- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Maureen Hilyard Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Evan and Alan have my agreement as well Maureen Maureen Hilyard, Cook Islands - Samsung Mobile Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Sounds completely reasonable to me. > >Consider my proposal changed. > >Alan > >At 02/10/2014 12:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. >>Tamanikaiwaimaro >><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >>Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. >>There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as >>decertification. >> >> >>âOn reflection, I have the following change of tack. >> >>I agree on open votes for Decertification >>because it is a seriousâ act of >>disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up >>there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly. >> >>However, on certification, for better or worse >>some recent instances have become incredibly >>politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to >>properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In >>these instances, I would prefer a closed vote >>that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits >>of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst >>people they will have to work with. As Alan has >>said, this is now close to the realm of a >>personal election, and IMO this is a specific >>instance in which privacy trumps transparency. >> >>So, on reflection, I suggest this: >> * Decertification votes are always open. >> * Certification votes are open UNLESS the >> RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies. >>- Evan >> >> >> >> >> >>On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>wrote: >> >> > On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS >> > certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as >> > we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the >> > issue on the mailing list. >> > >> > The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted >> > which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC >> > explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare >> > occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to >> > file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any >> > harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections. >> > >> > A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and >> > decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or >> > more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a >> > rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and >> > a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public >> > (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes). >> > >> > I think that this concern should be considered. >> > >> > However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and >> > decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should >> > be in a position to explain why a decision was made. >> > >> > Accordingly I offer the following proposal. >> > >> > ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will >> > be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of >> > how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the >> > ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be >> > able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made. >> > >> > Comments? >> > >> > 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+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ >> > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) >> > >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Evan Leibovitch >>Toronto Canada >>Em: evan at telly dot org >>Sk: evanleibovitch >>Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >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] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Sounds completely reasonable to me. Consider my proposal changed. Alan At 02/10/2014 12:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. >Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. >There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as >decertification. > > >âOn reflection, I have the following change of tack. > >I agree on open votes for Decertification >because it is a seriousâ act of >disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up >there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly. > >However, on certification, for better or worse >some recent instances have become incredibly >politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to >properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In >these instances, I would prefer a closed vote >that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits >of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst >people they will have to work with. As Alan has >said, this is now close to the realm of a >personal election, and IMO this is a specific >instance in which privacy trumps transparency. > >So, on reflection, I suggest this: > * Decertification votes are always open. > * Certification votes are open UNLESS the > RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies. >- Evan > > > > > >On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >wrote: > > > On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > > certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as > > we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the > > issue on the mailing list. > > > > The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted > > which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC > > explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare > > occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to > > file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any > > harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections. > > > > A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > > decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or > > more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a > > rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and > > a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public > > (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes). > > > > I think that this concern should be considered. > > > > However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > > decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should > > be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > > Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > > ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will > > be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of > > how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the > > ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be > > able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made. > > > > Comments? > > > > 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+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ > > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

2 1

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: 2015 ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
by At-Large Staff Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on selecting the 2015 ALAC Liaison to the GNSO *** Question: Who do you support to become the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for the period of a year beginning at the end of the ICANN Los Angeles Meeting in October 2014? Please either select one candidate from the list below (listed in alphabetical order of the family name) or abstain: * Cheryl Langdon-Orr * Murray McKercher * Abstain *** For information about the candidates, please visit the 2015 ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Candidate Questions and Answers Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/vxPxAg> . The Poll will be open from 29 September 2014 18:00 UTC to 03 October 2014 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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: 2015 APRALO ALT Member Selection
by At-Large Staff Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on selecting the 2015 APRALO ALT Member. *** Question: Who do you support to become the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) member from APRALO for the period of a year beginning at the end of the ICANN Los Angeles Meeting in October 2014? Please either select one candidate from the list below (listed in alphabetical order of the family name) or abstain: * Rafid Fatani * Holly Raiche * Abstain *** For information about the candidates, please visit the 2015 APRALO ALT Candidate Questions and Answers Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/qBPxAg> . The Poll will be open from 29 September 2014 18:00 UTC to 03 October 2014 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 Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

1 0

Fwd: Cybersecurity Awareness Messaging - Session Invitation (ICANN 51)
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 29, 2014

