plan. This means At-Large > will not have to make new requests every year for the inclusion in the > Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget. > > Future Considerations > The Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget are subject to community and > Board approval each year. Because of the longer term planning arising from > this process, both the ICANN and At-Large organizations will need to be > flexible and adjust the scheduling of General Assemblies and Summit > meetings to take account of circumstances as they arise. â€œ > We also recommended that At-Large provides periodic updates of the > five-year cycle of meetings. These should happen at least once a year and > at least two months before the scheduled date of publication of the draft > annual operating plan and budget for public comment. > > Changes to be made in final FY17 planning documents > Integrate the proposed multiyear planning proposal into the FY17 Operating > Plan and Budget > > Thank you. > > Best, > Xavier > > Xavier Calvez > ICANN > CFO > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 > Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 > Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM > To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> > <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Asha Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org> > <asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org>, Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> > Cc: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL)" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > Subject: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings > > >Dear Cherine, Asha and Xavier, > > > >As discussed in Marrakech, the ALAC Proposal for Multi-Year Planning > >of At-Large Face-to-Face Meetings has been submitted to the Public > >Comment on the Y17 plan and budget. I am attaching a copy here for > >your convenience. I am of course available to answer any questions > >you may have. > > > >If you have any idea of the time-line for addressing the proposal, I > >would appreciate if you could share it. If it is aspirational and not > >something you would like to see published, I will only share with my > >trusted leadership team. You will note that the proposal implies but > >does not explicitly say that this should be rolled into the FY17 plan > >and budget, so we have tried to give you flexibility as to how things > play out. > > > >Warm regards, Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Fwd: Re: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings
by Alan Greenberg June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016

Rinalia beat me to it, but here is the note I received from Xavier along with my reply. This is indeed a landmark decision. My thanks to Olivier who spearheaded this initiative, and to all others who contributed to its success. Alan ====================== >Thanks so much Xavier. I have been at a meeting >in Africa and did not see the announcement. > >We certainly hoped that our proposal would be >accepted, but this is faster and better than we dared hope. > >I am the rest of the ALAC and At-Large do >appreciate what you, your staff, and the Board Finance Committee have done. > >Warm regards, Alan > >>From: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> >>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Cherine Chalaby >> <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Asha >> Hemrajani <asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org> >>CC: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL)" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com>, "Board >> Operations" <board-operations(a)icann.org> >>Subject: Re: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings >>Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:56:30 +0000 >> >>Dear Alan, >> >>I am following up on the email below and attached proposal. >> >>As Cherine and I had indicated, we have >>addressed this request in the public comment >>responses, which were published on 6 June (see >>link below, page 116/119). In case, you would >>not have had an opportunity to review this >>document, you will find below the text of the >>response. Hopefully, this conveys adequately >>that the