- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALS decertification
by Alan Greenberg May 29, 2013

May 29, 2013

I submit the following two draft motions for the consideration of the ALAC. Alan =========== Whereas the official representative of the At-Large Structure: Internet Users Network (Tokyo) has requested that the At-Large Structure (ALS) be decertified as a preparatory step to the Internet Users Network (Tokyo) being dissolved; The ALAC, in accordance with its rules, decertifies the Internet Users Network (Tokyo) as an ICANN At-Large ALS. Such decertification is done without prejudice to any future re-application of this organization for certification as an ALS, or the application for ALS certification of any new group bearing the same name. =========== Whereas the official representative of the At-Large Structure: ) Internet Society Pakistan Chapter no longer seems to exist, its domain name (isocpk.org) has expired, and all communication with identified leaders of the ALS has failed; Whereas other At-Large participants from Pakistan have verified that the Internet Society Pakistan Chapter no longer exists; The ALAC, in accordance with its rules, decertifies Internet Society Pakistan Chapter as an ICANN At-Large ALS. Such decertification is done without prejudice to any future re-application of this organization for certification as an ALS, or the application for ALS certification of any new group bearing the same name.

7 14

Re: [ALAC] BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50
by Hong Xue May 26, 2013

May 26, 2013

I am not mixing up the GAC Principles with the ICANN policies. What I mean is 50+ refers to UDRP, which is being applied by a score of ccTLDs. Without clarification, the trademarks "abused" at the ccTLDs but decided under the UDRP are eligible to be included the 50+, which was obviously not contemplated by the 50+ designer or implementer. Hong On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > GAC Principles which recommend that for certain ccTLDs, the registry > should provide, among other things, IP dispute resolution procedures, and > those TLDs choosing to use the procedures ICANN developed for gTLDs is a > far cry from anything being policed by ICANN. > > Regardless I think that "If the GAC is opening up the door..." might be > the wrong tense for a set of principles identified by the GAC at the dawn > of ICANN history 13 years ago. > > Alan > > > At 25/05/2013 11:10 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > GAC Principles are at < > http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm>, which says: > > 9.1.6 In so far as ccTLD registration policies allow or encourage > registrations from entities or individuals resident outside the relevant > territory, then the delegee concerned should implement dispute resolution > policies that ensure that the interests of all registrants, and of third > parties, including those outside their territory and in other > jurisdictions, are taken into account. Dispute resolution policies should, > to the greatest extent possible, follow common principles, including due > regard for internationally recognised intellectual property, consumer > protection and other relevant law, and be implemented by all delegees. The > delegee should, so far as possible, implement alternative dispute > resolution procedures conducted online, without precluding access to court > litigation. > > WIPO provides for DR services for a list of ccTLDs. Please see <http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/>. > More than 70% of these ccTLDs directly apply UDRP and the rest of them > apply the DRP "modelled" on UDRP. Most of these ccTLDs "allow or encourage > registrations from entities or individuals resident outside the relevant > territory". > > So, yes, at least the management and policy of those "open" ccTLDs are > very similar to gTLDs. > > Hong > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > I hadn't picked up on that one, Hong. > > This could indeed be interesting. If the GAC is opening up the door to > ccTLD policing by ICANN, this opens up an entirely new set of opportunities > and headaches. > > ccTLDs have long argued that they are immune to ICANN governance (outside > of purely discretionary participation in the ccNSO) because of national > sovereignty. If the governments of the world (at least as expressed in this > early phase by the GAC) are OK with a body like ICANN regulating some of > those "sovereign" activities, that's a major leap. Even creation of minimal > standards, such as requiring use of the UDRP for TLDs that allow domain > ownership outside the ccTLD's country, is a massive shift. > > The immediate reply to the GAC, of course, is that to turn this direction > into something enforceable, an effort such as a treaty is required. > However, this may clearly be a case of "be careful what you wish for". > Until now interest in such action was negligible. However, if the current > governmental interest in the DNS is now growing to the point that it might > be motivated to create a multilateral foundation for domain name > governance, this could be (to put it mildly) a seismic shift in ICANN's > roles and relevance. WCIT indicated a broader set of goals, but I could > envision international agreement on minimum TLD standards to be quite > attainable. > > Or maybe I'm reading far too much into the GAC direction as Hong has > interpreted it. In that case, never mind ;-). > > > > On 23 May 2013 02:07, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not addicit to this, but UDRP is more complicated than those > "implementers" imagine. Apart from gTLDs, a number of ccTLDs (equivalent to > gTLDs), such as .tv, .cc or more recent .co, are required to apply UDRP per > se (not similar ccTLD processes) under the GAC Principles. If the > "implementation" does want to address the TMs abused in the UDRP cases, > there is no way to exclude these ccTLD UDRP cases. Of course, this makes > the whole things even more fascinating. > > Hong > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Alan Greenberg > < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > At 22/05/2013 02:33 AM, Hong Xue wrote: > > > > Option a) 50+ records in TMCH are the domain name strings (for example > > yahoosuchs.com or prada-for-sale.com) that had been either transferred > or > > deleted in UDRP proceeds. But, many well-known marks have already won > more > > than 50 UDRP decisions. It is arbitrary to limit to 50. How to limit to > > 50? > > > > > > 50 was clearly an arbitrary number. But how to limit to 50 PER MARK is a > > problem, since I don't think that it will be clear from records presented > > to TMCH that (for example) OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft US is the same > > TM as OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft Canada, but different from the > > fictitious OUTLOOK registered to Hong Xue in China. The only way I see is > > to limit by rule and have the TM holder assert that the marks are > different > > if they are (with penalties for not being honest). But that is far better > > than ignoring the issue. > > > > > > > > Option b) an owner of a mark that has been "abused" in a UDRP proceeding > > (for example geogle.com) may choose to submit up to 50 "variations" of > > its marks (for example Gooogle, Gooooooogle, etc). It is definitely > > arbitrary if variations are subject to the mark holder's choice. Some > years > > ago, CNN claims that CNNIC is confusingly similar to it-:) > > > > BUT, UDRP has no finality and its decision may be overruled by the > > competent court. Shouldn't the final judicial decision count, rather than > > the UDRP award that has been set aside? > > > > > > I would presume that an overturned UDRP decision no longer stands and a > TM > > holder could not submit it. > > > > > > AND, UDRP is also applied to a number of ccTLDs. Would 50+ be extended to > > the UDRP cases regarding ccTLD domain names? > > > > > > Again, the devil is in the details, which we have not seen, but my > > presumption is that the term UDRP in this case referd to ICANN's UDRP and > > not a similar process for a ccTLD. > > > > > > > > TMCH implementation is now completely messy and its two appointed > > providers are not even ready to handle the "exact mark" (without IDN > > variants), let alone this 50+. If 50+ is indeed implementation, there > still > > need further guidance or clarifications to enable it. > > > > > > How could I argue with that? > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > Hong > > > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > 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… > > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > > -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0

