- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

The ICANN definition of volunteer is not really that strange. You just need to be looking at it from the right angle. An "ICANN volunteer" is soome who does work for ICANN, but is not paid *BY* ICANN. Think of it as having a benevolent employer who says that on Freidays, you should not come into work, but make yourself available to drive old folks or disabled people to doctor's appointments. YOU are getting paid for your time, but from the point of view of those who you are helping, you are a volunteer. ICANN is *SO* good at using words in multiple (often more than 2) ways, and presuming that everyone will understand which usage is being used. Rarely happens! Think of the word "consensus". Alan At 12/02/2014 07:27 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Thanks Alan -- what a strange mis/interpretation >of the term "volunteer". Here in Europe a >volunteer is clearly known as a strange species >who spends loads of work hours in public, >charitable but - in any case - *non-paid or >re-funded* endeavors. Any confusion with an >employee who can do this work during his / her >working hours would be simply fanciful! > >But your explanations and quotes clearly show >and explain such confusions that, in fact, the >ICANN (or business driven) culture, >terminologies, rules and habits still haven't >got a clue what *real* volunteers involvement is >in fact! After years of talk about >"internationalization" etc., it's still the same >old and narrow perception of the "rest of the >world" or their strange terms, languages or >tribal habits. And they do not even understand >why we are getting frustrated about such >hegemonial ignorances -- sorry for being straight. > >Best, Wolf > > >Alan Greenberg wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:48: > >One of the real problems is that we throw around > >the word "volunteer", but it means very different > >things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy > >employee who participates in ICANN is, by the > >normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps > >in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and > >put far more effort into their "volunteering" > >that their terms of employment could call for, > >but they are still a very different beast that > >the typical active At-Large volunteer. > > > >The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect: > > > >Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate > >the equitable participation in applicable ICANN > >activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack > >the financial support of industry players. > > > >Although I was subjected to some strong > >"suggestions" to change the end of the sentence > >to make it more generic, that is the wording that > >went in. It does not give the Board a lot of > >wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I > >got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker > >during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not. > > > >Alan > > > >At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: > >>Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my > >>thinking when following these exchanges. They > >>still haven't got a clue what volunteers > >>involvement is in fact, the time, continuous > >>investment and dedication it means ... Come on > >>guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your > >>problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key > >>reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied > >>or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the > >>years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is > >>still not accredited in this enterprise -- > >>besides some occasional opening statements. > >> > >>Best, Wolf > >> > >> > >>Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21: > >> >Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes. > >> > > >> >You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and > >> >devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make > >> >in this enterprise. > >> > > >> >-Carlton > >> > > >> > > >> >============================== > >> >Carlton A Samuels > >> >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> >============================= > >> > > >> > > >> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand > >> Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> >> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws > Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September > >> >> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >> >> > >> >> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on > >> >> October 30 2013. That resolution stated > "This action is not anticipated to > >> >> have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >> >> > >> >> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… > >> >> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This > >> >> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> >> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the > >> NomCom will provide a financial > >> >> savings to ICANN." part. > >> >> > >> >> Dev Anand > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev > Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group > >> Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > >> >> > submitted a comment on > (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > >> >> > on the consent agenda. > >> >> > > >> >> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as > >> the commenter): "The commenter > >> >> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of > >> >> technical > >> >> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > >> >> > recommended that the elimination of the > TLG Liaison not occur until, at > >> >> > least, a mechanism to seek regular > advice from the TLG is in place. The > >> >> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis > >> >> that > >> >> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > >> >> > technical communities." > >> >> > > >> >> > However, the outcome was the the Board > approves the Bylaws revisions as > >> >> > they were posted for public comment at > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm > >> >> , > >> >> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > >> >> > > >> >> > The rationale given was as follows: > >> >> > > >> >> > "With respect to the strengthening of > TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > >> >> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > >> >> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > >> >> > > >> >> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > >> >> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that > >> >> make > >> >> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing > >> community outreach efforts. The > >> >> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does > not prevent these organizations > >> >> > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > >> >> > > >> >> > This action is anticipated to have a > >> positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> >> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a > >> >> financial > >> >> > savings to ICANN. Further, the > anticipated evolution and enhancement of > >> >> how > >> >> > ICANN receives advice on technical > matters could have a positive impact > >> >> on > >> >> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > >> >> > resiliency of the DNS." > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Dev