- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] For Review and Action Prep For ICANN 52 High Interest Topic Session
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 5, 2015

Feb. 5, 2015

I just realized that I was negligent in not forwarding this message to the ALAC. As you will see, this is a summary of the Monday "High Interest" session. The three topics coalesced at the SO-AC-SG Chair meeting on the Friday before the LA ICANN meeting, which both Olivier and I attended (as present and incoming ALAC Chairs). The three items are clearly very inter-related, and you will notice that the second one is superset of the ATLAS II recommendation for a way to access Policy info. Following the Chairs' identifying these topics, each was assigned to one Chair and I am leading the Information management one (not that a lot has happened as far as I can see). We are allocated up to 1 person per RALO on the panel. As I am leader of one of the tasks, I will exercise Chair's prerogative and will fill the NA seat. We need volunteers for the other regions. Please contact me via this list or privately if you are interested. For the record, my personal position is that a prioritization exercise is pretty futile. If we can even partially address those, the need to prioritize will be significantly lessened. Of course, that will not address overload at times such as this with the IANA and Accountability efforts, but there really is not way that we can fix the current overload with prioritization - it is driven by external events that we cannot choose to ignore. Alan At 31/01/2015 04:56 AM, David Olive wrote: >Dear Community Leaders: > >As we all prepare for travel to the ICANN Public >Meeting in Singapore (ICANN 52), this note is >designed to update you and ask for assistance >regarding our preparations for the SO-AC High >Interest Topic session scheduled for the main >ballroom (Padang) on the afternoon of Monday 9 February at 1400 Local Time. > >As you know, based on our recent calls and >correspondence, the main topic you agreed to >focus on for the ICANN 52 session was the >operational and workload improvement efforts >that were started at the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. > >During our last meeting (a couple of weeks ago >with Fadi) we discussed the brainstorm idea to >try to associate that operational improvements >discussion with the broader ICANN Accountability >topic. As Jonathan and Keith warned during the >meeting, that connection has proven to be too >tenuous. As a result, we have explored >re-fining the session to focus directly on the >three operational improvement themes - > >(1) Establishing a stakeholder-led mechanism for >prioritizing ICANNs overall policy issues and related work areas; >(2) Developing a comprehensive knowledge >database or network to make information about >ICANNs current and past work easily accessible >and available to all existing and future ICANN participants; and >(3) Identifying ways to improve our capabilities >to identify and attract new and productive >community participation while retaining existing >participants who dedicate their time and efforts to ICANNs work. > >The overall goal of the Monday session can now >be more focused - to develop a useful dialogue >that demonstrates to the broader community that >their leadership (all of you) is engaged in >developing solutions to the communitys current >workload challenges and is interested in >absorbing community ideas to help collectively >solve these issues. The more concise agenda also >works well because due to scheduling of other >sessions we are limited to a 75-minute session time block. > >Weve structured the session in two parts. The >first part (25 minutes) will offer the audience >a general discussion among you and other >community representative panelists on the >overall view you or communities have about >ICANNs community workload challenges and how >those challenges impact ICANNs operational >accountability generally that is, what is >currently working operationally, what can be >improved and what ideas are being explored to >take improvement steps. You or your fellow >community members might even have specific best >practice suggestions that work in your communities. > >The second part of the session (45 minutes) will >address, in turn, each of the three work streams >you have developed (15 minutes a piece), so that >the community can see and hear the various >approaches that are being considered in the >three topic areas to help address ICANNs workload challenges. > >We hope that through in-room and remote >participation that audience members (via in-room >microphones and twitter posts) will be able to >contribute some thoughts and ideas to the discussion. > >The session will present itself as more of a >problem-solving exercise which will enable you >and your community representatives to talk about >ideas for changes. We hope the session >transcript will be a useful tool to help us take >the various subgroups to the next step of their >discussions and ultimate recommendations. We >think the modified theme will work nicely - >enmeshed with the Monday ICG IANA Stewardship >Transition and the CCWG Accountability >programming as an example of how ICANN community >leadership is looking to improve ICANNs >effectiveness and operational excellence. > >Weve created some draft context/background >material and sample seed questions for >moderator Brad White to consider in introducing >the session and keeping things moving. Please >feel free to suggest additional questions or >modifications to the context materials for Brad >that are attached to this message. > >Also, when we meet next Friday in Singapore, >please share with me who you plan to have on the >stage to represent your community during the >session. We will follow the now-traditional >protocol of the following panelist assignments: > > a maximum two (2) representatives from each >of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC >communities, and a maximum of four (4) >participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder >Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO). > >I look forward to finalizing these arrangements >with you when we meet next week in Singapore. >Looking forward to your feedback via email and at the meeting. > >Best regards, > >David > > >David A. Olive >Vice President, Policy Development Support >General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters Istanbul >Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:10 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Direct Line: +90.212.999.6212 >Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 >Mobile: +90.533.341.6550 >Email: <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>david.olive(a)icann.org >www.icann.org > >