Sept. 29, 2014

>From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [liaison6c] Cybersecurity Awareness >Messaging - Session Invitation (ICANN 51) >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:36:59 +0000 > >The Anti-Phishing Working Group will hold a >session during ICANN 51 in Los Angeles regarding >the STOP. THINK. CONNECT. cybersecurity >awareness campaign. The SSR Team would like to >invite all members of the community, including >gTLD and ccTLD registries, registrars, the >private sector, government representatives, >academic researchers, NGOs and all others to >attend and consider joining the initiative as well. > >Session title: (APWG) Hemispheric Unification of >Cyber Security Awareness Messaging ><http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-apwg-cyber-security>http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-apwg-cyber-security > >Date: Wed, 15 October 2014 - 16:30 to 17:45 PDT >Room: Pacific Palisades > >"The STOP. THINK. CONNECT. Messaging Convention >has embarked upon a campaign to establish the >STOP. THINK. CONNECT. cybersecurity awareness >messaging suite as a hemisphere-wide campaign, >leveraging initial adoption by nation-states in >North America, Central America and South America. > >"The Messaging Convention was established in >2010 to unify online safety awareness with a >common slogan - STOP.THINK.CONNECT. - and a >universally recognized logo. The campaign has >been adopted by national government agencies and >group in the USA, Canada, Malaysia, Japan, >Uruguay, Panama and Paraguay and the Convention >joined with the Organization of American States >in 2012 to promote the campaign among its member >states, of which there are 35 independent nations. > >Working from these early adoptions in the >Western Hemisphere and the membership networks >of the APWG and co-founder, NCSA, the Convention >proposes the consolidation of national >cybersecurity awareness messaging campaigns into >a hemispheric effort that would provide >transborder resonance and unparalleled >efficiency in delivering the campaigns essential messages." >Carlos Alvarez >Sr. Manager, SSR Technical Engagement >Security Stability Resiliency Team >ICANN

1 0

The Chairman's Blog
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 27, 2014

Sept. 27, 2014

Dear ALAC, Sharing a report on what the board discussed at its workshop in Istanbul. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chairman-s-blog Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Fwd: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Call for Observers to join CWG on Naming Related Functions
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sept. 26, 2014

Sept. 26, 2014

Dear all, A call for observers has just been published. I know many of you might be interested in joining as an observer so please find the information enclosed. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> > Para: "cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org" <cwg-dt-stewardship(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 26 de septiembre de 2014 12:58:25 GMT-5 > Asunto: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] FW: Call for Observers to join CWG on Naming Related Functions > > Hi all, > Just published the "Call for Observers" on the ICANN announcements page in an effort to open the group and announce the upcoming call and meeting in LA. > > To view the original post, please see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en> > > Call for Observers to Join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANAStewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions > <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en#> <https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&winname=addthis&pub=ra-52fcc7eb2…> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en#> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en#> > In Brief > The organizations that have adopted the charter for the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions call for observers to join this effort. The primary goal of the CWG is to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain NameSystem. > > Participating as observer > Participation in the CWG is open to members and observers. In addition to members, who are appointed by the chartering organizations, anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as an observer. Observers are expected to actively participate and attend all meetings. The only difference between a member and an observer is that any consensus calls or formal decisions that may need to be made will be limited to CWG members appointed by the chartering organizations. However, this does not take away that it is the expectation that the CWG will operate as much as possible with the views and consensus support of all participants in mind as the importance of considering all input and views on this important topic is recognized. Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CWG or currently active within ICANN, or self-appointed. > > How to join > If you are interested in joining, please contact Grace Abuhamad (grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>), or the secretariats of your Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee. All participants (members and observers) will be listed on the CWG's webpage. All observers are also required to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) following the procedures of their chartering organization, or where that is not applicable for observers, the GNSO Procedures should be followed (see https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg <https://community.icann.org/x/cYLg>). > > Next steps > The CWG is currently in formation. To date, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Country Code Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) have adopted the charter, and are in the process of appointing members. The CWG will have its first meeting <https://community.icann.org/x/6grxAg> (via teleconference) on 6 October at 13.00 UTC, followed by a F2F meeting in Los Angeles during the ICANN meeting <http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-stewardship-naming> (scheduled for Monday 13 October from 12.15 – 13.45 local time (19.15 – 22.45 UTC), with remote participation). Both sessions will be recorded and transcribed. > > Background > The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN"convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following principles: > > Support and enhance the multistakeholder model > Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS > Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services > Maintain the openness of the Internet. > NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution. > > On June 6 ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions." > > It was determined that Stewardship Transition proposals for each of the IANA functions should be developed by the directly affected communities, the IETF and IAB for IANA functions related to InternetProtocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain NameSystem. These efforts will inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility is to develop an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components. > > Two of IANA's global directly affected communities, the addressing and Internet protocol parameter communities, have responded to the NTIA's announcement and the formation of the ICG, by establishing working groups to provide input on their specific needs and expectations with respect to the IANAStewardship Transition. > > This CWG was formed as an integral part of this transition process, and to develop a proposal for the elements of the IANA Stewardship Transition that directly affect the naming community. > > Further Information > Charter of Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14…> [PDF, 277 KB] > CWG Wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg>_______________________________________________ > CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-DT-Stewardship(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] ICANN 51 LA Meeting Matters for IDN WG
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 26, 2014

