- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 1, 2013

At 31/01/2013 06:14 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Comments inline > >On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > 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. > >It *is* essential. Absolutely. And that information is (and should be) >published AFTER the voting period has concluded. Not during the vote. You missed my point. This gives ALAC members an incentive to vote, and more important, it allows their regional colleagues to remind them when they have not done so. And when the vote is being proposed by someone (as many have by me), it allows that person to nudge ALAC members to ensure that the vote is as complete as possible, and the result gives a strong message from the ALAC. Alan

2 1

Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

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

9 11

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

What drafting team? Alan At 31/01/2013 02:31 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I agree with the rationale provided for by Dev. You stimulated interesting >discussions and it is healthy to review the philosophy of the rules and why >they are framed the way, they are. > >I also support Dev's recommendations for the Drafting Team. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ><devtee(a)gmail.com>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… > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >_______________________________________________ >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] Voting infrastructure rules
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Carlton, I guess you have hit the nail on the head (so to speak) with regard to my proposing the change. But perhaps you did not do so intentionally. In an ideal world, everyone does their homework thoroughly and will vote their conscience. In the real world, not everyone does so, but typically do not withhold their vote or abstain, but either vote randomly (ie rock/paper/scissors) or simply vote yes because that is the path of least resistance. I would prefer that they follow the lead of someone they trust instead of taking those other paths. Sadly, on many issues, there is not a lot of debate, and not being "in the room", it is difficult to sense the mood, if there is one. In any case, we will see where the general trend of ALAC feelings lies and proceed accordingly. Alan At 31/01/2013 11:20 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >IMO, it don't amount to a hill o' beans; leaving #4 as is works just >as well as changing it. > >I confess there is just 1 issue that my vote can be influenced >purely by the vote of another person; IDNs and, by design. The fact >is I've hardly invested the brain cells or time on that issue. So >without apology, I form an opinion by taking into consideration the >positions of the acknowledged experts. The caveat is I have to >trust them to align my vote. > >Here's the thing. Generally speaking, if I have been paying >attention to the debate and the 'mood of the room', I wouldn't have >to wait to see how others vote to be influenced. Hell, might as >well do a 'rock, scissors, paper' at that point and be gone! > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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 ><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

Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Dear Alan, My preference is to keep Rule 4 as it was (ie, how people voted only unveiled at the end and not in process). Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab On 31 Jan 2013 17:12, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: > Hi Alan and all, > > > > When a change is suggested, there must be an obvious advantage for the ALAC > or for the At-Large members. Honestly, I don’t see such advantage except > that it will make people more influenced. I do prefer that the voters do > their duty of voting as independently as possible. > > > > > > > > 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 : jeudi 31 janvier 2013 05:43 > À : ALAC Working List > Objet : [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules > > > > 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+(ALA > C) > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 29, 2013

