- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 6, 2013

Oct. 6, 2013

Hear, hear, Holly. I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention: 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers? 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same. 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least at an ALAC policy discussion session). The fight over time slots seems intense - you wouldn't believe how many sessions the IDN WG session overlaps with (as an example of a struggle for time and people). As I recalled, it clashes with capacity building, Atlas II and some other things, and that is just within the community, not even factoring external activities. Rinalia On Oct 4, 2013 7:24 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > I guess it is my turn. > > One of my real objections to the proposed and Sally led meeting Monday > afternoon is that we were planning a third multi stakeholder forum - this > time on the new gTLDs - to have a hard look at the many many issues that we > have raised and finally ask is there anything that can be done. That > includes PICS, it includes the metrics, it includes the totally nonsensical > rulings on con/can and the singular plural issue, and the IP issues, and > the issues of applicant support. In the end, it is a litany of quick fixes > that have not fixed. So maybe time to say so, rather than object to each > issue individually. > > That said, yes, the PICS were an add on, largely at the GAC request that, > if people say they are going to do something, then they should do it. But > enforcing it after the fact has proved - not surprisingly - very > problematic. Another issue with the gTLDs gone bad. > > Maybe the multi stakeholder forum - if it is held - could be titled what > is right with the new gTLDs. It would be a very short session. > > Holly > > > On 04/10/2013, at 7:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > Now it is my turn to ++1 Carlton :-) > > > > The process is stacked to the advantage of registries, to the > disadvantage > > of registrants who much pay for the system, and heavily against > > non-registrant end-users who see the promises coming undone. > > > > Most unnerving is the explicit references to "repeat offenders", which > IMO > > is deliberately targeting potential watchdog groups that would object on > > public interest grounds. > > > > The process for creating PICs was shaky enough. The process for enforcing > > them is a sham, designed for public relations value without actually > > providing significant public benefit. Like Applicantg Support and the > > public (ALAC/Ombudsman) Objection process, they are complex in design and > > will see next to no use. > > > > The problems are embedded and cultural, no amount of tweaking will fix > this. > > > > Does the ALAC have the courage to point out this program's utter failure > to > > the Board? > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > On 3 October 2013 12:14, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> So, the PICDRP is revised. Yawn. > >> > >> For sure, it is a poster child for what lawyers call - often times with > >> tongue firmly rooted in cheek - 'due process'. Regrettably and in > IMMHO, it > >> yet remains a creature that is all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. > >> Yes, in the end, it is still not worth a warm bucket of spit. > >> > >> The fundamental problem remains; it is a high bar we raise to deny > >> companies the right to change a business model - or approach to > >> implementing a model - in process. That is a flightless buzzard of a > bird. > >> > >> The notion of 'to report is to offend' remains. Now, I freely admit > that as > >> a free thinker, all orthodoxies remain suspect absent they are forced > thru > >> the crucible of reason. But this position as a conceptual framework is > and > >> remains so injurious to perceptions of good governance it is practically > >> indecent! > >> > >> I have excerpted and highlighted a part of the revised procedure below. > It > >> frames what follows better than I could; it is as if ICANN had engaged a > >> circular firing squad to execute PIC enforcement: > >> > >> *"1.3 .....ICANN will conduct a preliminary review of the PIC report to > >> ensure that it is complete and states a claim of non-compliance with > one or > >> more PICs. ICANN also will make a determination as to* > >> *PICDRP- 2* > >> *whether the Reporter is in good standing and is not a Repeat Offender > as > >> set forth below in Section 5. * > >> * > >> * > >> *ICANN’s preliminary review is not intended to evaluate the merits of > the > >> allegations, but whether the Reporter has completed all of the reporting > >> obligations.* > >> * > >> * > >> *In particular, ICANN will review whether the Reporter has: (i) > identified > >> the proper parties; (ii) identified at least one PIC with which the > >> Registry Operator failed to comply, (iii) alleged how the Reporter has > been > >> harmed; and (iv) set forth the grounds of the claim and submitted > >> appropriate documentation to support the report of non-compliance.* > >> * > >> * > >> *1.4** If the PIC report fails the preliminary review, ICANN will notify > >> the Reporter and the Registry Operator, and **the PIC report will be > >> closed. > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> *2. Initial Review of the PIC Report and Conference* > >> *2.1 If the PIC report passes ICANN’s preliminary review, ICANN will > >> forward the report to the Registry Operator (through its Abuse Point of > >> Contact) and notify the Reporter that the PIC report has been forwarded > to > >> the Registry Operator.*" > >> > >> -Carlton > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> ============================= > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Registrants-rights mailing list > >> Registrants-rights(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights > >> > >> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > _______________________________________________ > > Registrants-rights mailing list > > Registrants-rights(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights > > > > WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