Re: [ALAC] BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50
by Alan Greenberg May 26, 2013

May 26, 2013

At 22/05/2013 02:33 AM, Hong Xue wrote: >Option a) 50+ records in TMCH are the domain name strings (for >example <http://yahoosuchs.com>yahoosuchs.com or ><http://prada-for-sale.com>prada-for-sale.com) that had been either >transferred or deleted in UDRP proceeds. But, many well-known marks >have already won more than 50 UDRP decisions. It is arbitrary to >limit to 50. How to limit to 50? 50 was clearly an arbitrary number. But how to limit to 50 PER MARK is a problem, since I don't think that it will be clear from records presented to TMCH that (for example) OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft US is the same TM as OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft Canada, but different from the fictitious OUTLOOK registered to Hong Xue in China. The only way I see is to limit by rule and have the TM holder assert that the marks are different if they are (with penalties for not being honest). But that is far better than ignoring the issue. >Option b) an owner of a mark that has been "abused" in a UDRP >proceeding (for example <http://geogle.com>geogle.com) may choose to >submit up to 50 "variations" of its marks (for example Gooogle, >Gooooooogle, etc). It is definitely arbitrary if variations are >subject to the mark holder's choice. Some years ago, CNN claims that >CNNIC is confusingly similar to it-:) > >BUT, UDRP has no finality and its decision may be overruled by the >competent court. Shouldn't the final judicial decision count, rather >than the UDRP award that has been set aside? I would presume that an overturned UDRP decision no longer stands and a TM holder could not submit it. >AND, UDRP is also applied to a number of ccTLDs. Would 50+ be >extended to the UDRP cases regarding ccTLD domain names? Again, the devil is in the details, which we have not seen, but my presumption is that the term UDRP in this case referd to ICANN's UDRP and not a similar process for a ccTLD. >TMCH implementation is now completely messy and its two appointed >providers are not even ready to handle the "exact mark" (without IDN >variants), let alone this 50+. If 50+ is indeed implementation, >there still need further guidance or clarifications to enable it. How could I argue with that? Alan > > >Hong