ALAC request is welcome and approved. >> >>I want to ensure it is clear that the Goal 1.3 >>of the 5-year Operating Plan has been adjusted >>to reflect this proposal, with a mention of the >>At Large meetings as relevant in each remaining years of the 5-year plan. >> >>If you have any questions, please let Cherine or I know. >> >>Link: >>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-op-budget-fy17-… >> >>Response >> >>Value in Face-to-Face Meetings >>ICANN recognizes the fundamental importance of >>the representation of users in ICANNâs >>multistakeholder model, and of the >>participation of such representatives in its >>activities. ICANN also recognizes that the >>existing structures of the At-Large >>organization depend for their effectiveness on >>face-to-face meetings, and that the past >>experience of the value resulting from such >>face-to-face meetings has received broad consensus from the community. >> >>ICANN Agrees with the At-Large Request >>ICANN welcomes the request from At-Large for a >>multiyear schedule of General Assemblies and >>Summits. It is consistent with the >>organizationâs efforts to plan more and better in both short and long terms. >>It allows the existing meetings and costs to be >>put in the longer term perspective of a >>five-year cycle. This will improve the >>predictability of activities and costs for the >>ICANN organization and allow better planning >>and increased efficiency in the organization of >>such meetings. It also makes explicit the >>commitment of the At-Large organization to the >>suggested structure of meetings included in the proposal. >> >>The Way Forward >>ICANN plans to integrate the At-Large multiyear >>schedule of General Assemblies and Summits, and >>similar requests from other parts of the >>community, into ICANNâs Five-Year Operating >>Plan. This means At-Large will not have to make >>new requests every year for the inclusion in >>the Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget. >> >>Future Considerations >>The Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget are >>subject to community and Board approval each >>year. Because of the longer term planning >>arising from this process, both the ICANN and >>At-Large organizations will need to be flexible >>and adjust the scheduling of General Assemblies >>and Summit meetings to take account of circumstances as they arise. â >>We also recommended that At-Large provides >>periodic updates of the five-year cycle of >>meetings. These should happen at least once a >>year and at least two months before the >>scheduled date of publication of the draft >>annual operating plan and budget for public comment. >> >>Changes to be made in final FY17 planning documents >>Integrate the proposed multiyear planning >>proposal into the FY17 Operating Plan and Budget >> >>Thank you. >> >>Best, >>Xavier >> >>Xavier Calvez >>ICANN >>CFO >>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>Los Angeles, CA 90094 >>Office : +1 (310) 301 5838 >>Mobile : +1 (805) 312 0052 >>Fax : +1 (310) 957-2348 >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:40 AM >>To: Cherine Chalaby >><cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org>, Asha Hemrajani >><asha.hemrajani(a)icann.org>, Xavier Calvez <xavier.calvez(a)icann.org> >>Cc: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim (GMAIL)" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> >>Subject: ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings >> >> >Dear Cherine, Asha and Xavier, >> > >> >As discussed in Marrakech, the ALAC Proposal for Multi-Year Planning >> >of At-Large Face-to-Face Meetings has been submitted to the Public >> >Comment on the Y17 plan and budget. I am attaching a copy here for >> >your convenience. I am of course available to answer any questions >> >you may have. >> > >> >If you have any idea of the time-line for addressing the proposal, I >> >would appreciate if you could share it. If it is aspirational and not >> >something you would like to see published, I will only share with my >> >trusted leadership team. You will note that the proposal implies but >> >does not explicitly say that this should be rolled into the FY17 plan >> >and budget, so we have tried to give you >> flexibility as to how things play out. >> > >> >Warm regards, Alan