6 10

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
by Jean-Jacques Subrenat Oct. 6, 2013

Oct. 6, 2013

Hello Holly & All, good! Here's an outline for "New gTLDs: taking stock and looking forward from the user perspective". At this stage, I see no point in actually drafting, so the following are just place-holders or, at most, headings: 1) TAKING STOCK - the stated rationale for a vast and coordinated expansion of gTLD space - the genetic weakness of a constituency-by-constituency approach: magnifying detail, losing the wider view - the business bias: understandable, legitimate in its own logic, but insufficient - from rationale to implementation: diverging interests, incremental adjustments, the loss of global aim - consequences for the global Internet user: areas of negative impact 2) LOOKING FORWARD - the new gTLD programme must be placed in the wider context: what Internet governance, what MSM? - diverging interests (DNS businesses vs. general user): defining a new equilibrium, but consciously - it is time to refocus ICANN, from being perceived as an industry association, to recognition that it serves the global public interest - the difficult but inescapable overhaul this implies - process & calendar of this joint effort. Having only just discovered the very interesting remark by Fouad Bajwa that the ALAC needs a communication policy, I will be responding in a separate email. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)fastmail.fm> Envoyé: Dimanche 6 Octobre 2013 10:12:05 Objet: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP Jean Jacques This is exactly the sort of contribution that I was hoping for. I just love your idea under Scope - And the suggestions under "Alliance' fit in with the suggestions both Rinalia and Carlton had. So next steps - Can we work on both in the lead up to BA - and then set aside time (drinks/dinner if there isn't time during the day) to start making this happen Holly On 06/10/2013, at 12:38 PM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat wrote: > Following on Holly's remark ("what are the other few big issues that we should focus on - and campaign on?"), > I would like to develop my own previous suggestion. > > - SCOPE. The narrower the issue we choose, the more there is a risk of divergent positions between ACs and SOs. The following may sound too wide, but all along I've been thinking about a list of issues under a single heading, e.g. "New gTLDs: taking stock and looking forward from the user perspective". In fact, a couple of weeks ago I suggested to Evan, as co-chair of the FCWG, that we make this our next piece of work in the WG. Evan accepted the idea, which will be fielded soon in the ALAC. But we could already initiate this in time for Buenos Aires. > > - ALLIANCE. We should determine those aspects of the new gTLD programme on which the ALAC stands a fair chance of gaining support from other entities in ICANN, and build up from there. In the end, we may not have agreement from everyone on every aspect, but such an exercise would provide a platform wide enough to warrant a joint letter, and a public debate, involving the signatories. > > - WHY THIS, WHY NOW? Like others in our community, I sense an impending crisis. A technical crisis, for sure, because the contradictory mechanisms chosen thus far will bring about a major clash. But also a crisis of confidence, because trust had been placed in the leadership of ICANN to navigate these complicated waters: there is now the widespread realization that the most important aspects have been gamed, and patched over not with real solutions, but with legal phrasing intended only to preserve the hind part of the Board. The crisis of confidence is also heightened by the revelations about the way the Internet has been misused for meta-surveillance. You may think that cannot damage ICANN. I think it may. > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > À: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Envoyé: Dimanche 6 Octobre 2013 08:07:21 > Objet: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP > > Time - again - to speak up > > Evan is, of course, correct- and depressingly so. However, as Carlton says, ALAC represents the voices that aren't heard - and should be. So tempting as it is to give up, I prefer JJ and Carlton's suggested actions - a combination of strategies that includes alliances (I know the Oz bit of GAC is 'up to the eyeballs' - or more with the unutterably flawed gTLD processes) and letters. > > So > Please - a long session - and let's make it a strategy session - everyone around the table (including those in the GNSO who have issues with the gTLDs) for not only what has gone wrong (too easy to say and too long to spell out) but can we identify what can be saved? Otherwise, we'd have to do nothing - and I don't like that response. > > And another question to us all: What are the other few big issues that we should focus on - and campaign on. > > Holly > > _______________________________________________ > 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] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2013