Anand > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < > >> >> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Of note: > >> >> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the > >> >> NGPC. > >> >> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> >> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they > >> >> could > >> >> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be > >> >> done. > >> >> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> >> >> - They approved the recommendation on > Thick Whois! Note that this was > >> >> not > >> >> >> on the consent agenda so it will be > interesting to see the minutes and > >> >> >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Alan > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> >> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> >> >> 7 February 2014 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> Advisory > >> >> >> Committee > >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda > >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy > Development Process Recommendations > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> >> Advisory Committee > >> >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> >> Development Process (PDP) on the > Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in > >> >> All > >> >> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group > >> >> Charter > >> >> >> at > http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> >> 189 KB]. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the > >> >> ICANN > >> >> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report > >> >> delivered to > >> >> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> >> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus > on twenty-five recommendations in > >> >> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and > >> discussed the recommendations of > >> >> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> >> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a > >> public comment period was held on > >> >> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> >> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board > >> in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> >> >> that it remained committed to > continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> >> >> finalizing the modalities for > permanent protection of IGO acronyms at > >> >> the > >> >> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> >> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> >> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth > in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> >> >> (see > http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time > to consider the recommendations > >> >> so > >> >> >> that it may take into account advice > from the GAC addressing the same > >> >> topic. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> >> >> Program Committee to: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> >> >> continues to actively develop an > approach to respond to the GAC advice > >> >> on > >> >> >> protections for IGOs; and > >> >> >> > >> >> >> (2) develop a comprehensive > proposal to address the GAC advice > >> >> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations > for consideration by the Board at a > >> >> >> subsequent meeting. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> Recruitment > >> >> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> >> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> >> >> > >> >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> >> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> >> >> composition, size and recruitment > function of the Nominating Committee. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements > Committee (SIC) recommends that it > >> >> is > >> >> >> time to complete the follow-up work > anticipated in the Final Report and > >> >> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> >> >> Board Working Group on Nominating > Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance > >> >> with > >> >> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> >> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Related materials: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Final report of the NomCom Review > Finalization Group issued in January > >> >> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> >> >> Nominating Committee Improvements > >> Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> >> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> >> >> > >> >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy > Development Process Recommendations > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> Development > >> >> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' > Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> >> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> >> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed > >> PDP procedures as stated in the > >> >> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 > >> >> October > >> >> >>> 2013. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working > Group (WG) reached full consensus > >> >> on > >> >> >>> the recommendations in relation to > the issues outlined in the Charter. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and > discussed the recommendations of > >> >> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted > the Recommendations on 31 October > >> >> 2013 > >> >> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote > (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote > exceeded the required voting threshold > >> >> set > >> >> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >> >> >>> contracted parties. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >> >> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >> >> >>> implementation details for the new > policy should it be approved by the > >> >> >>> ICANN Board. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, > a public comment period was held > >> >> on > >> >> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly > >> >> supported > >> >> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >> >> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus > Policy on Thick Whois as set forth > >> >> in > >> >> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board > directs the President and CEO to > >> >> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois > >> >> Policy > >> >> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The > >> >> President > >> >> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation > >> >> Review > >> >> >>> Team in developing the implementation > details for the policy, and to > >> >> >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> 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… > >> >> > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >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… > >> > > >> > > >> > >>EuroDIG Secretariat > >>http://www.eurodig.org/ > >>mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > >>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >> > >>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > >>http://euralo.org > >> > >>Profile on LinkedIn > >>http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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) > > > > > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