3 3

Re: [ALAC] BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50
by Hong Xue May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

> A good point to raise. But I don't believe the request for > reconsideration listed THAT as an issue. > No, it is exactly the issue filed for reconsideration. Grounds of Requests: The NCSG Asserted that the Action Resulted in “Staff-Developed Policy.” The NCSG Asserted that the Action Follows “No Known” Policy or Procedure. The NCSG Asserted that the Action Violates the Bylaws Consultation Process and the AoC. Findings of Recommendation P.9 "In our opinion, the fundamental question behind this Request is whether staff’s action was one of implementation of existing policy or the creation of new policy. If the staff action is one of creation of new policy, Reconsideration is well-taken here. If the staff action is one of implementation of existing policy, then ICANN’s processes were followed, and there is no further merit to the Request. As a result, the BGC will consider whether the action is a creation of new policy or implementation of existing policy." > > On this issue, I suspect the overall battle is lost, but the issue of > whether it should be 50 per trademark/beneficial owner combination, or 50 > per entry in the TMCH has not really been discussed and that is an issue > that I think we may want to discuss further and one that we might have some > traction with. > > Agree. I'd very happy to pursue this interesting issue further. Actually all IP people would be overwhelmed by the potential problems of 50+. Option a) 50+ records in TMCH are the domain name strings (for example yahoosuchs.com or prada-for-sale.com) that had been either transferred or deleted in UDRP proceeds. But, many well-known marks have already won more than 50 UDRP decisions. It is arbitrary to limit to 50. How to limit to 50? Option b) an owner of a mark that has been "abused" in a UDRP proceeding (for example geogle.com) may choose to submit up to 50 "variations" of its marks (for example Gooogle, Gooooooogle, etc). It is definitely arbitrary if variations are subject to the mark holder's choice. Some years ago, CNN claims that CNNIC is confusingly similar to it-:) BUT, UDRP has no finality and its decision may be overruled by the competent court. Shouldn't the final judicial decision count, rather than the UDRP award that has been set aside? AND, UDRP is also applied to a number of ccTLDs. Would 50+ be extended to the UDRP cases regarding ccTLD domain names? TMCH implementation is now completely messy and its two appointed providers are not even ready to handle the "exact mark" (without IDN variants), let alone this 50+. If 50+ is indeed implementation, there still need further guidance or clarifications to enable it. Hong > > > At 22/05/2013 12:02 AM, Hong Xue wrote: > > Irrespective of whether 50+ is policy or implementation, I don't believe > the BGC recommendation's interpretation that the "rules of implementation" > are solely in the discretion of staff, not subject to the MS participation > and supervision, be accurate. > > Hong > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > At 21/05/2013 01:35 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >On 21 May 2013, at 06:40, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > > > One of the arguments that registries have made is that > > > this option was already discussed several years ago and was discarded > > > at that time, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE RAISED AGAIN. In effect, the > > > elimination of that option several years ago enshrined NOT doing it > > > in effective policy. > > > >at least not without another PDP to change the policy. > > > >avri > > So you are saying that something that was implementation several > years ago when discussed during the various versions of the AG, is > now policy, and moreover, it would require a PDP to change (not just > a GNSO policy process but a formal PDP even though it is not a > subject for Consensus Policy as per Bylaws Annex A - "If the GNSO is > conducting activities that are not intended to result in a Consensus > Policy, the Council may act through other processes.") > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > > -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0

BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50
by Alan Greenberg May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… To cut to the result, the BCG rejected the request to overturn the inclusion of TM+50 into the TMCH. Part of the decision was based on the fact that the original TMCH implementation itself, a result of the STI effort, was deemed (by the GNSO and all of us) to be part of the IMPLEMENTATION of Recommendation 3 of the GNSO new gTLD PDP: >Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that >are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and >internationally recognized principles of law. Examples of these >legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are >not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention for the >Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark rights), >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the >International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in >particular freedom of expression rights). As such, can a change or refinement to this "implementation" be anything other than still just implementation? This is to some extent supported by the minority position that the ALAC took on the STI report, specifically that the ALAC supported some level of TM + service/product being in the TMCH. We also supported common law trademarks in addition to registered trademarks. *IF* the STI had bowed to our wisdom on these issues, both of these would have been in the TMCH design. But the STI did not overall agree, and they did not end up in the design. Similarly, if the TM+50 had been raised during the STI and had won (not very likely in my opinion, just as our pet issues above did not win), then this too would have been part of the default implementation. Which of course now raises an interesting question. Why would these "features" have simply been part of the "implementation" of the TMCH is we had won the arguments in late 2009, but when we considered the TM+50 earlier this year, we forcefully felt that this was clearly policy? The answer is not obvious, and yet it seems to be at the core of the visceral reaction that many of us have on the question of policy vs implementation. I won't pretend that I have the answer to this. But I think that part of understanding it is to recognize that virtually all policy in the gTLD realm leads to implementation. Recent PDPs (and the new PDP process in the Bylaws) allow for an implementation team that helps ensure that the staff designed implementation follows both the word AND the intent of the policy. Indeed, one can consider that all of ICANN spent several years being the "implementation team" supporting the design of the New gTLD process and the AG. I am starting to suspect that as policy takes on a concrete form during implementation, in peoples minds, the arrived at implementation and the original policy became meld together and become inseparable. It is a bit of a scary conclusion, because it means that, in our minds, the line between policy and implementation for any given issue, MOVES over time. On a completely different issue, that of the new desired right of ICANN to change registry agreements without the concurrence of the registries (and outside of Consensus Policy) seems to validate my conclusion. One of the arguments that registries have made is that this option was already discussed several years ago and was discarded at that time, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE RAISED AGAIN. In effect, the elimination of that option several years ago enshrined NOT doing it in effective policy. I admit that much of what I have written here is really stream-of-consciousness (and it is a bit past midnight now!), and I have not fully thought it through, but I felt it important to capture it and I look forward to comments. Alan

5 8

Adjunct Document 01 - Position Description
by Alan Greenberg May 20, 2013

May 20, 2013

The approved Rules of Procedure make reference to Adjunct Document 01 - Position Description for ALAC Members, Liaison and Appointees. During the RoP discussions, it was decided that this document, in the first instance, would be based on the current Position Description for ALAC Members and ALAC Liaisons, making the least possible number of changes to align it with the new title and the RoP. At some later time, we should do a thorough review and revamp. Among other needs will be to reduce redundancies between the RoP and this document. The current version was approved via an online vote with the result announced at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce/2009q4/000394.html. The link in this e-mail to the Bigpulse vote still works, but the actual text, which was on the old Socialtext wiki can now be found at https://community.icann.org/x/foIi. A copy of the document is also attached to this e-mail for your convenience. The Proposed Adjunct Document is also attached. The only changes, other than the title were: - Add Appointees to section 1.1, 1.2 - Add a new section 3.1-j at the end to reference Appointees - Correct typos in 1.1 replacing At-large with At-Large and in 3.1-i by replacing ALAC with ALAC Members, - Replace all occurrences of ALAC members (replacing ALAC (and in one case, Committee members) with ALAC Members as per the definitions in the new RoP. Alan

4 5

Re: [ALAC] Adjunct Document 01 - Position Description
by Alan Greenberg May 16, 2013

May 16, 2013

I agree, but I would really prefer to not start tweeking this now. On careful reading, there are a lot of things that are duplicates with what is in the RoP (which may or may not be a problem) and I am sure a host of things that need to be added or changed. I would suggest that with both this Adjunct Doc and the one I sent a week or so ago, we open a wiki page and start collecting ideas for a re-write. That honours the decision that we made when re-doing the RoP, and at the same time does not let these good ideas escape. And before I forget, thanks for actually reviewing this doc so quickly! :-) Alan At 15/05/2013 11:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Sorry, Alan. Forgot one thing: There is no mention of drafting >skills. Given that one of the ALAC's main channel of providing >policy feedback/input is via written statement or advice, perhaps >this should be considered as a core requirement? It would be good >to have all members of the ALAC be able to "hold the pen" so that we >can spread the load. > >Best regards. > >Rinalia > >On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Looks very good, Alan. > >Rinalia >On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The approved Rules of Procedure make reference to Adjunct Document >01 - Position Description for ALAC Members, Liaison and Appointees. >During the RoP discussions, it was decided that this document, in >the first instance, would be based on the current Position >Description for ALAC Members and ALAC Liaisons, making the least >possible number of changes to align it with the new title and the >RoP. At some later time, we should do a thorough review and revamp. >Among other needs will be to reduce redundancies between the RoP and >this document. >The current version was approved via an online vote with the result >announced at ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce/2009q4/000394.html>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce/2009q4/000394.html. >The link in this e-mail to the Bigpulse vote still works, but the >actual text, which was on the old Socialtext wiki can now be found >at ><https://community.icann.org/x/foIi>https://community.icann.org/x/foIi. >A copy of the document is also attached to this e-mail for your convenience. >The Proposed Adjunct Document is also attached. The only changes, >other than the title were: >- Add Appointees to section 1.1, 1.2 >- Add a new section 3.1-j at the end to reference Appointees >- Correct typos in 1.1 replacing At-large with At-Large and in 3.1-i >by replacing ALAC with ALAC Members, >- Replace all occurrences of ALAC members (replacing ALAC (and in >one case, Committee members) with ALAC Members as per the >definitions in the new RoP. >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

