- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Question regarding PTI Board
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

During the discussion on the CWG Proposal, there was a question of exactly what the proposal called for regarding the composition of the PTI Board. The wording in the proposal is: >PTI Board > >As a separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors and >have the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers. >The construct of the PTI Board will be a range of 3-5 people to be >appointed by ICANN as the sole member of PTI. The PTI Board could be >comprised of three directors who are employed by ICANN or PTI (for >example, the ICANN Executive responsible for PTI, the ICANN CTO and >the IANA Managing Director), and two additional independent >directors. The two additional directors must be nominated using an >appropriately rigorous nomination mechanism (e.g. through the use of >the ICANN Nominating Committee). As you can see, the proposal does not provide a hard and fast specification, but does make some general recommendations. If all people maintain their current responsibilities, and the "ICANN executive responsible for PTI" is the same executive who is now responsible for IANA, the three "ICANN directors" would be Elise Gerich, David Conrad and Akram Atallah. Alan

2 1

RIR-RALO Cooperation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 22, 2015

June 22, 2015

Dear RALO Chairs, Please note the Joint Meeting of the ASO/NRO with the ICANN Board scheduled for Wednesday at 2.00-3.00pm in Martin Fierro Room (Level 2 of conference venue - take elevator directly across Golden Horn). At the meeting, Ray Plzak (ICANN Board member selected by the ASO) will ask the RIRs to highlight their cooperation with RALOs at the regional level. This is an opportunity for RALOs to show support and interest to have enhanced cooperation at the RIR-RALO level across regions. Do consider sending RALO representatives to the meeting. Please check the ICANN meeting schedule on Wed to confirm the venue and meeting time in case there are changes. https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-board-nro-aso Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Thoughts Requested on ICANN CEO Criteria
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

Dear ALAC and RALO Chairs, I am very much looking forward to seeing you and other At-Large community members again at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. *Important Topic Alert* The Board is interested in your input to help us refine the selection criteria for the next ICANN CEO. - On Sunday June 21st, there will be an ALAC/At-Large session with me, which will focus on the CEO Search and Criteria. - On Thursday June 25th, there will be a Board Session on the CEO Succession Process right before the Public Forum where your input would be invaluable. *Key Questions:* What characteristics and skills would you like to see in the future ICANN CEO? As no one person will meet all the desired criteria, which criteria are most important? What distribution of characteristics and skills would you like to see? I request that members of the ALAC and the At-Large spare some time thinking about and discussing this important topic. If RALO Chairs could facilitate discussions at the regional level leading up to Buenos Aires, that would be extremely helpful to feed into the discussions in Buenos Aires. As a reference and trigger for your thoughts and discussion, below is the CEO Profile from the 2011 CEO Search materials. I look forward to your input. Best regards, Rinalia *CEO Profile [from CEO Search in 2011*] Candidates will be expected to demonstrate to the highest degree possible the following experience and skills. These have been grouped under 4 headings that embody the multi-faceted nature of the role: *Professional* § Solid record of either/or public, corporate, academic service, at a high international level § Global exposure: experience of working in different countries or with different cultures § Experience in managing process work flows and ability to anticipate issues § Close familiarity with the ways in which civil society, business sector interests and regulatory authorities interact § Success in managing ICANN’s evolution as an organization, complex issues and programs, and key contracts § Track record of achieving results, not just ‘being there’ § Previous association with highly respected organizations § Leadership of dispersed international teams and active multi-stakeholders that provide policy input *Personal* § Consensus builder and catalyst, a motivator and persuader § Intellectually engaging, contributes to ‘thought leadership’ in helping define vision and strategy, and leverages the organization’s competencies § Combines weight of personality with empathy towards others of many different backgrounds § Practiced at exercising influence in non-hierarchical relationships § Earns respect and generates trust in him/herself and the organization § Multicultural with language skills, practiced communicator and public speaker § Aligns with ICANN's values: integrity, trust, humility, technical excellence and public service § Able negotiator, without making enemies, can represent ICANN and can present it well § Strong affinity with the Internet (but not just a “cheerleader”), conscious of its role and complexity, fully embraces ICANN’s mission and its bottom-up process § Embodies and practices the multi-stakeholder approach and welcomes significant volunteer involvement *Technical* § Internet architecture knowledge : understanding of the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, including domain names, protocol parameters and addresses § Institutional knowledge : familiarity with the functioning of registries and registrars, ICANN’s policy development procedures and user categories § Understanding of the domain names market structure and dynamics, including competition issues *The Internet Governance Ecosystem* § Institutions: understand the environment of those involved in the Internet and its administrative governance systems, notably IETF, ISOC, W3C, and other standard bodies (ETSI, ITU, ISO, Unicode) § International awareness: know the government stakeholders in Internet governance and how to interact with them § Knowledge of the UN system and other international organizations and processes § Ability to function and generate trust with all actors through operational excellence and respect for input from the multistakeholder base END