Sept. 26, 2014

Oh indeed I did!!! Darn auto correct program on my phone GRRRR *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ... *(CLO) about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me] <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr> On 26 September 2014 12:51, Edmon <edmon(a)isoc.hk> wrote: > I believe Cheryl meant Satish. :-) > Very supportive of the nomination. > Edmon > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- > > lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:52 AM > > To: idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff; ALAC Working List > > Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] ICANN 51 LA Meeting Matters for IDN WG > > > > I would like to nominate Satisfied Babu for the role of Co-Chair of the > IDN-WG... > > > > I believe him more than capable and also willing to undertake the > role.... > > > > CLO from my Mobile phone > > On 24/09/2014 10:49 am, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" > > <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Dear At-Large IDN Working Group, > > > > > > As we get closer to the LA meeting, there are a few things that > > > require some attention. > > > > > > 1. IDN WG meeting in LA > > > - Is there a particular topic that you would like discussed? If yes, > > > please propose on this list. > > > - Would you like to receive an update from ICANN staff on the status > > > of Universal Acceptance as well as Root Zone Label Generation Rules > > > projects during the At-Large IDN WG meeting? > > > > > > 2. New Co-Chair > > > - As I am about to begin my official term on the ICANN board, it is > > > appropriate that I step down as Co-Chair of the At-Large IDN WG. I > > > shall continue my focus on IDN matters within the work of the board. > > > - Please nominate suitable candidates who are interested and ready to > > > serve as co-chair of the IDN WG to work together with Edmon Chung in > > > moving the At-Large IDN agenda forward. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Rinalia > > > _______________________________________________ > > > IDN-WG mailing list > > > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > > > > > IDN WG Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IDN-WG mailing list > > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > > > IDN WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4025/8261 - Release Date: 09/23/14 > >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] CONSENSUS CALL Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submissionon ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Happy to add my name to the consensus Holly On Thu 25/09/14 10:51 PM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl(a)gih.com sent: > Repeated with the Subject - CONSENSUS CALL so as to make it stand out. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's > Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan > Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:08:39 +0200 > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: staff >> ICANN AtLarge Staff > > Dear ALAC members, > > I am following up on my message below which included the Registry > Stakeholder Group's Statement on the topic of the "enhancing ICANN > Accountability" plan. > > The ALT discussed the matter yesterday and was reminded that > according > to our ALAC Rules of Procedure, the ALAC Chair would be able to make > a > decision and respond to a process without an ALAC vote, asking for > the > ratification vote to take place afterwards. > Historically, on occasions, we have sometimes also sent Statements to > public comment periods prior to official ratification by the ALAC > provided we knew there was consensus on the Statement. > > With the Registry's Statement being considered, it was the feeling of > the ALT that the ALAC should have no objection in supporting such a > Statement, for the following reasons: > > 1. The Statement contains no points which are contrary to an ALAC > position. > 2. With the amount of time remaining (closing date Saturday 27 > September > 2014) the Statement is more complete that any Statement the ALAC > could > draft in such a short amount of time. > 3. A Joint Statement from SOs, AC and SGs is likely to have much more > impact than separate Statements from various communities. This has > been > shown already in the speed of the response to the prior joint > Statement > which the ALAC has signed on. > 4. at a time when all lights are on ICANN, showing alignment of the > Community means we can work better and across silos - a good showcase > of > the multi-stakeholder model. > > I would therefore ask you all for a 24H consensus call now starting > at > 13:00 UTC and ending on Friday 26 September 2014 at 13:00 UTC. Should > I > receive no formal objection to the ALAC supporting this Statement, I > shall proceed forward with offering the ALAC's support for the > Statement. Shortly after Friday, Staff will launch a standard > ratification vote for the support of the Statement. > > If there are objections to the Statement being supported by the ALAC, > I > plan to offer my individual support to it. For your comfort, please > find > a copy of the proposed Statement attached again to this message. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier MJ Crpin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > On 24/09/2014 18:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear ALAC members, > > > > please be so kind to find the suggested joint Statement from the > > Registry Stakeholder Group. (attached as a docx and PDF) > > Feedback needed as soon as possible. The ALT will be discussing > this in > > a few hours. > > Kindest regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN > > Accountabitliy Plan > > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:48:10 +0000 > > From: Drazek, Keith > > To: SO/AC/SG/C Chairs > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Following up my earlier email, Ive attached the latest draft of > the > > RySG comments on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process. > > > > > > > > Feel free to share these with your respective groups if you find > them > > helpful. > > > > > > > > Please respond to this message with any updates from your > respective > > groups. Are you planning to submit comments? Are you open to > developing > > a joint SO-AC-SG-C leaders statement? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[3]) > > -- > Olivier MJ Crpin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [4] > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[7]) > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg > e-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Falac[2] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl > arge.icann.org[3] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun > ity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2Fatlarge%2FAt-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28AL > AC[4] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gih > .com%2Focl.html[5] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg > e-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Falac[6] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl > arge.icann.org[7] > http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun > ity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2Fatlarge%2FAt-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28AL > AC >

4 3

Fwd: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 25, 2014

Sept. 25, 2014

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find the suggested joint Statement from the Registry Stakeholder Group. (attached as a docx and PDF) Feedback needed as soon as possible. The ALT will be discussing this in a few hours. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RE: Joint SO-AC-SG-C Submission on ICANN's Enhancing ICANN Accountabitliy Plan Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:48:10 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: SO/AC/SG/C Chairs Hi all, Following up my earlier email, I’ve attached the latest draft of the RySG comments on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process. Feel free to share these with your respective groups if you find them helpful. Please respond to this message with any updates from your respective groups. Are you planning to submit comments? Are you open to developing a joint SO-AC-SG-C leaders’ statement? Thanks, Keith

3 4