- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

And the resolution of the last Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee (2nd February 2013) About "Closed Generic" Top-Level Domains http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02feb13 -en.htm With a comment period open from yesterday to the 7th of March http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> Le 05/02/13 06:35, « Tijani BEN JEMAA » <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> a écrit : >Thank you Alan. It's indeed very interesting > > > > > >My address tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org is not working properly any more. >Please >use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn or >tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >---- > >Tijani BEN JEMAA > >Executive Director > >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-- >---- > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >Envoyé : mardi 5 février 2013 15:01 >À : ALAC Working List >Objet : [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program >Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. > > > > From Bruce Tonkin to GNSO COuncil - very interesting. Alan > > > > > >>The full minutes for the 10 Jan 2013 meeting are now available at: > >> > >>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13 > >>-en.htm > >> > >>I have also attached the briefing documents used at that meeting. > >> > >>Note that the new gTLD committee also met during the Board workshop on > >>1-2 Feb, so expect a preliminary report soon. > >_______________________________________________ >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+(A >LAC)

2 1

FW: [icann-board] 1 February 2013 Approved Resolutions from the New gTLD Program Committee
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

For information The resolutions from the first of the New gTLD Program Committee's meetings during the workshop, held on 1 February 2013, will be available shortly at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13- en.htm. Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

1 0

Resolutions from the ICANN Board meeting on Saturday 2 Feb 2013
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

See particularly items e of the consent agenda and a of the main agenda. - adding David Olive, as Vice President, Policy Development Support, as an Officer of the company - creating a Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group to look at approach going forward for ICANN public meetings (chaired by Sébastien Bachollet ) Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm > >Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board > > >2 February 2013 > > > 1. Consent Agenda: > > a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes > >Resolved (2013.02.02.01), the Board approves the >minutes of the 20 December 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board. > > > b. Registry Stakeholder Group Charter Amendments > >Whereas, The ICANN Bylaws (Article X, Section >5.3) state, "Each [GNSO] Stakeholder Group shall >maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." > >Whereas, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group >(RySG) has alerted ICANN Staff and the Board to >a set of changes to its Charter including >expanding the activities of its internal >Observers Group, simplifying the process for >assessment of annual dues and adding the >immediate past Chair of the RySG to its Executive Committee. > >Whereas, the community had the opportunity to >review and comment on the RySG Charter >amendments and there were no objections to the changes. > >Whereas, the Structural Improvements Committee >recommends the Board approve the RySG Charter changes as presented. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.02) the proposed amendments >to the Registry Stakeholder Group Charter are approved by the Board. > > > c. Southern California Office Space Lease > >Whereas, ICANN's current lease in Los Angeles expires 30 June 2022. > >Whereas, ICANN's primary operations and staff >are located in the greater Los Angeles area. > >Whereas, current and future office space needs >for primary operations will be at least 35,000 square feet. > >Whereas, the Board Finance Committee has >recommended that the Board approve this resolution. > >RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.04 REDACTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 2013.02.02.03 > >Resolved (2013.02.02.04), the Board approves the >redaction of the details of Resolution >(2013.02.02.03), and corresponding rationale >pending completion of negotiations. > > > d. Engagement of Independent Auditor > >Whereas, Article XVI of the ICANN Bylaws >(http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) >requires that after the end of the fiscal year, >the books of ICANN must be audited by certified >public accountants, which shall be appointed by the Board. > >Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has discussed >the engagement of the independent auditor for >the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013, and has >recommended that the Board engage Moss Adams LLP. > >Whereas, the Board Audit Committee has >recommended that the Board direct the President >and CEO or his designees to negotiate and >execute a professional services agreement with Moss Adams. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.05), the Board authorizes >the President and CEO to engage Moss Adams LLP >as the auditors for the financial statements for >the fiscal year ending 30 June 2013. > > > e. Officer Appointment and related document revision > >Resolved (2013.02.02.06), David Olive is elected >as an Officer of ICANN with the title of Vice >President, Policy Development Support. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.07), Paragraph 4 of ICANN's >Contracting and Disbursement Policy shall be >revised to read as follows: ICANN Officers >include: (i) President and Chief Executive >Officer (CEO); (ii) Chief Operating Officer >(COO); (iii) Chief Financial Officer (CFO); (iv) >General Counsel and Secretary; and (v) Vice >President, Policy Development Support. > > >2. Main Agenda: > >a. Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group > >Whereas, ICANN has committed to identifying >ICANN Meeting locations two years in advance. > >Whereas, after consideration that adoption of a >prior Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal >was not timely, the Public Participation >Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a >working group to address the meeting location strategy. > >Whereas, the PPC has developed a proposed >charter for a multistakeholder Meetings Strategy >Working Group (MSWG) and recommends that the >Board adopt the charter and approve the creation of the MSWG. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.08), the Board approves of >the creation of the MSWG and adopts the Charter >of the MSWG. The MSWG is expected to provide its >report to the Board no later than ICANN's 2013 Annual General Meeting. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.09), the original members >of the MSWG from the ICANN Board are: Sébastien >Bachollet, Chair and Chris Disspain. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.10), the MSWG, working with >the PPC, is directed to proceed with the >identification of community members pursuant to >the Charter. Community member appointments do >not require the approval of the full Board. > >Resolved (2013.02.02.11), the President and CEO >is directed to provide the MSWG with the staff >support necessary to enable the MSWG to undertake and complete its work.