One of the real problems is that we throw around the word "volunteer", but it means very different things to different people. A Verisign or GoDaddy employee who participates in ICANN is, by the normal ICANN definition, a "volunteer". Perhaps in some cases they may truly believe in ICANN and put far more effort into their "volunteering" that their terms of employment could call for, but they are still a very different beast that the typical active At-Large volunteer. The ATRT2 made a strong statement to this effect: Recommendation 10.5: The Board must facilitate the equitable participation in applicable ICANN activities, of those ICANN stakeholders who lack the financial support of industry players. Although I was subjected to some strong "suggestions" to change the end of the sentence to make it more generic, that is the wording that went in. It does not give the Board a lot of wriggle room other than to just reject it, and I got no negative feedback from Steve Crocker during the process. So perhaps something will happen. Or not. Alan At 12/02/2014 06:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my >thinking when following these exchanges. They >still haven't got a clue what volunteers >involvement is in fact, the time, continuous >investment and dedication it means ... Come on >guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your >problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key >reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied >or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the >years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is >still not accredited in this enterprise -- >besides some occasional opening statements. > >Best, Wolf > > >Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21: > >Oops! Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes. > > > >You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and > >devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make > >in this enterprise. > > > >-Carlton > > > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >============================= > > > > > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand > Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September > >> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >> > >> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on > >> October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to > >> have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >> > >> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 > >> > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… > >> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This > >> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the > NomCom will provide a financial > >> savings to ICANN." part. > >> > >> Dev Anand > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group > Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > >> > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > >> > on the consent agenda. > >> > > >> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as > the commenter): "The commenter > >> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of > >> technical > >> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > >> > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at > >> > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The > >> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis > >> that > >> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > >> > technical communities." > >> > > >> > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as > >> > they were posted for public comment at > >> > > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm > >> , > >> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > >> > > >> > The rationale given was as follows: > >> > > >> > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > >> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > >> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > >> > > >> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > >> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that > >> make > >> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing > community outreach efforts. The > >> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations > >> > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > >> > > >> > This action is anticipated to have a > positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > >> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a > >> financial > >> > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of > >> how > >> > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact > >> on > >> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > >> > resiliency of the DNS." > >> > > >> > > >> > Dev Anand > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg < > >> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Of note: > >> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the > >> NGPC. > >> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they > >> could > >> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be > >> done. > >> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was > >> not > >> >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and > >> >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> >> > >> >> Alan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> >> > >> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> >> 7 February 2014 > >> >> > >> >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> Advisory > >> >> Committee > >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> > >> >> 2. Main Agenda > >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> >> Advisory Committee > >> >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> >> > >> >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> >> > >> >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in > >> All > >> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group > >> Charter > >> >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> 189 KB]. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the > >> ICANN > >> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report > >> delivered to > >> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in > >> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and > discussed the recommendations of > >> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> >> > >> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a > public comment period was held on > >> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board > in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at > >> the > >> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF, > >> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations > >> so > >> >> that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same > >> topic. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> >> Program Committee to: > >> >> > >> >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice > >> on > >> >> protections for IGOs; and > >> >> > >> >> (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice > >> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a > >> >> subsequent meeting. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> Recruitment > >> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> >> > >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it > >> is > >> >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and > >> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> >> > >> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance > >> with > >> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> >> > >> >> Related materials: > >> >> > >> >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January > >> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> >> Nominating Committee Improvements > Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> >> > >> >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> >> > >> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> Development > >> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> >> > >> >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed > PDP procedures as stated in the > >> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 > >> October > >> >>> 2013. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus > >> on > >> >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of > >> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October > >> 2013 > >> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold > >> set > >> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >> >>> contracted parties. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >> >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the > >> >>> ICANN Board. > >> >>> > >> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held > >> on > >> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly > >> supported > >> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >> >>> > >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth > >> in > >> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >> >>> > >> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to > >> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois > >> Policy > >> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The > >> President > >> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation > >> Review > >> >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to > >> >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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… > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >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… > > > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