10 10

Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

I agree with Olivier, but I will nevertheless play the game (but am ignoring the "one slide" constraint to start. Here are my personal views. Please voice your agreement or some other position. These are "ALAC" views that Rinalia is being asked to present, but others on this list are free to state how they think, to help inform the ALAC Members. Alan At 13/06/2016 11:12 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the outlook for the next >round of the new gTLD Program. To support our discussions, we would >like to be informed by stakeholder views. >I have been requested to obtain the view of the ALAC. Would it be >possible for the ALAC to provide a snapshot of its views on this >topic in one slide? Please note that this information and >presentation format would be applied to each stakeholder group's views. > >Some questions to guide you: >1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be >identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards? No. During the last round, the details of the Application Guidebook (ie the implementation) took far longer than predicted, and then nce the round was opened, even more issues were discovered. To set a date right now, at the start of the GNSO PDP on future processes, and prior to the completion of the CCT review seems to be an exercise in predicting the future, without even the benefit of a semi-reliable crystal ball. Note that it is not a foregone conclusion (in the PDP) that there should be a next "round" as opposed to some other release of TLDs. Personally I think rounds are reasonable, but it is not that we need to have a single "round" for all classes of TLDs. Those serving disadvantaged areas (if applicable!), IDNs, .brand TLDs could all be released in different processes. If that illusion to occult practices is not sufficiently clear, there is no way to predict a date. Setting a date as a "target" is fine. But I believe that once a date is mentioned, it will become "the date" with incumbent slippages and very strong pressure to meet "the date", even if we are not ready. >2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be >in place before the next round is initiated? A completed policy with FAR more detail that the last time, and a process for addressing the inevitable issue that arise once the list of applied-for strings is known. The policy must address the issues that arose the last time. >3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be >improved for next round? - Community evaluations that are not Draconian and nearly impossible to meet. - If we decide that we need some level of applicant support for disadvantaged economies, those rules to should not be nearly impossible to meet. - Confusingly similar must be far more open to what is confusing to real Internet users and not just linguists and trade-mark lawyers. This will also remove some of the tendency for new TLDs to require businesses to multiply register their names "just in case" some user finds them repetitive. We cannot stop the overlap between a business have a generic (such as com, net or org) PLUS relevant ccTLDs PLUS other Geographic TLDs. We should not unnecessarily increase the set of TLDs any given business can use. - Formal rules on private use of generic words - I'm sure there are more that have slipped my mind at the moment. >4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC? There are those in At-Large who would ask whether re really need any more TLDs. But I see that as (perhaps sadly) inevitable... >For the Board to have a chance to review the slide before its >discussion, it would be good to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest. > >I do understand that this is short notice. If you do not have >sufficient time to develop a formal position, informal input would >be sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated. >The Board is likely to revisit the topic again during its workshop >in September. There is thus another chance to provide a more >extensive view, but for now the Board would just like to have a >sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations. > >Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >on behalf of the ICANN Board > > > > > > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:FFI6acGgaHgkljw6nSfaWPz+r0bVcVMCUIg6dand+B99rO4q6GuAwBGgO2N98Vn2ARdbNK7d8FNFypxe7wL0aYD3+auvIYZJtvzgVVQ1fKmfKg7xZ1K+zUznzX9ioup1zpHUi5Lg83QOkpNuq3IIQkvK/MPVhQ/ZlY0eImbYdFlkru0scp0xou/dO7hc9wj/ > >_______________________________________________ >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…

5 5

Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

I thought I had made it clear that I was kicking off the discussion with my personal views. If indeed there is a desire within the ALAC (presumably in response to the wider community), then the ALAC could well issue such advice. And indeed, if there is a strong beleif that we should issue such advice, we would be derelict in not doing so. At the moment, I am hearing that ICANN should not set a date for a further round, and indeed not even presume there will be such a round, or other mechanism to allocate gTLDs, but rather wait for the current processes to progress. If I am misreading the messages, I am sure people will point it out. Alan At 13/06/2016 06:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 13 June 2016 at 22:44, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >There are those in At-Large who would ask >whether re really need any more TLDs. But I see >that as (perhaps sadly) inevitable... > >WHY? > >If there is a consensus within At-Large that no >new rounds are are justified, it is reasonable >for ALAC advice to the Board to say: > >"ALAC cannot endorse or condone any future gTLD >delegations until ICANN Board and staff have >made a sufficiently demonstrated (to OUR satisfaction) that >a) Demand for new gTLDs exists beyond ICANN's >contracted parties (and their âservice >providers), addressing a verified (ie, by a third party) market demand > >b) Expansion in the gTLD namespace serves an >identifiable public interest, enhancing stability and trust in the DNS > >c) Full documentation of "lessons learned from >the last round" is created and -- if a new round >is demonstrated through (a) and (b) above -- >provides substantial input to revised rules going forward" > > >The steamroller may indeed be inevitable; heaven >knows our advice has been ignored before. But if >the internal (and non conflicted) consensus is >clear, ALAC is derelict if it does not clearly >articulate advice to the Board that such >activity is happening against (At-Large's perception of) the pubic interest.â