Jan. 29, 2013

CONGRATULATIONS to the endorsed ALAC representatives!! Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: 29 Jan 2013 07:37 Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All, With 15 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement, we can confirm that the result is quorate. *** QUESTION: Should the advice from ATRT 2 Endorsement Committee be accepted? The advice is as follows: Factoring both the ALAC discussion in November 2012 regarding Olivier Crépin-Leblond as the ALAC's first preferred representative to the ATRT 2 (via alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>) and the Sub-Committee’s assessment of candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse all of the following individuals as ALAC Representatives to the ATRT 2 via immediate vote: [in alphabetical order] - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (first preferred representative) - Alan Greenberg - Jean-Jacques Subrenat The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the candidates are qualified to assess ICANN's mechanisms for accountability and transparency and can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC and the global At-Large Community. ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement As at Poll close: Sunday 27 January 2013 12:00 UTC Number of voters: 15 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 100.00 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes % 1 Yes 14 93.33 2 Abstain 1 6.67 3 No 0 0.00 *** Additional information on the candidates can be found on the At-Large ATRT 2 ALAC Endorsement Process Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=290222VpPVIKLqqREdQ9PHWS All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013.
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10jan… This is a preliminary report the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee, which took place on 10 January 2013. 1.Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure b. Maturing the DNS Industry c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments d. Closed Generic Strings e. Consumer Choice Review 1. Main Agenda: a. Reporting Structure No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee engaged in a discussion with staff about a proposed regular reporting structure to the Committee on the status of the New gTLD Program, including reporting against key milestones. The Committee and ICANN executives agreed that there was some basis for modification of the reporting, and agreed that as much information as is appropriate will be provided to the community at the scheduled webinars, or other means where all applicants will have access to the information. The Committee also discussed the need for a regular meeting schedule. The Committee was then provided with an update on the status of the initial evaluation work. b. Maturing the DNS Industry No resolution taken. The President and CEO provided the New gTLD Program Committee with a report on his efforts relating to his discussions with various DNS Industry leaders, including the forthcoming CEO Roundtables. c. Enforcing Applicant Commitments No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the planning underway to address the GAC's advice on enforcing applicant commitments through the registry agreements. It was noted that staff discussed potential mechanisms to address this advice, how the GAC advice could be met and possible responses to the GAC regarding the status. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. d. Closed Generic Strings No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee discussed the issue of closed generic strings, receiving a report from staff regarding the distinction between the Code of Conduct that addresses non-discriminatory access that registries are required to offer to registrars, and the concerns raised in the community about who is allowed to register in a TLD. The Committed noted that it wanted to discuss this topic further at its workshop in Los Angeles. e. Consumer Choice Review No resolution taken. The New gTLD Program Committee began a discussion noting that it is necessary to begin preparations for the review required under the Affirmation of Commitments after the introduction of new gTLDs. The Chair called the meeting to a close. Published 22 January 2013

1 0

Fwd: Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

This new PDP will be looking at several issues that have the potential to impact all gTLD registrants. For those not familiar with the term FOA, it means Forms of Authorization - standardized forms for registrars to request and confirm transfers. I would appreciate if people who join this WG also let me know so that I can brief them on additional issues. Alan >http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jan13-en.htm >Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process >(PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D > >In Brief >The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) >Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working >Group that will address issues related to the >transfer of domain names between registrars. >After investigating and considering specific >issues (detailed below), the Working Group is >expected to recommend how to handle these >issues, which could include proposals for >changes to the existing ><http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>Inter-Registrar >Transfer Policy (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). > > >What This Group Will Do >The initial tasks of the group will be to >consider the following six questions[1] and make >relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: > > >a) Whether reporting requirements for >registries and dispute providers should be >â¨developed, in order to make precedent and >trend information available to the â¨community >and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; > >b) Whether additional provisions should be >included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute >Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes >when multiple transfers have â¨occurred; > >c) Whether dispute options for registrants >should be developed and implemented asâ¨part of >the policy (registrants currently depend on >registrars to initiate a dispute on â¨their behalf); > >d) Whether requirements or best practices >should be put into place for registrars to make >information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; > >e) Whether existing penalties for policy >violations are sufficient or if additional >provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; > >f) Whether the universal adoption and >implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. >How This Group Will Work >ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open >processes. The meetings of this WG will be >recorded, and the recordings will be available >to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP >Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working >Group members are expected to submit Statements >of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate >using a public workspace. The Working Group is >expected to follow the ><../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.htm>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines. > >How to Join >The Council invites interested parties to >provide names of expected participants who can >then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO >Council may also invite stakeholders and experts >to join. Participants in the Working Group that >addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged >to apply. Community members who wish to be >invited to join the group should contact the ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group>GNSO >secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This >WG is already forming; please apply promptly. >Background >The ><http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm>InterâRegistrar >Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy >adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward >procedure for domain name holders to transfer >domain names between registrars. An overall >review of this policy identified areas that >require clarification or improvement. At its >meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names >Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a >resolution chartering a Policy Development >Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the >topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies >(IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review >identified a wide range of issues related to >transferring domain names, the issues have been >categorized into subsets. This Working Group >will tackle the issues referred to as "Part D". > >Glen de Saint GÃ©ry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > >[1] See the final ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf>Issue >Report on the IRTP Part D for further details on each of these issues.

