- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Motion for the adoption of the new Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg March 26, 2013

March 26, 2013

I would like to make the following motion to be voted on electronically as soon as practical after the completion of the 26 March 2013 ALAC meeting. The wording in square brackets will be replaced by a pointer to the final proposed Rules of Procedure. Is there another ALAC member who would be willing to second this motion? Alan ========================== Whereas the current ALAC Rules of Procedure dates back to 2007, at the very start of the formation of the current RALO-based At-Large Community; Whereas experiences of the ensuing six years had shown that an overall review was required; Whereas a project to review and re-write the Rules of Procedure has been underway since April 2012, and that this project has involved extensive study, discussion and drafting by ALAC members and others from all ICANN regions; Resolved that the [current draft version the ALAC Rules of Procedure (v71), as modified during the ALAC meeting of 26 March 2013] be adopted to replace the current ALAC Rules of Procedure (Document number AL/2007/1/1.Rev 11). The new Rules will take effect as soon as Adjunct Documents RoP-Adjunct-01, RoP-Adjunct-03 and RoP-Adjunct-04 referenced by the proposed Rules of Procedure have been approved by the ALAC.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 26, 2013

March 26, 2013

The "deemed present" means that all ALAC members had an opportunity to vote, not that they voted. It ensures that the requirement that all regions be represented during the vote is met and that the overall quorum rule (more than 50%) is met. However, you are correct in that today, we must record a "quorums worth of vote", that is >50%, for the vote to be considered quorate and we lost that when this provision was added. Good catch. I would suggest (a combination of your options): 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC Members are deemed to have been present. To be considered a valid decision, more than 50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote (including abstain if available). Alan At 25/03/2013 02:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do improve >clarity. > >I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really been >contributing much): > >*11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC >Members are deemed to have been present* > >I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote >(nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many >participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a >quorum's worth of votes, does it still count? > >I would suggest choosing either of two paths: > >either > >* 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC >Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate in >the vote will be deemed to have abstained. >* > >or > >* 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at least >50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to >be a valid decision* > > >My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either. > >- Evan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Yup. Pretty much what I suggested (although it took a while to get out to the list). Alan At 25/03/2013 05:52 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >True. Maybe we can state it as follows: > >11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC >Members are deemed to have been present. More than 50% of the ALAC Members >have to vote to be considered valid. >-ed >On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > On 25 March 2013 15:03, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Evan: > >> > >> 11.4.2 establishes quorum by indicating that "...all members are deemed > >> to have been present". If a member does not want to participate in the > >> electronic vote, his/her vote will not have any balance in the final > >> result. For whatever reason people just do not vote sometimes. > >> > > > > Well, if a Member is deemed to be present their "non vote" still needs to > > be counted in a final tally. If it's to be counted as an abstention that > > needs to be made explicity (ie, my first option). Preferably, a poll that > > cannot attract a majority of ALAC members to cast a vote -- even an > > explicit abstention -- should IMO not be considered any more valid than an > > in-person show of hands in which a majority of Members are out of the room. > > It looks awful as a matter of acccountability, and is subject to > > manipulation. > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> -ed > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do > >>> improve > >>> clarity. > >>> > >>> I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really > >>> been > >>> contributing much): > >>> > >>> *11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC > >>> Members are deemed to have been present* > >>> > >>> > >>> I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote > >>> (nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many > >>> participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a > >>> quorum's worth of votes, does it still count? > >>> > >>> I would suggest choosing either of two paths: > >>> > >>> either > >>> > >>> * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all > >>> ALAC > >>> > >>> Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate > >>> in > >>> the vote will be deemed to have abstained. > >>> * > >>> > >>> or > >>> > >>> * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at > >>> least > >>> > >>> 50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to > >>> be a valid decision* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either. > >>> > >>> - Evan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 25 March 2013 03:52, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Dear Alan, > >>> > > >>> > Thank you again for the hard work. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > A/ comments/questions > >>> > > >>> > 1) Does "recall" of an ALT member means that this member is no more > >>> > member of ALT but remains an ALAC member? > >>> > 2) For BCEC it is mentioned: A new BCEC will be convened for each > >>> Board > >>> > Seat Selection Process in 19.3. Please don't we need such precision > >>> for > >>> > BMSPC too? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > B/ Comment > >>> > > >>> > 1) I would prefer to see also included in 12.1.15 the removal of an > >>> ALAC > >>> > member. I note that 21.2 is saying "should a vote be necessary > >>> ......" > >>> > > >>> > C/ One thought > >>> > > >>> > Could we have a situation where a chair decide to become a regular ALT > >>> or > >>> > ALAC member in a situation where he thinks that he could not more > >>> carry the > >>> > work load? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Thank you > >>> > Yaovi > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ________________________________ > >>> > De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >>> > À : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >>> > Envoyé le : Lundi 25 mars 2013 6h23 > >>> > Objet : [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March > >>> ALAC > >>> > meeting > >>> > > >>> > 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 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > 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… > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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… > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential > >> and/or subject to legal privilege, and is > intended for the use of the named > >> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > >> disclose or copy any part of this email. If > you have received this email by > >> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Evan Leibovitch > > Toronto Canada > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > Tw: el56 > > > > > > >-- >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >_______________________________________________ >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] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Eduardo, you are correct that this happens. And today, if sufficient people (that is 8 for a full ALAC) don't vote, then there is no decision. But when we added this "deemed present" to cover the regional representation, we lost the ability to factor in not voting in the outcome. Alan At 25/03/2013 03:03 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >Evan: > >11.4.2 establishes quorum by indicating that "...all members are deemed >to have been present". If a member does not want to participate in the >electronic vote, his/her vote will not have any balance in the final >result. For whatever reason people just do not vote sometimes. > >-ed > >On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > Thanks for this work. I approve of the changes and believe they do improve > > clarity. > > > > I have one question (and apologize for the tardiness, I haven't really been > > contributing much): > > > > *11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC > > Members are deemed to have been present* > > > > I wonder if this may be problematic, in cases where an online vote > > (nominally now done by BigPulse) is held, but does not have many > > participants. If a BigPulse vote is held but does not have at least a > > quorum's worth of votes, does it still count? > > > > I would suggest choosing either of two paths: > > > > either > > > > * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, all ALAC > > Members are deemed to have been present. Members who do not participate in > > the vote will be deemed to have abstained. > > * > > > > or > > > > * 11.4.2 For votes taken electronically or over a period of time, at least > > 50% of sitting ALAC members must record a vote in order for the result to > > be a valid decision* > > > > > > My preference is for the second choice but I can live with either. > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 25 March 2013 03:52, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > > > Thank you again for the hard work. > > > > > > > > > A/ comments/questions > > > > > > 1) Does "recall" of an ALT member means that this member is no more > > > member of ALT but remains an ALAC member? > > > 2) For BCEC it is mentioned: A new BCEC will be convened for each Board > > > Seat Selection Process in 19.3. Please don't we need such precision for > > > BMSPC too? > > > > > > > > > B/ Comment > > > > > > 1) I would prefer to see also included in 12.1.15 the removal of an > > ALAC > > > member. I note that 21.2 is saying "should a vote be necessary ......" > > > > > > C/ One thought > > > > > > Could we have a situation where a chair decide to become a regular ALT or > > > ALAC member in a situation where he thinks that he could not more carry > > the > > > work load? > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > Yaovi > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > À : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Envoyé le : Lundi 25 mars 2013 6h23 > > > Objet : [ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC > > > meeting > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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… > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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… > > > > > >-- >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >_______________________________________________ >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