Oct. 5, 2013

My point was not whether to trust compliance. We are not yet at the stage where they have any responsibility with regard to complaints about PICs. At 05/10/2013 01:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Yes, let's trust the compliance department to do something that is >supportive of third parties and whistleblowers on PICs, just as well >as it has supported whistleblowers and third-party complaints on >WHOIS and related issues. > >Pfffft. > >To this day I don't know whether the systemic user-hostility of the >compliance department is due to lack of will, lack of competence, >lack of resources, or conspiratorial lack of mandate. The result is >the same. This too is an issue about which we have frequently >shouted into a black hole. > >- Evan > > > >On 5 October 2013 00:53, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I have largely been absent from the debates of this last week or so, >because I have been focusing either on ATRT work or in the moments >when that was lighter, trying to catch up with other parts of my >life that have been brushed aside recently. I have not had a chance >to review the latest PICDRP document. But honestly, I don't think it >will matter. The DRP is a dandy way for third parties who have been >injured by PIC commitments not being followed. I am sure they have >tweaked it a bit, and perhaps for the better. > >But it is not the mechanism that I really care about. We have been >assured twice now, by Fadi during ALAC-Board meetings that there >will be a parallel process for ICANN to take action. He has >reasonably said that ICANN does not have the resources to police the >PICs and detect every failure. With that, I have no real problem. >But he has also said that if and when ICANN is alerted to problems, >they will take action. The term he used at the last meeting is that >the detection would be "crowd-sourced". Compliance has said that if >given the mandate, they would take action, but so far (when it was >said, I think in Beijing or perhaps at one of the ATRT meeting in in >LA), they have only been given the responsibility of enforcing DRP rulings. > >Perhaps I have missed something, but I do not recall any public >announcement of anything like what Fadi has described. If I am >correct, then I strongly believe that THIS is what we need to make a >strong statement about, but the details or even the concept of the PICDRP. > >For the record, we said this six months ago - ><https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. > >Alan > > >At 05/10/2013 12:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > > I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention: > > > > 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - > > let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers? > > > > 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same. > > > > 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at > > least at an ALAC policy discussion session). > > > >I guess my main response to this is one of weariness. > >So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven >knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences, >implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is >continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the >public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by >making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to >complain. The PICDRP is just the latest. > >But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for? > >If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what? >Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally >pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping >it gets as far as the bank before it derails. > >Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues? >And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us? > >A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the >objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again? > >They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we >recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC >intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly >inaccessible. > >Anyone remember this? > >*We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will > >be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification >(and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.* > > > >That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to >both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the >Scorecard<<https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+…>https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+…>. > >Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness >requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our >support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns >(such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely >unheeded. > >That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to >nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change >is smaller yet. > >The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate >mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the >rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against >public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution >process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a >process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at >least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty >ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on >putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry >entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane. > >So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of >the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want? > >I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More >Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 5, 2013

