- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Preliminary report for meeting of the new gTLD committee on 26 March 2013
by Alan Greenberg April 5, 2013

April 5, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-26mar… 1. Approval to Enter Agreement with IBM for Trademark Clearinghouse Due to a potential for conflict of interest, Thomas Narten was not present for the deliberation of this item. The Committee received an update on the development of the Trademark Clearinghouse as it has been divided into two functions, one to be performed by Deloitte and the other by IBM, which will perform the sunrise and claims work. The Committee also received some detail on the negotiated costs for the IBM work. Staff confirmed that an RFP had been issued prior to the selection of the Trademark Clearinghouse providers. The Committee then took the following action: Whereas, ICANN and IBM have negotiated in good faith the terms for a proposed statement of work for operation of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services offered by the Trademark Clearinghouse. Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has reviewed the terms of the proposed Statement of Work for ICANN. Whereas, approval is required to commit ICANN funds in the amount of USD 4 million. Whereas, execution of the agreement enables continuation of the technical build out to support these services for the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.03.26.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee authorizes the President and CEO to enter into the proposed agreement with IBM. Ten members of the Committee voted in favor of the Resolution. Two members of the Committee were unavailable to vote. The resolution carried. 2. Protections for Names of IGOs The Committee received an update on the status of work regarding the establishment of protections of names of IGOs within the first round of the New gTLD Program, including a brief discussion of the advice from the GAC, issues relating to the protection of common acronyms that are also acronyms of IGOs, and the creation of a ongoing mechanisms that may need to be put in place to address the GAC advice. The Committee agreed that further briefing was necessary, and that it would have a broader discussion of this issue at its meeting during ICANN's Beijing meeting. 3. "Closed" Generics The Committee briefly discussed the issue of "closed" generics and received an update on the work that was requested from staff on this issue, as well as the results of the public comment forum. The Committee agreed that further discussion on this topic would be necessary at its meeting during ICANN's Beijing meeting. The Committee also requested that this topic be on the agenda for the Public Forum in Beijing. 4. Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Negotiations and the Registry Agreement The Committee received an update on the status of the RAA negotiations as well as the status of the Registry Agreement after ICANN posted a version for public comment on 5 February 2013. The President and CEO provided a brief summary of the public comments on the Registry Agreement. The Committee also briefly discussed the Board-approved amendment process as well as proposed changes to that process to respond to community concern. 5. Any Other Business The Committee received a brief update from the President and CEO on the work towards a DNS summit in New York City on 23 April 2013, where the work of taskforces arising out of the CEO Roundtables will be progressed, and, if available and appropriate, a signing ceremony will take place regarding the new Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document within the RAA. The Committee also received a brief update on the status of the Public Interest Commitments documents that were submitted by applicants.

1 0

Fwd: GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice to the ICANN Board on controversial or sensitive strings and applications
by Carlton Samuels April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

The GAC has added new categories for which it could and may develop objections. The ones pertaining religious terms and 'strings that have broad multiple uses and meanings' should at least preview some intellectual jujitsu if not entertainment in the attempts to square the circle! Come to think, maybe even grist for more schisms. Here's a doozy. "Strings that represent inherent government functions and/or activities". [Hmmmm....finger to mouth, Minime style...] See the categorisation of the objections already contemplated and/or filed at the end. -Carlton https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee 31 March 2013 GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice to the ICANN Board on controversial or sensitive strings and applications As the New gTLD Program moves forward, the GAC is making preparations for delivering further advice on new gTLDs. This advice constitutes a key element of the overall process as outlined in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). As anticipated, GAC Member Early Warnings were issued on November 20, 2012, and applicants and GAC Members have been exchanging information with the aim of reaching an understanding or agreement on concerns raised, wherever possible. In terms of the next phase, described in module 3.1 of the AG, the GAC as a whole will be discussing its advice on new gTLDs. These sessions are organized into two parts: Part I Safeguard advice on the basis of categories of strings The GAC discussions will proceed on the basis of advice to safeguard categories of strings that raise concerns, or potential concerns, for governments. There are currently nine draft categories of strings proposed for the GAC’s Beijing agenda. Six were identified in the GAC Toronto Communique: Consumer protection Strings that are linked to regulated market sectors, such as the financial, health and charity sectors Competition issues Strings that have broad or multiple uses or meanings, and where one entity is seeking exclusive use Religious terms where the applicant has no, or limited, support from the relevant religious organisations or the religious community. Minimising the need for defensive registrations Protection of geographic names Intellectual property rights particularly in relation to strings aimed at the distribution of music, video and other digital material Three additional categories have now been proposed for consideration: Support for applications submitted by global authorities Corporate Identifier gTLDs Strings that represent inherent government functions and/or activities As the GAC looks at these nine categories, and how they would apply to strings and applications falling under these categories, the number of safeguard categories or titles of the categories could change. Part II GAC advice/objections on specific applications Twenty specific applications have been brought forward by a GAC Member or Members for consideration by the GAC. The GAC Member(s) putting forward these applications have linked them to the following categories: Community name where the applicant does not have support from the community or the government: 1 Consumer protection: 2 Name of an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO): 1 Protection of geographic names: 9 Religious terms: 2 Strings applied for that represent inherent government functions and/or activities: 3 Support for applications submitted by global authorities: 2 The Operating Principles of the GAC outline the consensus-based approach of the Committee and will serve as a key reference for the GAC in its deliberations. The GAC looks forward to the upcoming meetings and holding exchanges with the ICANN Board and community on these and other important matters.