16 17

Discussion on ALS Expectations and Criteria.
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2015

June 17, 2015

This is a topic that we were supposed to be working on since the last meeting in Singapore, but the larger discussions on IANA and accountability has pretty much taken all of our time. However, we do have some time allocated in Buenos Aires to work on this, so I thought I would start the discussion. I am attaching a VERY brief "Discussion Paper". For those who will be in Buenos Aires, there is no need to reply here, but please read the paper and be prepared to talk about what it has right, what is wrong, and what needs to be added. The long term intent is to have RALOs, ALSes and individual members that can effectively support ICANN (and vice versa). Alan

2 2

NTIA Blog by Larry Strickling
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

FYI. Rinalia > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann… > > > > Stakeholder Proposals to Come Together at ICANN Meeting in Argentina > > June 16, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling > > Next week, hundreds of members of the Internet stakeholder community will attend the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) 53rd meeting in Argentina. As I head to Buenos Aires, one of NTIA’s top priorities continues to be the transition of NTIA’s role related to the Internet Domain Name System. Since we announced the IANA stewardship transition in March 2014 [1], the response of the stakeholder community has been remarkable and inspiring. I thank everyone for their hard work. > > The meeting in Buenos Aires will be pivotal, as the community finalizes the components of the transition proposal and determines what remains to be done. The three stakeholder groups planning the transition of the individual IANA functions have made great progress. I congratulate the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions for finishing its draft proposal and look forward to this work stream reaching closure. The other two stakeholder groups – the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is shepherding the protocol parameter proposal, and the five Regional Internet Registries, which collaborated on the numbering proposal – finished their proposals earlier this year. > > Now the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) must combine these proposals into a consolidated transition proposal and then seek public comment on all aspects of the plan. ICG’s role is crucial, because it must build a public record for us on how the three customer group submissions tie together in a manner that ensures NTIA’s criteria [1] are met and institutionalized over the long term. > > In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider: > > The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? > > > > The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? > > > > The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? > > > > In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? > > > > The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? > > All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. > > As the plans take final shape, I hope the community starts to focus on the matter of implementation of its recommendations. Have the issues of implementation been identified and addressed in the proposal so that the community and ICANN can implement the plan as expeditiously as possible once we have reviewed and accepted it? This is an important issue right now because after the Buenos Aires meeting, NTIA will need to make a determination on extending its current contract with ICANN, which expires on September 30, 2015. Last month, I asked both the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability for an update on the transition planning, as well as their views on how long it will take to finalize and implement the transition plan if it were approved. Keeping in mind that the community and ICANN will need to implement all work items identified by the ICG and the Working Group on Accountability as prerequisites for the transition before the contract can end. The community’s input on timing is critical and will strongly influence how NTIA proceeds with the contract extension. I look forward to hearing from everyone in Buenos Aires. > > At this key juncture, it is timely to not only take stock of all the work that has occurred, but also what lies ahead. I recognize that some stakeholder groups have finalized their proposals and are anxious to move forward. But NTIA will only review a comprehensive plan that includes all elements, and we must let the multistakeholder process run its full course. In that same spirit, I urge all global stakeholders – community members, ICANN Board members, and ICANN staff – to work together constructively to complete this final stage of the transition. The commitment by the global community to develop a consensus proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions and improves ICANN’s accountability is a testament to the power of the multistakeholder model. > END

2 1

URGENT: ALAC Review of Sensitive TLDs and necessary PICs
by Alan Greenberg June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015