2 1

Board meeting: 2 February 2013
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Last Board resolutions http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm Please have a specific look at the resolution about Multi-Stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm#2. a Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

2 1

New gTLD Program Committee resolution on "closed generic" strings
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Note that the Public Comment closes on March 7 and does not seem to have a reply period. Alan http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: - classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and - determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. At its 2 February 2013 meeting, the Committee passed the following resolution: Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has received correspondence from the community addressing "closed generic" TLDs and understands that members of the community term a "closed generic" TLD as a TLD string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a participant exclusively for its own benefit. Whereas, ICANN implemented the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy recommendations on the "Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains", and within those policy recommendations there is no specific policy regarding "closed generic" top-level domains (TLDs). Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding applications for "closed generic" TLDs. Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is important to understand all views and potential ramifications relating to 'closed generic' TLDs. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to open a 30-day public comment forum on this topic, which should include a call for identification of proposed objective criteria to classify applied-for TLDs as "closed generic" TLDs. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to, concurrently with the opening of the public comment forum, request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs if the GNSO wishes to provide such guidance. Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of the public comment forum. Resolved (2013.02.02.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee directs the President and CEO to: - Summarize and analyze all comments submitted in the public comment forum. - Review materials supporting the policy development process resulting in the GNSO policy recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains and provide analysis of any discussions relating to the limitations on potential new gTLDs. - Analyze the feasibility of objectively classifying applied for TLDs as "closed generic" TLDs. - Provide an analysis as to whether the public interest and principles of international law are served by adopting a clear approach regarding 'closed generic' gTLDs. - Provide a report to the New gTLD Program Committee informed by the comments received and analysis conducted, including alternatives to addressing this issue.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Yes, interesting. On closed generics, isn't their discussion like, maybe, five years too late? Sure the AG indicates the process can be changed after-the-fact, but this (the private registrability od generic words) is a MAJOR point of philosophy, and both IMO too late to change and massively subject to lawsuits if it's attempted. And then there's this gem: *"Many of the Board members will be uncomfortable approving TLDs that are seen as a land grab, as opposed to expansion of the DNS"* The suggestion that a distinction ought to (or even can) be drawn between the two concepts, at this time, is ... charming. - Evan

1 0

Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

From Bruce Tonkin to GNSO COuncil - very interesting. Alan >The full minutes for the 10 Jan 2013 meeting are now available at: > >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13-en.… > >I have also attached the briefing documents used at that meeting. > >Note that the new gTLD committee also met during the Board workshop >on 1-2 Feb, so expect a preliminary report soon.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

Thanks everyone. My sense if that there is a strong inclination to leave the rules exactly as they were. That has the benefit of us not actually having to do anything, which is always a plus. I must admit I was a bit surprised by the level of contributions on something that I saw as a matter of making information available as soon as possible unless there was a strong reason for withholding (as we expect of others in ICANN). But disagreement and debate is healthy, and I have no problem with the outcome. I do support Evan's dream of seeing this level of debate on the policy issues that we are here to address. Alan At 01/02/2013 10:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >My latest (and hopefully final) observations: > > > - I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4. > > - The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit (and > insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid > reasons exist > > - In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of > influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent to > sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers, that > should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument > against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for > pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are > challenged in this regard > > - If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted > colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I don't > need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should be > open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend to > vote, but why. > > - Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently > fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which is > what the original #4 already mandates) > > - In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given > to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues. > > >Cheers, > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

My latest (and hopefully final) observations: - I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4. - The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit (and insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid reasons exist - In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent to sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers, that should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are challenged in this regard - If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I don't need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should be open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend to vote, but why. - Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which is what the original #4 already mandates) - In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues. Cheers, - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote. If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members. As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction. Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation. In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should. If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues. Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything. Alan At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear Alan, > >My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we >(and observers) see how each person has voted.) > >I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted >online. The duration of such votes is typically several days. > >Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote >is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6 >persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination, >know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote. > >Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can >be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their >vote? > >Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3 >should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting >period is shown to ALAC members and observers. > > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > > >On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in > > June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are > > not in reference to named individuals). > > > > Those rules are: > > > > 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. > > 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. > > 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes > > have been cast. > > 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. > > 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. > > 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. > > > > Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a > > BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was > > first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we > > seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. > > > > Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of > > semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote > > does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes > > on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow > > viewing the list of those who had voted). > > > > Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it > > makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust > > procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. > > > > So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. > > > > I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a > > similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers > > in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: > > > > 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. > > > > This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that > > seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are > > that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should > > not change because we are voting electronically. > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: > > > > A) Should we keep the current rules? > > B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? > > C) Any other changes you believe we should make? > > > > We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and > > particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard > > for ourselves. > > > > 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…

4 3