Oct. 5, 2013

I have largely been absent from the debates of this last week or so, because I have been focusing either on ATRT work or in the moments when that was lighter, trying to catch up with other parts of my life that have been brushed aside recently. I have not had a chance to review the latest PICDRP document. But honestly, I don't think it will matter. The DRP is a dandy way for third parties who have been injured by PIC commitments not being followed. I am sure they have tweaked it a bit, and perhaps for the better. But it is not the mechanism that I really care about. We have been assured twice now, by Fadi during ALAC-Board meetings that there will be a parallel process for ICANN to take action. He has reasonably said that ICANN does not have the resources to police the PICs and detect every failure. With that, I have no real problem. But he has also said that if and when ICANN is alerted to problems, they will take action. The term he used at the last meeting is that the detection would be "crowd-sourced". Compliance has said that if given the mandate, they would take action, but so far (when it was said, I think in Beijing or perhaps at one of the ATRT meeting in in LA), they have only been given the responsibility of enforcing DRP rulings. Perhaps I have missed something, but I do not recall any public announcement of anything like what Fadi has described. If I am correct, then I strongly believe that THIS is what we need to make a strong statement about, but the details or even the concept of the PICDRP. For the record, we said this six months ago - https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. Alan At 05/10/2013 12:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > > I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention: > > > > 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - > > let's draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers? > > > > 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same. > > > > 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at > > least at an ALAC policy discussion session). > > > >I guess my main response to this is one of weariness. > >So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven >knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences, >implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is >continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the >public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by >making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to >complain. The PICDRP is just the latest. > >But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for? > >If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what? >Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally >pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping >it gets as far as the bank before it derails. > >Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues? >And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us? > >A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the >objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again? > >They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we >recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC >intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly >inaccessible. > >Anyone remember this? > >*We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will >be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification >(and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.* > > >That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to >both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the >Scorecard<https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+…>. >Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness >requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our >support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns >(such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely >unheeded. > >That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to >nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change >is smaller yet. > >The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate >mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the >rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against >public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution >process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a >process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at >least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty >ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on >putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry >entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane. > >So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of >the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want? > >I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More >Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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

Fwd: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

FYI -- please be so kind to find correspondence from Ron Andruff, member of the GNSO's Business Constituency (BC). Comments welcome. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:40:35 -0400 From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> CC: <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl(a)gih.com> 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 1

CALL FOR COMMENT: Fwd: [soac-discussion] ICANN/SO-AC LEADERS Brainstorming Collaboration
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

Dear all, please find below a forwarded message from Sally Costerton and David Olive regarding the follow-up of a meeting that took place over a week ago. Apologies for not forwarding this right away - but this somehow fell through. Evan Leibovitch was on the call and you'll see his intervention voicing the point of view of many in our community. Nonetheless, please see the proposal below and comment on: https://community.icann.org/x/6haMAg We'll build a Statement from your comments. The Statement is to be filed by Monday 7 October 2013 so please send your comments by the end of this week, Friday 4 October 2013. I realise this is a very short timeline, but this really affects you and your work during the ALAC meetings rather than ALSes. Even though - I am surprised to have seen this "Brainstorming Session" since I thought there already was a Meetings Strategy WG in place to look at these problematics. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [soac-discussion] ICANN/SO-AC LEADERS Brainstorming Collaboration Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 07:54:00 -0700 From: Susie Johnson <susie.johnson(a)icann.org> To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso(a)icann.org>, Tanzanica S. King <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org> *E-MAIL SENT ON BEHALF OF DAVID A. OLIVE:* * * * * Dear SO-AC Leaders: Thanks to those of you who were able to participate in Thursday's ICANN/SO-AC Leaders Collaborative Brainstorming Conference Call on the Buenos Aires Meeting schedule. An overview of our discussion follows. The changes call participants agreed to pursue, with further consultation, for the Buenos Aires Meeting schedule are: · Establishing a 90-minute, cross-constituency, subject-based session developed and run by the SO-AC leadership team and held Monday afternoon in the main meeting room. Initial thoughts on two potential topics were: o Policy vs. Implementation, and o Public Interest Commitment Issues We would appreciate your reactions on whether or not you would support holding this session, as well as the potential session topics to be discussed. If you wish to proceed with this concept, the Policy team is ready to assist you in organizing your discussions and planning for such a session, as you deem appropriate. · Running a new gTLD (GDD) track on Monday in parallel to high-interest topic sessions taking place in the main meeting room. · Moving the Public Forum from Thursday afternoon to Thursday morning in an effort to increase attendance. · Adding timeslots for high-interest topics and community sessions on Thursday afternoon. A suggested change that will not be implemented for Buenos Aires is a full day of SO-AC reports to the community on Wednesday. Participants agreed that there is not time to make significant changes to the Tuesday and Wednesday schedules. For those of you who were unable to participate in the call, a transcript AND chat room comments are attached. A link to an audio recording of the call is below. Please provide your thoughts about these ideas at your earliest convenience but no later than Monday, 7 October. We look forward to your comments, and a continuing dialogue as we strive to improve the ICANN Meeting experience for the community. We'll look to arrange some specific follow-up calls to discuss the Monday afternoon session in detail. Best regards, Sally & David Sally Costerton, Senior Advisor to the President, Global Stakeholder Engagement David A. Olive, Vice President, Policy Development Support / General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -- Istanbul *Link to the audio call:* * * https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ejt11w7r63hlxoiwey7g.mp3 *Susie Johnson* Executive Assistant to Vice President of Policy Development *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)* 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094-2536 Direct: +1 310 301 3863 Mobile: +1 310 383 1240 Office: +1 310 301 5800 www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>__