As you will all remember, in LA, we issued advice to the Board regarding the highly regulated and sensitive TLD for which the GAC had requested specific safeguards. To date, that advice has neither been accepted or rejected and is still the subject of discussion. I have summarized the overall story and have provided the assessment that I, Evan and Olivier have made of the TLD in question. The board interaction with the ALAC on this issue has been revolutionary (and will also be raised in the ALAC Board meeting in BA). In Buenos Aires, this issue will be on the agenda and there will be a discussion with the GAC which will include this topic. Please review this document and the assessments that have been made, and be prepared to indicate whether you agree with the assessments, or to further discuss them. Alan

7 9

Re: [ALAC] [Alac-sc-outreach] Review Requested: New ALAC Outreach Document - Deadline 8 June
by Ariel Liang June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Hi Murray, Thank you very much for the comment. In the latest version (phase 4) <https://community.icann.org/x/nIw0Aw> , the QR code will direct you to the intended webpage. Please note that the QR code is dynamic, which means that it can redirect scanners to other webpages (e.g. the future At-Large website) without changing its appearance. Thank you, Ariel From: Murray Mckercher <murraymckercher(a)gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 11:48 AM To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "alac-sc-outreach(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-sc-outreach(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [Alac-sc-outreach] Review Requested: New ALAC Outreach Document - Deadline 8 June ?I scanned the QR code with my phone and assume it was a mockup? As it did not lead to the At-Large website. Murray 416.803.3183? From: ICANN At-Large Staff Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 19:21 To: alac-sc-outreach(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [Alac-sc-outreach] Review Requested: New ALAC Outreach Document - Deadline 8 June Dear All, Based on the feedback received from the Outreach and Engagement Sub-Committee, we are pleased to be able to show you the third revision of the new ALAC outreach document. There are three versions of the trifold that you will be able to select from (see: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Outreach+and+Engagement +Document+Workspace). Could you please review the design and the text and post any final comments on the wiki page by Monday, 8 June at 23:59 UTC? Please indicate whether you prefer style A, B, or C on the wiki by using the comment function. So that the final document can be ready by ICANN 53, this will be the final round of review prior for this print cycle. 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 <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

1 0

Final Review on New ALAC Outreach Document - Deadline 14 June
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Dear All, Thank you for your comments on the previous versions of the new ALAC outreach document. Based on your comments, we are happy to show you the fourth, and final, version of the ALAC outreach document (see: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Outreach+and+Engagemen…) In order to have the printed documents available at ICANN 53, we will need to send them to the printer on Monday, 15 June. Please could you review the fourth version and comment only if you see an major errors. Please note your comments on the wiki page by Sunday, 14 June at 23:59 UTC. 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<mailto:staff@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