I tend to think the first version is more realistic. Whatever it costs to pay for expenses for one additional director-level body, it cannot be a significant blip in ICANN's budget. And if it were, the fix would not to be to get rid of one slot, but to look at the overall process and expenses. Alan At 12/02/2014 03:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September >2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2… > >This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on >October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to >have a fiscal impact on ICANN." > >The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014 >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tl… >contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This >action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The >removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial >savings to ICANN." part. > >Dev Anand > > > > >On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand >Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC > > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was > > on the consent agenda. > > > > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter > > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of technical > > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter > > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at > > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The > > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis that > > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to > > technical communities." > > > > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as > > they were posted for public comment at > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm, > > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification. > > > > The rationale given was as follows: > > > > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board > > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28 > > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15. > > > > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical > > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that make > > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The > > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations > > from continuing with their outreach efforts. > > > > This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The > > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial > > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of how > > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact on > > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or > > resiliency of the DNS." > > > > > > Dev Anand > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > wrote: > > > >> Of note: > >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. > >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on > >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could > >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. > >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. > >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not > >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and > >> whether there was any substantive discussion. > >> > >> Alan > >> > >> > >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/ > >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm > >> > >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > >> 7 February 2014 > >> > >> 1. Consent Agenda > >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory > >> Committee > >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> > >> 2. Main Agenda > >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> > >> 1. Consent Agenda: > >> a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >> b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability > >> Advisory Committee > >> c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions > >> d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership > >> > >> 2. Main Agenda: > >> > >> a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP > >> > >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy > >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All > >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter > >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf [PDF, > >> 189 KB]. > >> > >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN > >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted > in a Final Report delivered to > >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. > >> > >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working > >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in > >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. > >> > >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of > >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a > >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see > >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). > >> > >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been > >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ). > >> > >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© > >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on > >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the > >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO > >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO > >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report > >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [PDF, > >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so > >> that it may take into account advice from > the GAC addressing the same topic. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD > >> Program Committee to: > >> > >> (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it > >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on > >> protections for IGOs; and > >> > >> (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice > >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a > >> subsequent meeting. > >> > >> > >> b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment > >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition > >> > >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom > >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 ( > >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) > >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the > >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. > >> > >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is > >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and > >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. > >> > >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a > >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee > (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with > >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be > >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee. > >> > >> Related materials: > >> > >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January > >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf > >> Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in > >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom- > >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf > >> > >> c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations > >> > >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development > >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both > >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at > >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) > >> > >> Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the > >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final > Report delivered on 21 October > >>> 2013. > >>> > >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus on > >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of > >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the > Recommendations on 31 October 2013 > >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1). > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold set > >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN > >>> contracted parties. > >>> > >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois > >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the > >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the > >>> ICANN Board. > >>> > >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on > >>> the approved recommendations, and the > comments received strongly supported > >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/ > >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm). > >>> > >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy > >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in > >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/ > >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >>> > >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to > >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy > >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The President > >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation Review > >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to > >>> continue communication with the community on such work. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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…

2 1

Brief Update for APRALO and ALAC
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 10, 2014