RoP Adjunct Document 04 - At-Large Structure Framework
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2013

May 14, 2013

I submit the attached document for approval of the ALAC. This document is one that is required for the new ALAC Rules of Procedure to be put into effect. The document is largely drawn from http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm, the current source of ALS processes. The only changes are: 1. Document the dates of the ICNN Boaard resolutions on which the rules/process is based. 2. Change the tense of the 2nd paragraph to reflect ongoing operation instead of future plans (for example, replacing "The At-Large Structures are in the process of organising..." with "At-Large Structures are organised...". 3. Slight re-wording of the last paragraph to remove the personal form ("You may..."). 4. Correcting a number of typos and missing punctuation. Alan

4 3

Re: [ALAC] RoP Adjunct Document 04 - At-Large Structure Framework
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2013

May 14, 2013

At 14/05/2013 12:07 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Excellent, as usual. Thanks Rinalia. >A suggestion and questions: > >1. I would suggest that you separate the "de-certification" process >under its own header. I believe this will make it more apparent >that we have a process in place for this scenario. I will check if such a change will trigger a need to go past the Board again. >2. Is the de-certification process sufficient to address the >voluntary dissolution of ALSes? > >I ask this question because there is an emerging case where an ALS >is voluntarily seeking to dissolve itself and correspondingly >de-list and de-accredit itself - not for "bad" reasons that imply >misconduct, but rather because the founder/s or members no longer >wish to sustain the entity. Can you indicate whether you think that >under the current framework this situation can be addressed under >de-certification? If yes, I think an addition is needed to deal >with voluntary cases of ALS dissolution. At the moment, the >de-certification intent seems to be focused on what I believe to be >a "punitive" reaction to some type of misconduct (just my subjective >reading of it based on the example provided). We are actually in the midst of such a case. In my judgement (what may or may not be worth anything), if someone representing an ALS asks for decertification, then we can comply with the need to "warn them" by simply replying that we wil lbe going forward with the decertification. I am sure that if we put the time into it, there are other changes that we feel would be prudent in addition to addressing the case you mention, but all THIS document is doing is taking out current Board-approved rules and "inserting" them into the RoP (a situation that the ICANN Bylaws called for which we never did. Should we want to change them in the future, we have that option. But since these are the rules we are currently operating under, I see no reason to require that they be changed before we can proceed with the rest of the RoP. At best, since it will include full-blown discussion and ultimately Board approval, we are talking many months if not more. >3. How do we ensure that the due diligence process really does >involve triangulation of sources? > >There is the real possibility that due diligence draws only from the >same source/s of information provided by applicants, which weakens >the basis of decision-making. I understand the complexity and >challenges of real word gathering of information, but I wonder if >there is a way that we can encourage serious efforts at >triangulation despite the challenges of cost, time, finding credible >alternate sources of information, etc. As above. I think that when (and I say when not if) we go through a process of verifying that all of our ALSs are in fact real and functioning, we will learn a bunch about how might improve the original certification process. Alan >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I submit the attached document for approval of the ALAC. > >This document is one that is required for the new ALAC Rules of >Procedure to be put into effect. > >The document is largely drawn from ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm, >the current source of ALS processes. The only changes are: > >1. Document the dates of the ICNN Boaard resolutions on which the >rules/process is based. > >2. Change the tense of the 2nd paragraph to reflect ongoing >operation instead of future plans (for example, replacing "The >At-Large Structures are in the process of organising..." with >"At-Large Structures are organised...". > >3. Slight re-wording of the last paragraph to remove the personal >form ("You may..."). > >4. Correcting a number of typos and missing punctuation. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

ALAC Statement on Final RAA 2013
by Carlton Samuels May 14, 2013

May 14, 2013

We finally have a draft statement on the wiki. We encourage you all to take a look and make comments: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Final+2… Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0