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

It is unfortunate that Akram Atallah has gone on record as saying that However, questions remain as to whether it will be a round or a permanent window. despite the ongoing processes which do not presume there will be further processes. Alan At 13/06/2016 02:53 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Olivier, > >The Board is aware of all the reviews that are >currently being done. Certainly no decision >will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews. > >There are strong views being made to the Board >about the need to start the next round. I think >you can make an educated guess on where it is >coming from. Rather than listen to one group, >the Board would like to have a "sense" of the >matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense >of the community in time if you will while we >wait for the results of the reviews. > >If you choose not to provide input to the Board >at this time on the matter, that is entirely up >to you. In my personal view, you would give up >an opportunity to share what you think, which >would be a pity because it gives more room for >other views to stand alone without counter balance. > >The formulation of the guiding questions is >mine, based on what I think the key contention >points would be. In a sense, it is what I think >are aspects of what would be valuable for the >Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important. > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > > > > >On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >Dear Rinalia, > >I must admit that I am very surprised with the >language used in your request and the questions >that are asked. There are currently several >processes which need to complete before a "next >round" is even thought of. The CCT-RT and the >"New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP" are very careful >indeed in not presuming that a next round is >going to happen, yet the language which you use >in your email appears to point toward the fact >that the Board is already intent on starting a >"next round". Worse still it asks the >unbelievable question of whether we should set a >target date to work towards to initiate a next >round? That would indeed be the best way to >repeat all of the mistakes that were done in the >current round and to irritate more governments >and end users. The issue of a "next round" is so >unwelcome at present that if the term "next >round" is used in the CCT-RT, they need to put a >dollar in a virtual swear box as a penalty. > >Judging from your email, I am in fear that the >Board, in its current wisdom, is far removed >from understanding the current greed and lack of >public interest found from the current round of new gTLDs. I am flabbergasted. > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier > > >On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Dear ALAC, >> >>In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the >>outlook for the next round of the new gTLD >>Program. To support our discussions, we would >>like to be informed by stakeholder views. >>I have been requested to obtain the view of the >>ALAC. Would it be possible for the ALAC to >>provide a snapshot of its views on this topic >>in one slide? Please note that this >>information and presentation format would be >>applied to each stakeholder group's views. >> >>Some questions to guide you: >>1. Initiation of next round - do you think a >>date should be identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards? >>2. Requirements for round initiation - what do >>you think should be in place before the next round is initiated? >>3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD >>program should be improved for next round? >>4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC? >> >>For the Board to have a chance to review the >>slide before its discussion, it would be good >>to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest. >> >>I do understand that this is short notice. If >>you do not have sufficient time to develop a >>formal position, informal input would be >>sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated. >>The Board is likely to revisit the topic again >>during its workshop in September. There is >>thus another chance to provide a more extensive >>view, but for now the Board would just like to >>have a sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations. >> >>Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >> >>on behalf of the ICANN Board >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>ALAC mailing list >> >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>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… > > >-- > >Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD > ><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:Zthzp6cdtkcguam70EkLPIGXGcER6gJAfqEjwNUf6diI1C5QWbpfqcGIZ45NjseiyFPliPxN6g78lLXoosI5B8W8gFksbbukLMd4gvTzgXIwjxhsyPIKUFSWjKqEwdrPYMJ9cEy0uedegCU/1UXbRcoh8LmDTgtvHSAWSrjdg2HZqmOuL5OA3si3+QzDcRUE > >_______________________________________________ >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] Request for a snapshot view on next round new gTLD program outlook from the ALAC for the ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