2 1

On Process-versus-implementation
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

Hello all, I am reminded -- quite correctly -- by Matt that in the last ALAC meeting, Alan and I said we would work on a comment regarding feedback to the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42734846> . What would nominally be called for right now is a point-by-point answering of the questions sent by the GNSO working group to other community leaders. But I find, after reading and re-reading the original GNSO solicittation -- that I cannot bring myself to do this. To simply answer the questions -- to legitimize what is in my opinion a fraudulent and captured process -- is an abdication of our roles within At-Large. It does seems clear to me that certain ICANN actions have been outside (what I saw as) the intent of policy, and smack of certain interests asserting influence on implementation despite lack of success at the policy level. (Some of this activity indicates breakage in the policy-making technique, but that's a different matter) The search for bounds is legitimate, but it is a sham to leave the search for answers purely to the self-interested GNSO. This is legitimately an issue of cross-community engagement -- involving all ACs. SOs, and indeed ICANN staff -- and not to be left to the internal deliberations of the squeakiest wheel. (And no, being non-voting observers in a GNSO process does not count as cross-community.) When the GNSO originally explored a P&I working group I was concerned about its potential for captured agendas and prejudice; as I read the questions in the initial solicitation I see my concerns were justified. I also note that, once again, ALAC is being requested to respond to the agendas of others rather than taking leadership on issues ourselves. I am interested in ALAC producing a statement, but not like the one originally envisioned. I would like the ALAC to send formal advice to the Board requesting it to engage the *entire* community on better ways to have implementation issues inform policy, and to have implementation guided by both the letter and the spirit of established policy. This cannot be done in a vacuum, the issues are cultural as well as technical or procedural, and they and they certainly cannot be solved by the GNSO acting alone. ICANN was on the right track in creating a Policy and Implementation workshop <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> at the Beijing meeting, one that had same-level involvement from across the community. In that workshop -- at which I was the ALAC participant -- it was agreed that cross-constituency engagement was required. This is indeed as the discussion *must* be, moving forward. The Board of ICANN needs to take leadership on this issue and must not leave its determination to just a single part of the community. I am happy to work on such a statement for ALAC's consideration. But I have no interest in validating what I see evolving into a GNSO power grab, and IMO neither should the ALAC. - Evan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Appoints Chair and Chair-Elect for the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom)
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