1 0

Discussion on ALS Criteria and Expectations
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 4, 2015

Feb. 4, 2015

We have a full hour set aside in Singapore for the start of the discussion on ALS criteria and expectations. Although that sounds like a lot of time, if all 30 or so of us participate, that is only 2 minutes each! Staff, particularly those that interact with RALOs, ALSes and ALS applicants are welcome to participate. So it would be useful if we all got our thoughts organized before the meeting. I would prefer no to direct the discussion too much, but here are some thoughts on what I see as wrong with our current situation (in no particular order) and some thoughts for the future: - We have too many ALSes where there is really only one person who cares about or focuses on ICANN issues. Often that person is a leading contributor, but it is unclear what the rest of the ALS contributes, or even to what extent the rest of the ALS is even aware of ICANN. - In the above case, where there is good worker, we do not want to lose that person - In the above case where there is no one who contributes regularly (but there may be a person who is willing to travel at our expense) do we want them? - We have some ALSes where there is not only 1 person active in ICANN, but there is evidence that there is only 1 or few people involved in it at all. Should there be a minimum number to be an ALS? - We need to more greatly engage people who have an interest in general Internet governance, and in issues that go outside of ICANN's purview. Fadi has said that he will support this, but I have a hard time understanding how we should so this, and how we should support them (and vice-versa). - What do want a "good" ALS to do? Have a web site that points to ICANN and selected ICANN pages? Redistribute some messages, and if so which ones (do we have to create such messages for this purpose)? - Are there other models that we can learn from where remote groups are kept engaged? ICANN Chapters? IEEE Chapters? - What should we be looking for in ALS applicants to better recognize a good candidate? Evidence of other activities and involvement (web sites, paper documents)? References? - Provisional or Conditional ALS status for the first period (year?)? - Periodic reports from ALSes? - Given the problems with ALSes, how do we want to boost the concept of individual members to better serve At-Large? Are there any major aspects that I have missed? Alan What we need coming out of this process is:

1 0

ATLAS II Recommendations
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 2, 2015

Feb. 2, 2015

Dear Fadi, Based on our conversation recently, could you kindly see if it is possible for the ICANN Senior Leadership Team to meet with the ALAC Leadership Team (in Singapore if time can be found or after Singapore) to review the ATLAS II recommendations for ICANN adoption and implementation? Some of the ATLAS II recommendations are not directed at the Board. They implicate Staff work areas such as stakeholder engagement and capacity building (outreach and inreach), policy development support, operational budget allocation, etc. These to my mind need not wait for Board review or acceptance. Staff are empowered to adopt ideas and recommendations that serve to strengthen ICANN and its community. Your support and staff engagement on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Follow up on ALAC Action Item
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear ALAC Members, An Action Item from the ALAC Meeting of 23 December 2014 was: Staff to find out when the new GAC leadership will be selected. We have now had a response from GAC support staff: "...all set as elected in LA and all on board. We also have overlap provisions, so two incumbents are leaving after Singapore." 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<applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto: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

ICANN's risk management
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

Dear ALAC, FYI: Board Risk Committee shared a document on ICANN's risk management with CCWG on Accountability. Publicly available at: > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-risk-management-process… Best regards, Rinalia

4 8

Report on the ALAC-NGPC meeting on 22 Jan 2015
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