Feb. 10, 2014

Dear Colleagues, *Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies* Following the last APRALO Call and the invitation by ALAC Chair to the wider RALO for members to hold the pen on statements, I advise that I had volunteered to draft the statement on the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. The task involved consulting with the wider community of At Large and also through my own local ALS. By extension, APRALO held the pen. There was feedback from EURALO, LACRALO and NARALO. The final statement can be found via: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag There were instances where there were divergent views expressed and care was taken to include all the views except for one where it was suggested to use the UNESCO model. The statement will go before the ALAC for their final vote. *APRALO and APTLD MoU* A MoU was drafted to capture intentions of both APRALO and APTLD. Ths involved exchanges of email between APTLD GM and the drafting team. The draft was sent to the APRALO for comments following a briefing on the APRALO call. Members were invited to make submissions and comments before 31st January, 2014. Confirmation was received that there were no comments nor submissions published on the Wiki nor sent to Siranush and the APRALO list. *Middle East DNS Forum* I am happy to report that I attended remotely through the channels and it was a very interesting and eye opening Forum where I got to learn about the experiences of the Arab Speaking region. I tweeted on occasion. You can discover what people were saying or thinking via twitter #MEDNSF. What stood out for me was how internet proliferation and access is being redefined with the introduction of Arabic script into the root zone. People were excited and this is fantastic news for communities in the region - many of whom are part of our RALO. It was also great that Ali was there in person. I am not sure how many ALSes were there but it would be great to hear about possible opportunities for further and better engagement with that region. I am also curious as to whether At Large and APRALO brochures were given out at the DNS Forum. Congratulations to Baher, Fahd and the TRR Team in Dubai for hosting a fantastic event! The Adobe was very clear and I was able to stream in on both Adobe and alternated via ITunes live stream. *Middle East Strategy Working Group Workspace* The Middle East community have also been engaging in developing a Middle East Strategy. Ali Almeshal has been active in this space. To monitor developments in this space, kindly visit the Middle East Strategy Working Group Workspace via https://community.icann.org/display/MES/Middle+East+Working+Group. The Strategy Document as well as the FY14 Implementation Plan can be found on the same link under "Documents" (see left pane of the wiki space) at https://community.icann.org/display/MES/Documents. If your ALS is located in the Middle East and you are not aware or part of the Working Group, I would suggest that you contact: Baher Esmat via baher.esmat(a)icann.org *ICANN Oceania Working Group* The Working Group is tasked with working on and developing a regional strategy for engagement. Noting that there are only 5 ALSes in the whole of Oceania which has 27 countries and territories with ccTLDs assigned to them. Work is ongoing. For ALSes in Oceania who are interested in engaging in the Working Group's activities, kindly contact: Save Vocea via save.vocea(a)icann.org Calls are scheduled every fortnight on Wednesdays and we have a call this week. Kind Regards, Sala

2 1

Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 9, 2014

Feb. 9, 2014

Lots of interesting stuff! Alan From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-05feb14… From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2… for an additional annex 2 that relates to GAC Category 1 strings. Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 5 February 2014 1. Main Agenda a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG01 b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Rationale for Resolution 2014.02.05.NG02 c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework 1. Main Agenda: a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC Advice: Updates and Actions Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 18 July 2013 ("Durban CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a CommuniquÃ© on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ©"). Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice in the Beijing CommuniquÃ© and the Durban CommuniquÃ©, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, and 28 September 2013. Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing CommuniquÃ© and the Durban CommuniquÃ©, and new advice in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ©. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.02.05.NG01), the NGPC adopts the "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires): Actions and Updates" (5 February 2014), attached as Annex 1 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…) to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban and Buenos Aires GAC advice as presented in the scorecard. b. Discussion of Report on String Confusion Expert Determinations Whereas, on 10 October 2013 the Board Governance Committee (BGC) requested staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections "setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon 's Applied-for String and TLDH's Applied-for String." Whereas, the NGPC is considering potential paths forward to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process, including implementing a review mechanism. The review will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM. Whereas, the proposed review mechanism, if implemented, would constitute a change to the current String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2014.02.05.NG02), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his designee, to publish for public comment the proposed review mechanism for addressing perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations from the New gTLD Program String Confusion Objections process. c. Staff Update on Reassignment of Registry Agreements Item not considered. d. Staff Update on Name Collision Framework Item not considered. Published on 7 February 2014