ALAC Top 10 Issues
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Dear All, Grateful if those who have been with ALAC for *long* can assist in letting me know if there is a record of Top 10 Issues in ALAC other than the one in https://community.icann.org/x/AIUi I am looking for material that may have been archived. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

3 3

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Top 10 Issues
by Alan Greenberg March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Nothing else to my recollection. Alan At 25/03/2013 08:18 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >Grateful if those who have been with ALAC for *long* can assist in letting >me know if there is a record of Top 10 Issues in ALAC other than the one in >https://community.icann.org/x/AIUi > >I am looking for material that may have been archived. > >Kind Regards, > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >_______________________________________________ >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

ANgWG Recommendations on Post Objection-Filing Activities
by Avri Doria March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

Dear Olivier and members of ALAC, Attached please find a consensus recommendation from the At-Large New gTLD WG (ANgWG) to the ALAC on Post Objection-Filing Activities. Given the short time available for this task, due to application processing schedules, an accelerated process was used. Process by which the recommendation was developed: - It was first penned by Avri Doria, chair of the ANgWG, as a wiki document - After the Initial Draft was posted on the ANgWG list, it was the subject of a special meeting where it was word-smithed by those attending the meeting. - The final draft was then posted for a day to the ANgWG for further comments. No substantive comments were made. - A 48 hour WG last call was called. Had any substantive changes been made when fewer than 24 hours were left of this call, it would have been extended for another 24 hours. While several cosmetic changes were made based on comments, no substantive changes were suggested or made. - After the 48 hour WG last call was completed, an announcement was made to the WG list indicating the chair's belief that the document had been approved by the WG as a consensus document. Disagreement was solicited. - Two typographic errors were discovered and fixed when the PDF was being created from the Wiki page for this mailing. - 8 hours later, this note was sent to the ALAC chair and to the ALAC working group. The note is also being copied to the WG so that should anyone in the ANgWG feel that they did not have time or a chance to comment on the recommendation, or they have any other issue with the document or process, they are notified and invited to contact the ALAC directly with their issue. Regards, Avri Doria Chair, At-Large New gTLD Working Group