Congratulations to Cheryl! And her team of Chairs. :) Rinalia On Oct 3, 2013 12:08 AM, "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > > [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01oct13-en.htm > > ________________________________ > ICANN Appoints Chair and Chair-Elect for the 2014 Nominating Committee > (NomCom) > > 1 October 2013 > > The ICANN Board is pleased to announce that it has appointed Cheryl > Langdon-Orr as Chair and Stéphane Van Gelder as Chair-Elect for the 2014 > Nominating Committee (NomCom) [ > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2…] > At Cheryl's request, Yrjö Länsipuro has agreed to serve as Associate Chair > for the 2014 NomCom. These three members of the 2014 NomCom Leadership are > well-known personalities in the ICANN community with in-depth knowledge of > ICANN from many years of involvement and experience in ICANN. Cheryl > Langdon-Orr< > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#cheryl-langdon-orr> > serves as Chair-Elect of the 2013 NomCom, Stéphane Van Gelder< > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#stephane-van-geld…> > is a member of the 2013 NomCom, and Yrjö Länsipuro< > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#yrjo-lansipuro> > serves as Chair of the 2013 NomCom and was a member of the 2011 and 2012 > NomComs. > > Cheryl commented on her appointment as Chair of the 2014 NomCom, stating: > > I am delighted to be working again in 2014 with Stéphane and Yrjö, having > served with them in 2013 whilst Chair Elect, but this time as the 2014 > NomCom Leadership Team. We can assure the ICANN Community and Stakeholders, > that we will be continuing to build on the continued evolution in practices > and changes to ICANN's Nominating Committee transparency that have been > seen in 2013. We are looking forward and planning for the 2014 NomCom 'kick > off' meeting and activities following the ICANN Public meeting in Buenos > Aires in November 2013, which is when the work of the 2014 NomCom starts, > and where we formally take our seats with the rest of the appointed > Community representatives and voting delegates. > > After its initial meetings later this year, the 2014 NomCom will issue a > public call for applicants to the open ICANN leadership positions and work > to reach their final selections in 2014. The NomCom's activities can be > followed on the NomCom website, at http://nomcom.icann.org/, where all > relevant documentation regarding NomCom can be found. > > About the NomCom Leadership: > > The NomCom Chair is responsible for organizing the NomCom in its > activities to select ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in > other key leadership positions within ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SO) > and Advisory Committees (AC) in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. The > Chair-Elect serves alongside the Chair, with anticipated succession into > the role of the Chair for the subsequent year's NomCom. The Associate > Chair, selected by the Chair, assists with the duties of the Chair. The > Chair, the Chair-Elect and Associate Chair are non-voting members of the > NomCom. > > > > This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto: > matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org> from: > > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] < > http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > > Manage Your Subscription < > http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=92… > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Appoints Chair and Chair-Elect for the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 2, 2013

Oct. 2, 2013

This is a very good trio of NomCom Leaders. You all know Cheryl and Yrjö and I am thrilled Cheryl was appointed and she chose Yrjö as Associate Chair. You might know less about Stéphane. When he was GNSO Council Chair, we worked very well together, often emailing each other to collaborate to break the silos and make sure important matters did not get dropped by ICANN. Anyone who has Chaired the GNSO Council gets my respect. It is a incredible amount of work and takes a lot of blood and sweat and lack of sleep to reach consensus. Kudos to all three! Kind regards, Olivier On 02/10/2013 19:08, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01oct13-en.htm > > ________________________________ > ICANN Appoints Chair and Chair-Elect for the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom) > > 1 October 2013 > > The ICANN Board is pleased to announce that it has appointed Cheryl Langdon-Orr as Chair and Stéphane Van Gelder as Chair-Elect for the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom) [http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2…] At Cheryl's request, Yrjö Länsipuro has agreed to serve as Associate Chair for the 2014 NomCom. These three members of the 2014 NomCom Leadership are well-known personalities in the ICANN community with in-depth knowledge of ICANN from many years of involvement and experience in ICANN. Cheryl Langdon-Orr<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#cheryl-langdon-orr> serves as Chair-Elect of the 2013 NomCom, Stéphane Van Gelder<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#stephane-van-geld…> is a member of the 2013 NomCom, and Yrjö Länsipuro<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-01oct13-en.htm#yrjo-lansipuro> serves as Chair of the 2013 NomCom and was a member of the 2011 and 2012 NomComs. > > Cheryl commented on her appointment as Chair of the 2014 NomCom, stating: > > I am delighted to be working again in 2014 with Stéphane and Yrjö, having served with them in 2013 whilst Chair Elect, but this time as the 2014 NomCom Leadership Team. We can assure the ICANN Community and Stakeholders, that we will be continuing to build on the continued evolution in practices and changes to ICANN's Nominating Committee transparency that have been seen in 2013. We are looking forward and planning for the 2014 NomCom 'kick off' meeting and activities following the ICANN Public meeting in Buenos Aires in November 2013, which is when the work of the 2014 NomCom starts, and where we formally take our seats with the rest of the appointed Community representatives and voting delegates. > > After its initial meetings later this year, the 2014 NomCom will issue a public call for applicants to the open ICANN leadership positions and work to reach their final selections in 2014. The NomCom's activities can be followed on the NomCom website, at http://nomcom.icann.org/, where all relevant documentation regarding NomCom can be found. > > About the NomCom Leadership: > > The NomCom Chair is responsible for organizing the NomCom in its activities to select ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in other key leadership positions within ICANN's Supporting Organizations (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC) in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. The Chair-Elect serves alongside the Chair, with anticipated succession into the role of the Chair for the subsequent year's NomCom. The Associate Chair, selected by the Chair, assists with the duties of the Chair. The Chair, the Chair-Elect and Associate Chair are non-voting members of the NomCom. > > > > This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: > > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > > Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > > Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=92…> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