2 2

ICANN Board meeting Agenda for Thursday 11 April 2013
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-11apr13-en.htm Consent Agenda: * Minutes of 28 February 2013 Meeting * RSSAC Bylaws Amendments * Hub office in Istanbul, Turkey * NCSG Decision to Reject PIA-CC Constituency Application * .CAT Cross-Ownership Removal Request * Redelegation of the .GA Domain Main Agenda: * IDN Variant TLD Root LGR Procedure and User Experience Study Recommendations * Any Other Business

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

Nope. I will make the change that you suggested. Alan At 01/04/2013 06:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >My comments are on the wiki page. do you need them repeated here? > > > >On 1 April 2013 17:41, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks Carlton. But after due consideration. I don't think I will >include that in the formal statement. :-) > >Alan > >At 31/03/2013 06:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >Um, harsh you say? By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm > >bucket of spit. > > > >-Carlton > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > > > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg > ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) > >Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement > was required. > > > >Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my > >to follow up on it. > > > >I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory. > >The DRP can be found at > ><<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13- > en.pdf>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. > > > >The statement can be found at > ><<https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/ > x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg > >and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than > >those I would normally draft. > > > >Alan > > > >======================== > >ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure > > > >The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of > >the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments. > > > >Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was > >introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be > >"enforced by ICANN" > >(<<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb > 13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) > > > >When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced" > >included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact > >meant, "by ICANN". > > > >As it stands, the process: > > > >- Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently; > > > >- Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to > the violation; > > > >- May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so. > > > >Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an > >objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable > >harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions > >ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid. > > > >Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks > >are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP. > > > >There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least > >part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD > >applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is > >delegated. This hope has not been satisfied. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.ica > nn.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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com > mittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013

Thanks Carlton. But after due consideration. I don't think I will include that in the formal statement. :-) Alan At 31/03/2013 06:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Um, harsh you say? By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm >bucket of spit. > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) >Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement was required. > >Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my >to follow up on it. > >I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory. >The DRP can be found at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. > >The statement can be found at ><https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg >and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than >those I would normally draft. > >Alan > >======================== >ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure > >The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of >the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments. > >Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was >introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be >"enforced by ICANN" >(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) > >When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced" >included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact >meant, "by ICANN". > >As it stands, the process: > >- Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently; > >- Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the violation; > >- May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so. > >Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an >objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable >harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions >ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid. > >Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks >are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP. > >There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least >part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD >applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is >delegated. This hope has not been satisfied. > >_______________________________________________ >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… >

2 1

Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2013

March 31, 2013

Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement was required. Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my to follow up on it. I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory. The DRP can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. The statement can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than those I would normally draft. Alan ======================== ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments. Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be "enforced by ICANN" (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced" included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact meant, "by ICANN". As it stands, the process: - Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently; - Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the violation; - May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so. Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid. Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP. There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is delegated. This hope has not been satisfied.

3 3

Fwd: [governance] WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 30, 2013