3 2

RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

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) and the similar one for gTLDs (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) 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

4 3

APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues and Members of the At-Large Community, I am pleased to share with you the finalized program for the APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing (attached and pasted below). Holly Raiche and I hope that you will all attend and participate in the discussions, which will focus on end user protection related to new gTLDs and community readiness for IDN Variant TLDs. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Co-Chair, APRALO Beijing Organizing Committee ALAC, Executive Committee Vice Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group --- *APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable * *@ ICANN 46 [Beijing, PRC]* Date: 8 April 2013 (Monday) Time: 17:00-19:00 Meeting Room: Function Room 6 ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will bring a dramatic expansion of the Top Level Domain Space where 1930 new gTLD applications have been received. 303 (15.7%) of the new gTLD applications are from the Asia Pacific region and 100 (86%) of the new gTLD applications for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) are for the languages of the Asia Pacific region. The APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing will feature discussions on two thematic areas related to the new gTLDs with an emphasis on issues of concern to the end user and the public interest. [17:00-18:00] Policy Roundtable I - End User Protection with New gTLDs [18:00-19:00] Policy Roundtable II - Community Readiness for IDN Variant TLDs *Policy Roundtable I **[17:00-18:00]*** Theme: New gTLDs and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific Region Topic: End User Protection with New gTLDs Discussion Questions: 1. How can end users be best protected in the event that new gTLDs fail or are unsustainable? 2. What are the issues associated with turning applicant commitments into contractual obligations? 3. What are the issues related to the enforceability of contractual obligations and what recommendations should be made regarding the scaling up of ICANN compliance? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) *Lead Discussants:* 1. End User – Jeremy Malcolm (Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International) 2. Government – Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) 3. Business – Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) 4. ICANN Compliance - Maguy Serad (Vice President, ICANN Contractual Compliance Services) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board, ICANN Legal & Law Enforcement. * * *Policy Roundtable II **[18:00-19:00]*** Theme: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific region. Topic: Community Readiness for IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) Discussion Questions: 1. Will the introduction of IDN Variant TLDs de-stabilize the Internet and undermine its security? 2. What is the level of readiness among language communities already active in ICANN in forming “Generation Panels” to propose script character repertoires and variant rules for the Root Zone that will enable variant IDN TLDs? What are the key issues in moving forward? 3. How can the readiness of language communities not yet active in ICANN be supported? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) Moderator: Edmon Chung (Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group & At-Large IDN Policy Liaison) * * *Discussants:* · Arabic Script - *Sarmad* Hussain (Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science, Pakistan) · Chinese Script – Wang Wei (China Domain Name Consortium) · Indic Script - Ram Mohan (Afilias) · Japanese Script – Hiro Hotta / Yoshiro Yonaya (Japan Registry Services) *· **Khmer Script - Norbert Klein (Internet Society Cambodia) *** *· *Korean Script - *Young*-*eum Lee (Korea National Open University)* ** *· **Sinhala Script - *Harsha Wijayawardhana (Internet Society Sri Lanka) ** · *ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee - *Jim Galvin (Deputy Chair, SSAC) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Variant Implementation Program Team, ICANN IDNA Root Label Generation Project Team Members, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Call for Comments and Input [ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation Performance Standards]
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 19, 2013

March 19, 2013

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* germain to this piece of work at all. CLO from my Mobile phone On 20/03/2013 6:31 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > As you know there are few countries in the Asia Pacific that are > considering redelegation of their assigned country code top level domains > (ccTLDs). The ALAC is about to make a statement as all the various > stakeholder and constituency groups are being consulted. > > There are two documents namely:- > > > 1. Consultation on Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top > Level Domain (ccTLD) Performance > Standards< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/cctlds/cctld-drd-performance-15jan13-en.p… > > > ; > 2. Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related > documents<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> > > > You can access these documents on https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg and > you can also see the Draft Statement which we the ALAC will soon vote on. > Should you have a position or view on these matters, please let your ALAC > members know asap: > > > 1. Holly Raiche; > 2. Rinalia Abdul Ibrahim; > 3. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > You can do so online or offline, that is offlist, whichever you are > comfortable with.Feel free to respond to this email and to the APRALO list > or offlist, whichever you prefer. > > Thank you. > > With kind regards, > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

1 0