1 0

Domain Hijacking - For Discussion and Action
by Garth Bruen Feb. 7, 2014

Feb. 7, 2014

Dear Colleagues, This is an ugly topic which has come up frequently but for which little has been done. Thanks to Dev, I have become aware of a high-profile domain theft case in my region. Because the victim is in the United States I am bringing he concerns to the community and will be pushing for serious attention on the problem. The full story can be found here: https://medium.com/p/24eb09e026dd, but basically an attacker used various social engineering methods to steal a domain name and then used it as collateral to steal a Twitter account from the same person. Here the domain was the vector and not the target, but it does not matter. The domain should have never been hijacked. The registrant in the case did everything right: paid bills, didn't abuse the domain name, a model domainer. There is clearly something very wrong with the way registrant identities are verified (or not) and a lack of procedure on ICANN's end for dealing with these domain customer issues. Obviously, the Twitter issue is beyond our prevue but the domain theft here could happen to anyone of us. In Buenos Aires I presented two cases to At-Large: 1) A non-English-speaking community group in Asia/Pacific who has their domain hijacked and did not even know where to begin to get help and 2) The case of Frederick Harris who claims he brought his hijacking case to Compliance and was turned away: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131021_icann_can_not_be_trusted_to_protect_d omain_registrants/ There are multiple problems here starting with the registrant's information not being protected, to using payment systems as identification, to registrant education, to poor customer service, to a lack of process at ICANN, etc. etc. I'm calling here for the beginning of a true look into the problem, it's extent, and possible solutions. Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale" -Polybius

3 3

Request to De-Certify Alberta Community Network Association
by Garth Bruen Feb. 6, 2014

Feb. 6, 2014

Dear all, With full disclosure and a request to object from anyone who has contradictory information, the Chair of NARALO requests that Alberta Community Network Association be de-certified under rule #16 of the NARALO Operating Principles: "16. When an ALS representative does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the At-Large discussion lists in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS should be notified of the status change and may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next 12 months it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS." Staff can attest that Alberta Community Network Association has not participated in calls or elections for the required period and has not contributed through commentary on ICANN Policy. It is with great regret since the Chair made attempts to contact the ALS without success. Other members of the community have also confirmed the ALS no longer exists. Alberta Community Network Association did not attend the 2009 Summit and did not respond to the ATLAS II survey. The ALS domain: albertacna.ca is no longer registered. Thank you, Garth Bruen ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org)

1 0

Fwd: FW: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

Dear ALAC colleagues, please be so kind to find below and attached, a letter which was sent by Ron Andruff to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) requesting a Public Consultation to take place about the Policy Advisory Board model proposal which the ALAC has supported in the past. Due to very short time-lines for a reply and since the letter asks for a Public Consultation in which the ALAC will be able to expand on the shortcomings of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) which we have already pointed out but were ignored, the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) has given me the green light to sign the letter on their behalf. You'll also find a couple of people from our community co-signing in their individual capacity too. Indeed, many of the PICs filed are so weak, including clauses reserving the right for the gTLD Registry to ignore the commitments altogether, that this process is being grossly mishandled and the ALAC need to voice its concerns. * *Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair ** *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 18:36 *To:* 'cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org' *Cc:* Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; 'peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; Marilyn Cade (marilynscade(a)hotmail.com) *Subject:* RE: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation *Importance:* High Dear Cherine, Following on from discussions held in Beijing and Buenos Aires with a broad cross-section of the ICANN community, we understand that SGs/ACs/Constituencies want to provide public comments on how ICANN manages the proper roll out of regulated industries/sensitive string new gTLDs. The concept of the Policy Advisory Boards is currently being circulated more broadly within the community so the purpose of this email and attached letter is to follow up with the NGPC on this matter in support of the GAC Buenos Aires Communique reference to Public Interest Commitment Specifications (PICS). We look forward to your response in due course. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *RNA Partners* *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> * *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 18:41 *To:* 'cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org' *Cc:* Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>; 'peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au'; Olivier Crepin-Leblond *Subject:* Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model *Importance:* High Dear Cherine, During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such gTLDs. As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact of their applications, I have been working with others to develop approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable registrants and uses. The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments Specifications (PICS) for the registry. The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way. I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that would be of benefit to your Committee. Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *RNA Partners* *www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>**