The first question posed by the Charter for The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group is: Cancelling Subsequent Procedures: Should there in fact be new gTLD subsequent procedures and if not, what are the justifications for and ramifications of discontinuing the program? Alan At 13/06/2016 01:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello, > >I tend to align with Olivier's reservations. I >think the first question should have been to ask >whether a new round is required. > >I believe the outcome of that should indeed >determine whether to proceed or not. A PC to the >community on this should be a step forward, so >board can receive formal view of SO/AC for her decision making. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 13 Jun 2016 5:44 p.m., "Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond" <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >Dear Rinalia, > >I must admit that I am very surprised with the >language used in your request and the questions >that are asked. There are currently several >processes which need to complete before a "next >round" is even thought of. The CCT-RT and the >"New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP" are very careful >indeed in not presuming that a next round is >going to happen, yet the language which you use >in your email appears to point toward the fact >that the Board is already intent on starting a >"next round". Worse still it asks the >unbelievable question of whether we should set a >target date to work towards to initiate a next >round? That would indeed be the best way to >repeat all of the mistakes that were done in the >current round and to irritate more governments >and end users. The issue of a "next round" is so >unwelcome at present that if the term "next >round" is used in the CCT-RT, they need to put a >dollar in a virtual swear box as a penalty. > >Judging from your email, I am in fear that the >Board, in its current wisdom, is far removed >from understanding the current greed and lack of >public interest found from the current round of new gTLDs. I am flabbergasted. > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier > > >On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Dear ALAC, >> >>In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the >>outlook for the next round of the new gTLD >>Program. To support our discussions, we would >>like to be informed by stakeholder views. >>I have been requested to obtain the view of the >>ALAC. Would it be possible for the ALAC to >>provide a snapshot of its views on this topic >>in one slide? Please note that this >>information and presentation format would be >>applied to each stakeholder group's views. >> >>Some questions to guide you: >>1. Initiation of next round - do you think a >>date should be identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards? >>2. Requirements for round initiation - what do >>you think should be in place before the next round is initiated? >>3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD >>program should be improved for next round? >>4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC? >> >>For the Board to have a chance to review the >>slide before its discussion, it would be good >>to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest. >> >>I do understand that this is short notice. If >>you do not have sufficient time to develop a >>formal position, informal input would be >>sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated. >>The Board is likely to revisit the topic again >>during its workshop in September. There is >>thus another chance to provide a more extensive >>view, but for now the Board would just like to >>have a sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations. >> >>Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice. >> >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >> >>on behalf of the ICANN Board >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>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… > > >-- > >Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD > ><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:vD46I0pXWgCRdQTnsj4YM0e1cxVJsXtcU89MMDM1z/aJ+JhIaL5RbEC2efqmV3nQfsa3jD79nTc6wiSEqYbvmb4jlzCUEvFBD2dBlihBj2AsnDwSWnmj7w0LEhR5EZpEdaOLl0ZWWhKZlDzSxEt0kTQmFzGVDziD5nqvaF2rcAAG1jOral8aBUeuWVDyx/zB > >_______________________________________________ >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

ALAC proposal on multi-year planning for face-to-face meetings
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

Dear Alan, members of the ALAC and At-Large community, Congratulations! A significant milestone and achievement. Best regards, Rinalia > Link: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-op-budget-fy17-… > > “Response > Value in Face-to-Face Meetings > ICANN recognizes the fundamental importance of the representation of users > in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, and of the participation of such > representatives in its activities. ICANN also recognizes that the existing > structures of the At-Large organization depend for their effectiveness on > face-to-face meetings, and that the past experience of the value resulting > from such face-to-face meetings has received broad consensus from the > community. > ICANN Agrees with the At-Large Request > ICANN welcomes the request from At-Large for a multiyear schedule of > General Assemblies and Summits. It is consistent with the organization’s > efforts to plan more and better in both short and long terms. > It allows the existing meetings and costs to be put in the longer term > perspective of a five-year cycle. This will improve the predictability of > activities and costs for the ICANN organization and allow better planning > and increased efficiency in the organization of such meetings. It also > makes explicit the commitment of the At-Large organization to the suggested > structure of meetings included in the proposal. > > The Way Forward > ICANN plans to integrate the At-Large multiyear schedule of General > Assemblies and Summits, and similar requests from other parts of the > community, into ICANN’s Five-Year Operating Plan. This means At-Large will > not have to make new requests every year for the inclusion in the Fiscal > Year Operating Plan and Budget. > > Future Considerations > The Fiscal Year Operating Plan and Budget are subject to community and > Board approval each year. Because of the longer term planning arising from > this process, both the ICANN and At-Large organizations will need to be > flexible and adjust the scheduling of General Assemblies and Summit > meetings to take account of circumstances as they arise. “ > We also recommended that At-Large provides periodic updates of the > five-year cycle of meetings. These should happen at least once a year and > at least two months before the scheduled date of publication of the draft > annual operating plan and budget for public comment. > Changes to be made in final FY17 planning documents > Integrate the proposed multiyear planning proposal into the FY17 Operating > Plan and Budget > > > >

1 0