- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: At-Large Social Media Strategy proposal
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

Dear ALAC members, On the last ALAC call, there was a short presentation highlighting the proposed At-Large Social Media Strategy. Please find attached two PDFs describing the proposed update to the At-Large Social Media Strategy in more detail. This was prepared by the At-Large Technology Taskforce (TTF) which developed and presented an At-Large Social Media Strategy at the ICANN Toronto meeting in 2012. You can review the history of this Strategy at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Social+Media+Strategy+… A key recommendation of the At-Large Social Media Strategy proposal is for a "curation" WG which include members from the Capacity and Outreach WGs. Given the intent to have such a group approved by the ALAC before the 50th ICANN meeting, your feedback on this Social Media Strategy are welcomed. This has also been circulated to the Capacity and Outreach WGs and the RALO leaders via the Secretariat's list. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ALAC member, TTF chair

1 0

Details on IGO/INGO protections in 30 April Board resolution
by Alan Greenberg May 6, 2014

May 6, 2014

ICANN has now published the annexes which make clear exactly which protections have been put in place, and which ones are still to be resolved due to differences in the GnSO recommendations and GAC advice. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-a-30apr14-… http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-annex-b-30apr14-… Alan At 04/05/2014 10:15 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm > >A number of significant Board actions: > >- soliciting comment on paying Board liaisons (and increasing all >levels of compensation) > >- approval of $700k of SO/AC budget requests (no details provided >that I could see) > >- Approval of GNSO Recommendations on IGO/INGO protections that do >not conflict with GAC advice. One aspect of this to be highlighted >is that the protection of international non-governmental names >(other that RCRC and the IOC names) were not on the table at all, >based on the GAC requests, and the ALAC stood pretty much alone in >saying that if we are going to grant protections, organizations of >this type should be included (the list includes well known charities >and similar groups). Ultimately, the PDP WG approved protections for >the list of such groups in the ECOSOC list - >http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf. > >- Guidelines for Board members accepting gifts and invitations. > >- Delay in approving the 2014-15 budget. > >There are extensive rationales included in the document. > >Alan

1 0

30 April 2014 ICANN Board meeting in Pasadena, CA
by Alan Greenberg May 5, 2014

May 5, 2014

See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm A number of significant Board actions: - soliciting comment on paying Board liaisons (and increasing all levels of compensation) - approval of $700k of SO/AC budget requests (no details provided that I could see) - Approval of GNSO Recommendations on IGO/INGO protections that do not conflict with GAC advice. One aspect of this to be highlighted is that the protection of international non-governmental names (other that RCRC and the IOC names) were not on the table at all, based on the GAC requests, and the ALAC stood pretty much alone in saying that if we are going to grant protections, organizations of this type should be included (the list includes well known charities and similar groups). Ultimately, the PDP WG approved protections for the list of such groups in the ECOSOC list - http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf. - Guidelines for Board members accepting gifts and invitations. - Delay in approving the 2014-15 budget. There are extensive rationales included in the document. Alan

2 1

ICANN Transparency charts
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 2, 2014

May 2, 2014

Hello all, just looking at one of the standard means of transparency for ICANN, something which was publicised with great fanfare back a few years ago and that appears to be terribly out of date now. Has this been dropped? How? Why? https://charts.icann.org/public/index.html Should the ALAC formally ask for this to be updated? I still remember Rod Beckstrom telling the audience during an opening ceremony how more transparent ICANN had become with all of this data being made available. I would hope that someone dropped the ball rather than someone thinking it's better not to publish this... Kind regards, Olivier

2 1

GNSO statement on Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation - Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Please find attached the GNSO statement on the Multistakeholder Innovation Strategy Panel. A really good read! Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial
by Raf Fatani April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

I agree with Leon and happy to help him with this. Raf Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 15:39 Dear all, I like Olivier’s idea and support Alan’s suggested statement. On another track, I believe that we also need to make a statement on the final document, apart from the CCWG submission. I will gladly hold the pen to draft that statement if you are ok with it and consider we should make a statement. all the best, León El 30/04/2014, a las 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> escribió: > Dear Evan, > > that's not what the Public Comment period is about. It asks about the > Statement of the CCWG which was sent to NetMundial. I support Alan's > suggestion to have a short Statement endorsing the CCWG's report but we > cannot use this to congratulate organizers and participants in a meeting. > > That said, we can include in the Statement that we support the operation > of the WG, we welcome the funding of participants to NetMundial and call > upon ICANN to continue supporting participants financially in future > meetings like NetMundial and the Internet Governance Forum. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 30/04/2014 07:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Actually, now that the conference is over I believe that a new ALAC >> response is in order; one that congratulates the organizers and the >> participants for their innovation in approaching governance. We should >> (IMO) also endorse the final statement (while indicating areas where we >> would have preferred stronger language). >> >> I am happy to help craft such a statement, when I return from dealing with >> personal matters at the end of this week. >> On Apr 29, 2014 11:54 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >>> I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the >>> ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement >>> was developed as well as the full contents. >>> >>> However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of >>> multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not >>> the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the >>> NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any >>> other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the >>> ALAC to submit a statement. >>> >>> Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest: >>> >>> The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that the >>>> CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG statement >>>> submitted to NETmundial. >>>> >>> See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg >>> >>> Alan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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+(ALAC) >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Statement regarding the CCWG submission to NETmundial
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