2 2

FW: European Commission comments - ICANN Auction Rules in the new gTLD program
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 5, 2014

Feb. 5, 2014

Dear Colleagues, please be so kind to find below the European Commission comments regarding ICANN Auction Rules in the new gTLD program which takes into account the ALAC's Statement on the Preferential Treatment for Community Application in String Contention. https://community.icann.org/x/MlV-Ag Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: European Commission comments - ICANN Auction Rules in the new gTLD program Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:26:37 +0000 From: <Camino.MANJON(a)ec.europa.eu> To: Dear colleagues, Please find below the European Commission comments pertaining to the current ICANN Auction Rules. Feel free to distribute among your contacts in case you deem it useful. All the best, */_ _/* */_Ms Camino Manjon Sierra_/* European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; EU Registry; Internet and Human Rights Desk Officer Iran, Syria , Sudan, Iraq & Yemen Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium *T*: +32-2-29-78797 *M*: +32-488-203-447 Twitter @caminomanjon Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240 *From:*BABA-NAS Youness (CNECT) *On Behalf Of *CORUGEDO STENEBERG Linda (CNECT) *Sent:* Tuesday, February 04, 2014 3:59 PM *To:* comments-new-gtld-auction-rules-16dec13(a)icann.org *Cc:* HARTOG Eddy (CNECT); FORSBERG Lars-Erik (CNECT); MANJON Camino (CNECT) *Subject:* European Commission comments - ICANN Auction Rules in the new gTLD program Dear ICANN, The European Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the recently updated ICANN’s New gTLD Auction Rules and welcomes ICANN's interest in the community views expressed in Buenos Aires, including at the GAC and Public Forum. Please find below our comments. Best regards *Linda CORUGEDO STENEBERG**** **DIRECTOR** ** ** *cid:image001.gif@01CF20CF.7DAF3FF0* **European Commission** *Communications networks, Content and Technologies Directorate-General, DG CONNECT* *Cooperation, Directorate D EU GAC representative* ** *BU 25 06/24* *B-1049 Brussels/Belgium* *+32 22996383 Mobile+32-498996383* *linda.corugedo-steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu <mailto:linda.corugedo-steneberg@ec.europa.eu> * * * * *Public Comment on new gTLD Auction Rules* *1. **General comments* We are deeply concerned about the implications that the Auction Rules in the gTLD program may have for the protection of public policy interests, competition, openness and innovation. As a general principle, ICANN should implement Auction Rules that are consistent with its Bylaws, its non-for profit status, the objectives of the new gTLD Program and the Applicant Guidebook to promote competition, diversity, innovation and consumer choice. As expressed in several comments already submitted during the comment period, the current Auction Rules are advantageous for portfolio applicants rather than for small, innovative and community applicants, which is at odds with the “diversity and innovation” policy that ICANN seeks to promote. It would be desirable to give these applicants a more even playing field when they come up against larger portfolio holders in the contention process. Also, ICANN's auction rules has not yet proven convincing to the community and deserves being revisited in light of the input received. *2. **Relevant GAC advice* The European Commission regards positively the explicit mention in the Auction Rules of the need to "resolve any applicable GAC advice" prior to the participation in the auction process, as part of the applicant's "eligibility" criteria, but regrets the lack of reference to "community applications" or applications with community support, despite the reiterated GAC advise. In this regard the European Commission seizes this opportunity to recall the following passages of recent GAC advice: · "The GAC advises the board that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information." (Beijing Communique) · "The GAC reiterates its advice from the Beijing Communiqué regarding preferential treatment for all applications which have demonstrable community support, while noting community concerns over the high costs for pursuing a Community Objection process as well as over the high threshold for passing Community Priority Evaluation". (Durban Communique) · "The GAC requests a briefing on the public policy implications of holding auctions to resolve string contention (including community applications)." (Buenos Aires Communique). It is essential that the outcome of the briefing on the public policy implications of holding auctions requested in the Buenos Aires GAC Communique and the reflections of the GAC on this particular issue are fully taken into account when defining the Auction Rules. Particularly, the auction process _should not_ be initiated until