RE : Re: On Process-versus-implementation
by jjs Oct. 2, 2013

Oct. 2, 2013

I too agree with Evan's analysis and conclusion. -------- Message d'origine -------- De : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Date : 02/10/2013 17:49 (GMT+08:00) A : Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> Cc : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [ALAC] On Process-versus-implementation +1 @ Evan. On Oct 2, 2013 1:42 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > I am reminded -- quite correctly -- by Matt that in the last ALAC meeting, > Alan and I said we would work on a comment regarding feedback to the > GNSO Policy > & Implementation > WG<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42734846> > . > > What would nominally be called for right now is a point-by-point answering > of the questions sent by the GNSO working group to other community leaders. > But I find, after reading and re-reading the original GNSO solicittation -- > that I cannot bring myself to do this. > > To simply answer the questions -- to legitimize what is in my opinion a > fraudulent and captured process -- is an abdication of our roles within > At-Large. > > It does seems clear to me that certain ICANN actions have been outside > (what I saw as) the intent of policy, and smack of certain interests > asserting influence on implementation despite lack of success at the policy > level. > > (Some of this activity indicates breakage in the policy-making technique, > but that's a different matter) > > The search for bounds is legitimate, but it is a sham to leave the search > for answers purely to the self-interested GNSO. This is legitimately an > issue of cross-community engagement -- involving all ACs. SOs, and indeed > ICANN staff -- and not to be left to the internal deliberations of the > squeakiest wheel. (And no, being non-voting observers in a GNSO process > does not count as cross-community.) > > When the GNSO originally explored a P&I working group I was concerned about > its potential for captured agendas and prejudice; as I read the questions > in the initial solicitation I see my concerns were justified. I also note > that, once again, ALAC is being requested to respond to the agendas of > others rather than taking leadership on issues ourselves. > > I am interested in ALAC producing a statement, but not like the one > originally envisioned. I would like the ALAC to send formal advice to the > Board requesting it to engage the *entire* community on better ways to have > implementation issues inform policy, and to have implementation guided by > both the letter and the spirit of established policy. This cannot be done > in a vacuum, the issues are cultural as well as technical or procedural, > and they and they certainly cannot be solved by the GNSO acting alone. > > ICANN was on the right track in creating a Policy and Implementation > workshop <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> at the Beijing meeting, > one that had same-level involvement from across the community. In that > workshop -- at which I was the ALAC participant -- it was agreed that > cross-constituency engagement was required. This is indeed as the > discussion *must* be, moving forward. > > The Board of ICANN needs to take leadership on this issue and must not > leave its determination to just a single part of the community. I am happy > to work on such a statement for ALAC's consideration. But I have no > interest in validating what I see evolving into a GNSO power grab, and IMO > neither should the ALAC. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > 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