As previously announced, there was a meeting with a number of Board members from the New gTLD Process Committee last Thursday. Attending on behalf of the ALAC were Alan Greenberg, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Holly Raiche could not attend due to a scheduling conflict. For the Board, there was Cherine Chalaby, George Sadowsky and Rinalia Abdul-Rahim who chaired the meeting. Chris Disspain and Markus Kummer were both unable to attend due to travel. Also in attendance was Heidi Ullrich, staff members supporting the Board and from the ICANN General Council's Office, Compliance and the Global Domains Division. It was a productive meeting and definitely not a "pat them on the head and pretend we care" event. All parties were extremely candid. The meeting opened with a brief review of the ALAC concerns, the rationale for us requesting the freeze, and a summary of possible paths forward. Based on the letter requesting the meeting, it was clear that the NGPC hoped that a GNSO PDP might be a possible way to resolve the impasse of critical TLDs not yet implementing all of the safeguards required by GAC advice through Public Interest Commitments (PICs). I believe that we made a convincing case that PICs were not likely even eligible for a PDP Consensus Policy (required to alter already signed contracts) and even if they were, the outcome would not likely be satisfactory. We also raised the issue of whether ICANN was willing to publicly commit to having compliance actively follow up on all complaints submitted by governments, consumer agencies and regulators - a critical part of ensuring that once PICs are made, that they are adhered to. Rinalia did not play an active part in the discussion, but was very effective in chairing the discussion. George was very supportive of our position and Cherine as NGPC chair took a balanced position but I think understood that something needs to be done. Everyone was quite candid. Overall, I think that there is good understanding that ICANN needs to at least try to fix the problem and can't just ignore it. That does not necessarily map to succeeding of course. It was clear that no one has a magic bullet - voluntary agreement from all concerned registries was unlikely, unilateral contract changes would be ugly, and it was unclear what could be done to entice most or all registries to fix the problem. And the Board is therefore in a difficult position with respect to the GAC, as well as the rest of us. Whether they will backtrack and at least imply that they are considering a freeze to force the issue was not discussed. I suggested a meeting of all parties (NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and perhaps Registries) in Singapore and Cherine seemed to think it might be a good idea. It remains to be seen if it will happen. The issues will be further discussed at the upcoming NGPC meeting, and the duration of that meeting was explicitly lengthened to ensure that there was adequate time for a thorough discussion. Overall, I was very pleased with the meeting. Despite the heavy presence of support staff, the meeting was frank and I believe productive. It sets a good precedent for such future engagements. Alan At 22/01/2015 07:11 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I'm waiting with bated breath... can you brief me on the meeting? > >RA > > >Ron Andruff >www.lifedotsport.com > > >-------- Original message -------- >From: Alan Greenberg >Date:01/21/2015 22:41 (GMT-05:00) >To: Ron Andruff ,'Evan Leibovitch' >Subject: Re: Any news from Thomas? > >NOT FOR REDISTRIBUTION > >Not much to report. I did not get a chance to talk to him until >yesterday afternoon. Most of the GAC members who cared about the >subject were not on the call. Discussion effectively deferred until Singapore. > >Alan > >At 21/01/2015 01:47 PM, Ron Andruff wrote: >>Good afternoon, >> >>Checking in to see if you had a chance to speak with Thomas this >>weekend in FFT? >> >>I understand the NGPC-ALAC call is scheduled for tomorrow >>(Thursday). Any updates or other info to report by chance? >> >>Thank you in advance for your soonest response. >> >>Kind regards, >> >>RA >> >>Ron Andruff >>dotSport LLC >><http://www.lifedotsport.com>www.lifedotsport.com >>

2 1

RESEND: Report on the ALAC-NGPC meeting on 22 Jan 2015
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 27, 2015