the GAC's briefing request is duly addressed by the ICANN Board. * * *3. **ALAC – Community applications statement* It is important to make a specific reference to the At-Large Community (ALAC) statement of 9.08.2013 on preferential treatment for community applications in string contention; ALAC stressed that some of the new gTLD applications that are intended for communities and have wide public support were not submitted as community applications; those applications are currently in contention with others not designed for the benefit of specific communities and driven purely by commercial considerations. In this regard the European Commission (consistent with its position in the GAC) fully endorses the GAC view that community applications and applications with community support should be given preferential treatment in the new gTLD string contention resolution process, and remind the clear above mentioned GAC Beijing and Durban Communiques. *4. **Security and consumer protection * Security and consumer protection are fundamental public policy objectives. Therefore we endorse those comments proposing that the winning applicant is contractually required to ensure that all security related gTLDs adopt technologies that improve the level of trust of Internet users. A "secure" gTLD implies that the resources offered are truly secure and operating under specific policies that warrant a dedicated level of security to end users. It is therefore contrary to this public policy interest that the winning applicant is decided through an auction process that may simply favour deep pocket applications. Therefore we will repeat again our concern about the negative impact that auctions may have for the preservation and enhancement of the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet, as expressed during the Buenos Aires GAC meeting: "The European Commission believes that in the new gTLD program, ICANN should aim not just to maintain, but also enhance the level of consumer protection and confidence in gTLDs. ICANN should therefore take this social and community responsibility into account in their implementation plan. It is our understanding that trusted domains such as .safe, .secure and .security risks being awarded to applicants based only upon the price they are willing to pay in an auction. We therefore urge ICANN, in the interest of fostering innovative solutions that enhance global security, not to allow purely commercial interests to prevail in the delegation of these domains. *5. **Negotiations between applicants prior to the Auction process* Over and above, there seems not to be any incentive for financially strong applicants to solve the contention “through voluntary agreement among the involved applicants”. This solution places an unnecessary burden on applicants and departs from the artificial assumption that parties are eager to negotiate. *6. **Destination (use) of Auction funds* We also note the lack of clarity as regards the destination of the significant funds that ICANN will receive as a result of these auctions; it is therefore highly recommended that ICANN begins a consultation process with the community to determine the allocation of the funds gathered through this process, with a focus on its use for community support, capacity building and engagement of stakeholders in least developed nations. *7. **Unilateral powers to modify Auction Rules* ICANN shall not be entitled in its sole discretion to amend these Auction Rules "for any auction at any time and for any reason prior to the deposit deadline for that auction". The abovementioned unilateral power to change the rules currently under negotiation only contributes to increase applicants' uncertainty. The European Commission fully supports that "Any proposed changes, at a minimum, should be announced publicly at least 30 days in advance of any auction, and should be for good cause based on exigent circumstances". We are confident that community input received will allow ICANN to amend the current draft Auction Rules (version 2013.12.12) in a manner consistent with ICANN's objectives and fully rooted in the principle of fairness.

3 3

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting - 7 February 2014 in Los Angeles
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2014

Jan. 31, 2014

Note that the IGO/INGO issue as well as Thick Whois is on the agenda. Alan ============== From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-07feb14-en.htm Consent Agenda: * Minutes of November 8, 16, 17, 20 and 21 2014 Meetings of the ICANN Board * Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee * Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions Main Agenda: * Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process * Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition * GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations * Any Other Business

1 0