March 30, 2013

FYI - forwarded from the IGF Governance list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:51:22 +0200 From: Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob(a)gmail.com> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Published on 28 March 2013 @ 8:24 pm Print This Post <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/28/wipo-reports-another-record-in-cybersqua…> Print This Post <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/28/wipo-reports-another-record-in-cybersqua…> By William New <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>, Intellectual Property Watch It was another record year in 2012 for cybersquatting cases filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Centre. In addition, WIPO announced results of a survey that show that its mediation services could benefit parties to technology-related disputes. Trademark holders filed 2,884 cases covering 5,084 internet domain names at the WIPO centre, a 4.5 percent increase over 2011, the previous record year, according to a press release. WIPO is one of the global locations for filing cases under the 1999 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Cases involved generic top-level domains (gTLDs like .com), and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs like .ch for Switzerland). Cases filed at WIPO in 2012 were decided by 341 panellists from 48 countries, with proceedings in 13 different languages, the top five being English, Spanish, Chinese, French and Dutch. The top three areas of activity last year were retail, fashion and banking/finance. Some 75 percent of all cases were in the .com domain. One in five cases were settled, and in 91 percent of cases, evidence of cybersquatting was found. WIPO said it also has begun to see disputes filed in relation to the new gTLDs being launched at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). As of 13 March, there were 71 cases filed under the Legal Rights Objections procedure. The WIPO centre also offers services for technology and other intellectual property disputes, under mediation, arbitration and expedited arbitration rules. As of December 2012, there had been nearly 300 cases filed under these rules over the past five years. Examples of areas of case filings include: patent infringement, patent licences, information technology transactions, distribution agreements for pharmaceutical and consumer products, copyright issues, research and development agreements, and media-related agreements. Survey: Tech Disputes Could Benefit from ADR WIPO today also announced the results of a survey of users of alternative dispute resolution methods for technology-related disputes. With nearly 400 respondents from more than 60 countries, it found that parties to technology agreements are concerned about the cost and time of resolving formal disputes, making WIPO’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services more attractive. “While court litigation remains the default path, survey responses indicate that ADR offers attractive options in terms of cost and time, as well as enforceability, quality of outcome, and confidentiality,” WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said in the release. Related Articles: * WIPO Holds Annual Arbitration Workshop Off-Site For First Time <http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/10/17/wipo-holds-annual-arbitration-workshop-o…> * European Patent Office Reports Record Patent Filings In 2012 <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/06/european-patent-office-reports-record-pa…> * WIPO Reports Robust Growth In Demand For IP Rights In 2012 <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/19/wipo-reports-robust-growth-in-demand-for…> /William New may be reached at wnew(a)ip-watch.ch <mailto:wnew@ip-watch.ch>./

1 1

First draft of ALAC RAA Statement
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

I have posted a first draft. It is not the short and concise statement I envisioned, because as I strted to write it, I realized that if the ALAC wanted to impact the outcome, we needed to identify, to the extent possible, WHY we supported or rejected any of the particular sections that are currently in dispute. I attempted to do this to the best of my ability, with the understanding that in some cases, I simply do not completely understand the motivation ofr the different positions. In such cases, I just said that. If anyone else understand better than I, please speak up. The draft can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/xZRwAg. Look for the red pointer to the PDF version to locate the start of the draft. All of the documents it refers to are pointed to in the box just above the draft. I am also attaching a PDF version here for your convenience. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread. I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process. Alan At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement >with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the >work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* >have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin >meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter >to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list... > ><snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is >responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD >deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment >on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in >processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when >they do (rarely) come to pass... > >Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and >occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work >at all. > >CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> >*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr > > >On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it > > here - with some explanations. > > > > "In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of > > the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested > > Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent > > "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each > > such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with > > information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, > > if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection > > has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result > > of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will > > find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be > > submitted to the Board." > > > > Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and > > responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or > > affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or > > delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of > > new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which > > Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary > > to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this > > dashboard. > > > > Best regards, > > Oksana > > > > > > > > 2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>: > > > Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO > > > that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with > > > out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a > > > single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder > > > whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) > > > is more than wishful thinking > > > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > >> Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the > > >> IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( > > >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) > > >> and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> > > >> ). > > >> > > >> Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the > > statement > > >> is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( > > >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> > > >> ). > > >> > > >> The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am > > guessing > > >> that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it > > is > > >> essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly. > > >> > > >> I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your > > convenience. > > >> > > >> I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be > > followed. > > >> > > >> 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… > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Evan Leibovitch > > > Toronto Canada > > > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > > Tw: el56 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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…

4 4

Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

Attached please find the Draft Rules of Procedure for discussion at the 26 March 2013 ALAC meeting. Also attached is a redline version showing most of the changes from the RoP discussed at the 19 March 2013 meeting. In addition to the changes detailed below, there are two sets of changes what do not show in the redline: - A number of corrections to cross-references within the document. - The movement of what was "10.3 Meeting Rules" to "10. Rules of the ALAC". This change was not shown in the redline version since the move caused all of the following paragraph numbers to be changed, making the document quite confusing. Changes showing in the redline version: 1. Clarifying the status of individual members within At-large. 1.2 clarification of rules used. 2. Add definition of Super-majority and capitalize it where used within the document. 5.2 and other places: Define AAGM on first usage, and us it instead of AGM within the document (some occurrences previously said AGM). 5.6 Made reference to privileges associated only with the "ALAC Chair" clearer. 5.13 Replaced reference to Ombudsman with an alternative phrase taken from the ICANN Bylaws. 5.14 Added condition that only those who have at least one other ALAC member supporting them can be named Chair. 10.1 The section on rules was moved because it did not apply only to meetings. The addition of "or activities" acknowledges this. 11.4.2 Add a word that had inadvertently been omitted. 11.4.4 Removal of a redundant phrase. 11.2.3 Addition of rule to allow more stringent rules for motion adoption. The draft RoP can also be found at https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi. Alan

10 29