Jan. 27, 2015

This is a re-transmission of my earlier message without several messages incorrectly appended to the end. Please use this version instead. ======================= As previously announced, there was a meeting with a number of Board members from the New gTLD Process Committee last Thursday. Attending on behalf of the ALAC were Alan Greenberg, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Evan Leibovitch and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Holly Raiche could not attend due to a scheduling conflict. For the Board, there was Cherine Chalaby, George Sadowsky and Rinalia Abdul-Rahim who chaired the meeting. Chris Disspain and Markus Kummer were both unable to attend due to travel. Also in attendance was Heidi Ullrich, staff members supporting the Board and from the ICANN General Council's Office, Compliance and the Global Domains Division. It was a productive meeting and definitely not a "pat them on the head and pretend we care" event. All parties were extremely candid. The meeting opened with a brief review of the ALAC concerns, the rationale for us requesting the freeze, and a summary of possible paths forward. Based on the letter requesting the meeting, it was clear that the NGPC hoped that a GNSO PDP might be a possible way to resolve the impasse of critical TLDs not yet implementing all of the safeguards required by GAC advice through Public Interest Commitments (PICs). I believe that we made a convincing case that PICs were not likely even eligible for a PDP Consensus Policy (required to alter already signed contracts) and even if they were, the outcome would not likely be satisfactory. We also raised the issue of whether ICANN was willing to publicly commit to having compliance actively follow up on all complaints submitted by governments, consumer agencies and regulators - a critical part of ensuring that once PICs are made, that they are adhered to. Rinalia did not play an active part in the discussion, but was very effective in chairing the discussion. George was very supportive of our position and Cherine as NGPC chair took a balanced position but I think understood that something needs to be done. Everyone was quite candid. Overall, I think that there is good understanding that ICANN needs to at least try to fix the problem and can't just ignore it. That does not necessarily map to succeeding of course. It was clear that no one has a magic bullet - voluntary agreement from all concerned registries was unlikely, unilateral contract changes would be ugly, and it was unclear what could be done to entice most or all registries to fix the problem. And the Board is therefore in a difficult position with respect to the GAC, as well as the rest of us. Whether they will backtrack and at least imply that they are considering a freeze to force the issue was not discussed. I suggested a meeting of all parties (NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and perhaps Registries) in Singapore and Cherine seemed to think it might be a good idea. It remains to be seen if it will happen. The issues will be further discussed at the upcoming NGPC meeting, and the duration of that meeting was explicitly lengthened to ensure that there was adequate time for a thorough discussion. Overall, I was very pleased with the meeting. Despite the heavy presence of support staff, the meeting was frank and I believe productive. It sets a good precedent for such future engagements. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [PICISOC] Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Dear All, Regrettably the event has passed but certainly other key events to look forward to is the upcoming APRICOT and APrIGF which will be held in Fukuoka, Japan and Macau, China respectively. Sadly there was no recording as you had to be on site but you can follow the #PTC15 or #IGF With every best wish, Sala On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Vish विशारद PYC <virat.surya(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to participate via internet? > > On 1/21/15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to > the > > Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on > > Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, > > Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. > > > > You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF > > > > Session Description is as follows: > > > > Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance > > In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined > > Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, > the > > private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared > > principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that > > shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding > > exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United > nations > > ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in > > danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the > renewal > > of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish > its > > historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), > > which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet > > community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many > > experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in > other > > areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and > > cybersecurity. > > > > Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different > stakeholder > > groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing > stakeholders? > > How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for > solutions > > that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests? How > should > > market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local > > community be approached for the global Internet to continue its > innovative > > contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around > > Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight > > roundtable. > > > > Moderator: > > Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of > > Hawaii, USA > > Panelists: > > David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > (ICANN) > > John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers > > (ARIN) > > Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre > > (APNIC) > > With every best wish, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > -- > नमस्ते Namaste > > धन्यवाद Thanks > -- > Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/VisharadManjeet > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 21, 2015

Jan. 21, 2015

Dear All, Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to the Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF Session Description is as follows: Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United nations ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the renewal of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish its historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in other areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and cybersecurity. Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different stakeholder groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing stakeholders? How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for solutions that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests?  How should market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local community be approached for the global Internet to continue its innovative contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight roundtable. Moderator: Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of Hawaii, USA Panelists: David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad

1 0

!! Please RSVP!! - YAAMD: Yet Another ALAC Meeting Doodle
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 17, 2015

Jan. 17, 2015

Dear All, Only 3 outstanding ALAC Members to complete and those Regional Leaders who wish to have their options taken into consideration. Please complete this Doodle poll as soon as possible as we need to get this call scheduled with interpretation. Thank you very much! Kind regards, Gisella On 15/01/2015 00:05, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: We need to definitively set the time for the January ALAC meeting as well as those for the rest of the year. The last Doodle did not succeed for a variety of reasons, the prime one being that many people failed to provide a wide range of possible times. In fact, many people blocked out over 1/2 the day, some a lot more (see attached grid). The new Doodle (<http://doodle.com/6ekk354crdep7zg9>http://doodle.com/6ekk354crdep7zg9) is a bit different: - It is visible, so you can see what other people have selected and they can see your selections (as with out normal meeting Doodles). This also allows you to revise your entry. - Each slot is just one hour. We will need two consecutive slots for the ALAC meeting. The intent is still the same. We want one or more slots where ALL ALAC members can attend, and preferably regional leaders as well. If we can find one slot that inconveniences no one, that will be the meeting time. Otherwise we will rotate times to spread the pain of meeting at an inconvenient time. I understand that some people will have hard constraints that they cannot control, but PLEASE BE AS FLEXIBLE AS YOU CAN, and do not block out times just because they are not your first preference. We need to schedule the January meeting quickly, so please complete this Doodle by 23:59 on Friday, Jan 16th. The Doodle MUST be completed by all ALAC members and Liaisons and should be completed by all regional leaders if their wishes are to be taken into consideration. Staff wishes will also be factored in if they complete the Doodle. Alan

1 0