ACTION: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Attached is the Final Proposal of the CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition. As a Chartering Organization, the ALAC is being requested to approve or otherwise comment on the Proposal no later than Thursday, 25 June 2015. I ask that At-Large Staff create an At-Large Policy Development wiki page for this report where comments can be submitted. I have reviewed the report against the comments made by the ALAC on the draft proposal. In my mind, this Proposal warrants serious consideration by the ALAC, and I suspect ratification. Our largest problem with the Draft Proposal was that the GNSO and ccNSO were the bodies that both had to approve a CSC request to initiate a Special IANA Review (SIFR). We had a number of reasons, but the largest was that the GNSO was not fully representative of the non-ccTLD world. Specifically, the ALAC, the GAC, the SSAC, the RSSAC and others who have an interest in the outcome are not members of the GNSO. The final proposal does not alter the formal process, but now does require that the GNSO initiate meaningful consultation with other AC/SOs. This is not 100% satisfactory, but given that: - it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen; - if the ccNSO and gNSO *BOTH* think there is a problem, there likely *IS* a problem; - we would be represented on the SIFR; I think that this is a reasonable compromise. It does simplify things in that we are not invoking yet another body in the decision, although the GNSO does have some thinking to do about how it would make such a decision if this ever happens. The other point we raised was that we (and other bodies with a single IFR representative) should be allowed alternates to ensure that we can always participate fully. Given that the AoC reviews have been pretty flexible on this, I do not think that the omission at this stage is a show stopper. At the time of the closure, we had not come to closure on the composition of the PTI Board. We were definite in it not being controlled by registries. The proposal calls for two ICANN employees who have specific responsibilities in the area now to sit on the Board, the Senior IANA administrator, and two independent Directors named by the NomCom or a similar body. This Board is ultimately controlled by ICANN, so it does not need accountability measures of its own, three of the members are people who will implicitly have skills needed to resolve problems should they arise, and there is a component of external and community input. I find this quite acceptable. Please take the time to review the report, and I look forward to your wiki comments and discussion in Buenos Aires. Alan At 11/06/2015 10:53 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: >Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. > >To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs > >The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC > > > >Dear SO and AC Chairs, > >CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA >Stewardship Transition > >The Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions >(CWG-Stewardship) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations >with its proposed response to the IANA Stewardship Transition >Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals on the IANA >Stewardship Transition for your consideration and approval as per its Charter. > >The response is the result of extensive work by the CWG's 19 >members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal >advisors over the past year, which included over 100 calls or >meetings, 2 public consultations and more than 4,000 email messages. >It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, >specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who >participated and includes diligent attention to the input received >through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has >received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no >objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering >Organization consideration. > >As noted in the CWG-Stewardship proposal itself, the proposal is >significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the >implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by >the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability >(CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the >CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the >CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability >recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the >requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to >the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability >mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship >proposal, this proposal will require revision. > >We also note that there are certain implementation elements that >will require further dialogue in the near future, including with the >other operational communities, and these have been marked as such in >the final proposal. Two specific issues are particularly important >to highlight. One is the finalization of the service level >expectations (SLEs), where the proposal includes a set of agreed >principles between the CWG and IANA, but these remain to be >finalized in the form of a mutually agreed set of SLEs. A detailed >plan for this finalisation is being worked on and it is our view >that this detail, whilst vitally important, does not impact on the >substance of the proposal put to you for approval. The second issue >entails the location of intellectual property rights and this needs >further discussion with the other respondents to the ICG RFP and ICANN. >As per the CWG-Stewardship's Charter we now seek your approval to >submit this final proposal to the ICG and ask you to consider this >approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and >procedures by 25 June 2015 to meet the overall timing requirements >which would allow the transition to proceed, noting that final >approval is conditional on the approval of the CCWG-Accountability >Work Stream 1 recommendations. > >We will make ourselves, together with or other key contributors, >available to you at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in order to >answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the >proposal. For your information, further background documents as well >as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain >the details of the final proposal are available here: ><https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw. > >Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. > > >Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson >Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship > > >

2 1

Fwd: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Review Tool
by Alan Greenberg June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

FYI. >To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, >"cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-stewardship(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Review Tool > >I have reviewed the replies to the ALAC submission and offer three comments. > >The first is a general one. Although I am not sure how we could have >done otherwise given the volume of comments and the time-frame in >which the CWG had to review them, I find many of the answers lack >specificity and if I an my colleagues had not been on the calls to >argue the issues when they were discussed, I am not sure we would >have been very happy with how the answers were formulated. My next >point is one such example. > >In 200, the ALAC requested that at least for IFR members where where >is only one person per represented group, that Alternates be >formally allowed. The reply was that it would be considered by the >CWG in its further deliberations. To the best of my knowledge, this >was not considered (ie neither accepted nor rejected) and the >Proposal was unaltered. > >In 228, The ALAC raised the issue of the SIFR being triggered by a >vote of the ccNSO and GNSO. This was ultimately not changed >(although words were added regarding consultation). However the >reply says that the GNOS was replaced by the RySG, something that >simply did not happen. This needs to be corrected. But I am troubled >that there may be other similar examples where the CWG reply does >not mesh with what is in the final proposal. > >Alan > >At 11/06/2015 11:11 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > >>Dear all, >> >>Attached is the updated Public Comment Review Tool. I have included >>a redline and a clean version. The document is now 300-pages, so >>quite lengthy to review. In the interest of time, to make sure >>those who submitted comments can see how the CWG addressed their >>submissions, we will post this Review Tool to the Wiki and Public >>Comment page. Should there be a need for further updates, we can >>update the documents as requested. >> >>The Wiki page is here: >><https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw. >> >>Best, >>Grace

1 0