- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Review ATLAS II Recommendation 7 and 13
by Ariel Liang Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear All, During today¹s IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability WG <https://community.icann.org/x/nJVYAw> call, participants discussed ATLAS II Recommendation #7 and #13 and concluded that the ALAC needs to further review them. The goal is to understand what exactly the ALAC wants out of these two recommendations in relations to the organizational reviews of ICANN. Please follow the links to review the recommendations and the notes: Rec 7: https://community.icann.org/x/MJZCAw Rec 13: https://community.icann.org/x/PZZCAw Best Regards, Ariel Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.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

Liaison appointments for 2015-16
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

Our current ALAC-appointed Liaisons are: GNSO: Olivier Crepin-Leblond ccNSO: Maureen Hilyard SSAC: Julie Hammer .mobi: Murray McKercher According to ALAC RoP 18.2, "By the decision of the ALAC, a current Appointee who is willing to continue in that role may be reconfirmed instead of initiating a new selection process." Following consultation with ALAC Members, I conclude that there is widespread agreement that we extend the appointment of all four Liaisons for the coming year. I will be asking that the ALAC make a formal decision on this at the ALAC meeting on Tuesday. If you will not be able to attend the meeting, please arrange with another ALAC member to vote on your behalf, and notify At-Large Staff of this arrangement. You may either instruct the proxy-holder how to vote, or you may allow them to vote as they wish (<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04, Section 12.3) Alan

4 6

Re: [ALAC] New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Thank you Eduardo. Ariel, please take note of Eduardo as penholder. At 17/09/2015 12:12 AM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >I can volunteer for that. > >-ed > >On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:49 PM Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >As you all know, there has been an ongoing discussion on how to use >the New gTLD Auction proceeds (currently almost US$60,000,000). There >were sessions discussing this in Buenos Aires. >The current plan is to have a drafting group create a charter for a >Cross-Community Working Group which will recommend how the proceeds >are to be used. As a prelude to this, a Discussion Paper has been >published and is now open for Public Comment. >As the ALAC has been very vocal on this subject, I believe that we >should issue a comment, even if it is only to say that the Discussion >Paper is a good start and that the ALAC will participate in the CWG. >We need a volunteer to take responsibility for drafting such a statement. >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… >

2 1

Use of Country and Territory Names/Codes as Top-Level Domains
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

As you may know, there is a joint ccNSO-GNSO Cross-Community Working group on the use of country and territory names as Top Level Domains (CWG-UCTN). The CWG is soliciting input on the use of three-letter country codes - see https://community.icann.org/x/VIxYAw and https://community.icann.org/x/X7XhAg. Cheryl is the only active At-Large participant in the CWG. In general, the ALAC has taken the position that there should be no restrictions on the use of formal country/territory names for 2nd-level domain names, but had not considered their use as top-level domains in recent years. The three-letter codes were not available for assignment during the first round of new gTLDs. We are looking for a volunteer to, in consultation with Cheryl, review whether an ALAC statement is necessary and advisable, and if so to draft such a statement. Please redistribute this to your RALOs if you feel that appropriate. Alan

1 0

New gTLD Auction Proceeds Discussion Paper
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

As you all know, there has been an ongoing discussion on how to use the New gTLD Auction proceeds (currently almost US$60,000,000). There were sessions discussing this in Buenos Aires. The current plan is to have a drafting group create a charter for a Cross-Community Working Group which will recommend how the proceeds are to be used. As a prelude to this, a Discussion Paper has been published and is now open for Public Comment. As the ALAC has been very vocal on this subject, I believe that we should issue a comment, even if it is only to say that the Discussion Paper is a good start and that the ALAC will participate in the CWG. We need a volunteer to take responsibility for drafting such a statement. Alan

2 1

CCWG Accountability Face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

As you probably know, there will be a face-to-face meeting of the CCWG-Accountability in Los Angeles on 25-26 September 2015 (the end of next week). This meeting was only arranged last week and the time-line is very tight. Normally for such meetings, only the Members formally appointed by their AC/SOs is funded to attend. We expect all five ALAC Members to be present (Alan, Cheryl, Leon, Sebastien and Tijani). At the CCWG meeting held earlier today, it was announced that funding would be provided for one additional person from each SO/AC. I have consulted with the other CCWG Members as well as the ALAC Leadership Team. The two people who are CCWG Participants and have been the most active are Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Seun Ojedeji. Olivier's schedule will make it very difficult for him to participate in the full two-day meeting. Seun, despite past visa issues, does have a valid visa for the US and is available to travel if he can start travel planning immediately, so I believe that he is the logical additional person to represent us at the meeting. Alan

7 6

Consensus Call: ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

At our ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft and submit a statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws to be ratified by the Board. As requested, the statement sends exactly the same message has we have send to the two previous public comments the WG Recommendations. Specifically we have concerns about whether the GNSO can properly defend user and public interest if and when it may conflict with contracted party needs, and we have concerns that implementation of complex issues may take very long if there are multiple needs to revert to the GNSO for additional deliberations. Given the late timing of this statement, I asked that it be reviewed by those in At-Large most deeply involved in the process. Since we are supporting the recommended changes, but have concerns about the long-term implications, the statement take the form of formal advise to the Board that both of these concerns is that both issues be monitored to detect any negative implications. The statement is appended below. With this message, I am issuing a Consensus Call on this statement to end at 23:59 on Friday, 18 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. In the absence of significant opposition, this statement will be deemed to be ratified. Alan ============= ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations. The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the WG processes. 1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large or non-commercial users' constituencies are less able to participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution. 2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process. As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.

2 1

Blog on Board Comments to CCWG
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 12, 2015

Sept. 12, 2015

Please find below link to Steve Crocker's blog on the Board's final comments to the CCWG. Best regards, Rinalia > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-board-submits-final-comments-to-ccwg-… > >

1 0

Blog from Steve Crocker
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 4, 2015

Sept. 4, 2015

Blog from Steve Crocker following the CCWG-Board meeting on 2 September 2015 UTC+2200. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/working-together-through-the-last-mile Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

At-Large: Part of the Private Sector? Part of Civil Society?
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

These two questions seem to be coming up regularly. The current draft proposal of the CCWG-Accountability refers to ICANN being leg by the "Private Sector (as opposed to the Public Sector - Governments), and includes us in the Civil society part of the private sector. Looking at definitions can be useful. There are many of both terms. The most common definition of the Private Sector says it is everything that is not funded or controlled by government. Many definitions even explicitly list individuals as part of it. That certainly includes us. Some definitions talk about three groups, the public sector, the private sector (referring to for-profit organizations) and the "Voluntary Sector". The latter certainly includes the formal parts of At-Large, but really leaves individuals, who are no longer part of ANY of the sectors. From my perspective, that means that if we are part of the "Private Sector", we better be explicitly listed as such. I would appreciate hearing how these terms are defined in other languages and cultures. The Wikipedia defines Civil Society as "aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens." Civil society includes the family and the private sphere, referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business. The World Bank has a more detailed definition: the term civil society to refer to the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations". In both definitions, Civil Society is listed as essentially being defines as groups of one form or another. By those definitions, At-large and our components parts are certainly civil society, but the individuals whose interests we defend are not part of civil society per se. Thoughts? Alan

7 11