1 0

Urgent - Endorsement of ALAC Representatives to the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2)
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear At-Large Advisory Committee, I am pleased to present the recommendations of the ALAC ATRT2 Endorsement Sub-Committee regarding the endorsement of ALAC Representatives to the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2). * * *Recommendations* Factoring both the ALAC discussion in November 2012 regarding Olivier Crépin-Leblond as the ALAC's first preferred representative to the ATRT2 (via alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) and the Sub-Committee’s assessment of candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse the following individuals as ALAC Representatives to the ATRT2 via immediate vote: [in alphabetical order] - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (first preferred representative) - Alan Greenberg - Jean-Jacques Subrenat The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence* *that the candidates are qualified to assess ICANN's mechanisms for accountability and transparency and can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC and the global At-Large Community. * * *Voting Deadline* At-Large Staff will send out voting information shortly. Please vote as soon as possible within the next 4 days (by 27 January 2013) as the deadline for SO/AC announcement of endorsed candidates is (Monday) 28 January 2013. * * *Further Information* Candidate application materials and information about the Sub-Committee’s mandate, task timeline, assessment criteria and method, confidentiality policy and meeting summaries can be found at the following wiki workspace - https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ATRT+2+ALAC+Endorsemen… . The full set of candidate application materials on the workspace includes responses to three questions posed by the Sub-Committee as additional information to ascertain candidate suitability as ALAC Representatives. These responses contain expressions/declarations of accountability to the ALAC, which may be used by the ALAC to hold its representatives accountable and to review their performance after the ATRT2 Review Team completes its work. *Appreciation * I would like to take the opportunity to thank members of the Sub-Committee for volunteering to serve on a critical fast-track assignment and for making valuable contributions to the process. They are: · Yaovi Atohoun (AFRALO) · Eduardo Diaz (NARALO) · Sandra Hoferichter (EURALO) · Holly Raiche (APRALO) · Dev Anand Teeluksingh (LACRALO) Note: Though Olivier Crépin-Leblond is listed as a “non-voting observer” of the Sub-Committee, he did not participate in any discussion on candidates or candidate assessments. He observed one Sub-Committee meeting where principles, rules and processes governing the work of the Sub-Committee were discussed and agreed upon. The Sub-Committee met 4 times in the course of 5 weeks since 19 December 2012, spending approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes in group discussions and further unspecified time reviewing applications individually. It is my privilege to serve with such a dedicated group of ALAC members, who reviewed the candidates with a great sense of responsibility and care. Thank you. Sincerely, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Chair, ALAC ATRT2 Endorsement Sub-Committee (2012-2013)

1 0

European Summer School on Internet governance - Call for applications
by Wolf Ludwig Jan. 21, 2013

Jan. 21, 2013

FYI – sorry for any cross posting. EuroSSIG – apply now! Do you want to know what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want to learn what is behind acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, WHOIS, IGF, and WSIS? Do want to get detailed information about Internet standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet economy? Then you should apply for the “2013 European Summer School on Internet Governance” (EuroSSIG) and become a member of the SSIG alumni. The 7th EuroSSIG course is taking place in Meissen / Germany, on 04.-10. August 2013. Details can be found on: www.euro-ssig.eu We would be very thankful if you spread the message within your networks. Best Wolfgang Kleinwächter and Sandra Hoferichter _____________________________________________________________________ s a n d r a h o f e r i c h t e r management and communication European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) medienstadt leipzig e.v. / netcom institute pf 650 107 d-04189 leipzig fon: +49.341.301 28 27 fax: +49.341.945 60 11 mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 info(a)hoferichter.eu www.euro-ssig.eu EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0