I have re-read the statement submitted to NETmundial. I believe that the ALAC can easily say that it supports the process by which this statement was developed as well as the full contents. However, as events unfolded, with the exception of the concept of multistakeholderism, the issues on which the CCWG statement raised were not the issues that NETmundial focused on, nor were they central to the NETmundial outcomes document. In consideration of that and the lack of any other public comments submitted, I believe that there is no need for the ALAC to submit a statement. Should the ALAC nonetheless feel that a submission is necessary, I suggest: >The ALAC would like to go on record as supporting the process that >the CCWG followed in drafting this statement, and supports the CCWG >statement submitted to NETmundial. See https://community.icann.org/x/lzbRAg Alan

4 3

ALAC Statement on the ICANN Strategy Panels
by Holly Raiche April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Hi Everyone I have revised the statement on the Strategy Panels so it is in a form that can be seen as an ALAC statement, and now takes into account comments made both by Olivier and Alan (this morning) It’s on the ALAC policy page Happy reading Holly

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] R: The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo
by Sébastien Bachollet April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

Thanks http://fr.euronews.com/2014/04/25/netmundial-internet-doit-etre-libre-et-sa ns-espionnage/ In French ;) Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> Le 25/04/2014 18:29, « Roberto Gaetano » <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> a écrit : >This is an excellent document. >I found in it most of the things that we have pushed for for years. >As far of the form, it reveals a little cutting and pasting from different >sources, but is even better like this, it shows that there was not a >single >hand holding the pen. >Incidentally, I saw earlier this evening the Euronews channel, there were >nice close-ups of you (Christopher) and our ALAC Director, Sébastien. I >guess it was a "hommage" to European participants to NETmundial. >The only point that made me raise an eyebrow was the mention by Rousseff >of >"multilateral" agreements. >Last but not least, kudos to Janis Karklins, former GAC Chair and former >ICANN Director, who will now be in charge of the IGF. >Maybe when participants to this event have recovered from the >tour-de-force, >some comments to the list would be appreciated. >Cheers, >R. > ><sorry for the cross-posting, but I believe that this is important also >for >other regions> > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Christopher Wilkinson >> Inviato: venerdì 25 aprile 2014 12:12 >> A: Discussion for At-Large Europe >> Oggetto: [EURO-Discuss] The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo >> >> >> > >> > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial- >> Multistakeholder-Document.pdf >> > >> > Good morning: >> > >> > This is the historic result of the NET Mundial meeting, adopted last >night >> with reservations from certain participants >> >> (Russia, India, Cuba and - to differing degrees from parts of Civil >Society). >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > CW >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] R: The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo
by Nigel Hickson April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

Roberto Greetings to you; we missed you. Kudos indeed to Janis but also to Markus Kummer who displayed his tactical genius in securing - in the margins of the High level Committee - a compromise on Human Rights and Intermediary liability. Best Nigel On 4/25/14 6:29 PM, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >This is an excellent document. >I found in it most of the things that we have pushed for for years. >As far of the form, it reveals a little cutting and pasting from different >sources, but is even better like this, it shows that there was not a >single >hand holding the pen. >Incidentally, I saw earlier this evening the Euronews channel, there were >nice close-ups of you (Christopher) and our ALAC Director, Sébastien. I >guess it was a "hommage" to European participants to NETmundial. >The only point that made me raise an eyebrow was the mention by Rousseff >of >"multilateral" agreements. >Last but not least, kudos to Janis Karklins, former GAC Chair and former >ICANN Director, who will now be in charge of the IGF. >Maybe when participants to this event have recovered from the >tour-de-force, >some comments to the list would be appreciated. >Cheers, >R. > ><sorry for the cross-posting, but I believe that this is important also >for >other regions> > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Christopher Wilkinson >> Inviato: venerdì 25 aprile 2014 12:12 >> A: Discussion for At-Large Europe >> Oggetto: [EURO-Discuss] The Multistakeholder Declaration of São Paulo >> >> >> > >> > http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial- >> Multistakeholder-Document.pdf >> > >> > Good morning: >> > >> > This is the historic result of the NET Mundial meeting, adopted last >night >> with reservations from certain participants >> >> (Russia, India, Cuba and - to differing degrees from parts of Civil >Society). >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > CW >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > >_______________________________________________ >EURO-Discuss mailing list >EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > >Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

1 0