- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and Evan)

5 6

RE : Meeting in LA to discuss TM protection issues
by jjs.global Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

Alan & Evan, I follow your rationale and support the positions suggested by you. Jean-Jacques. Envoyé depuis un mobile SamsungAlan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a écrit :NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS LONG, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A FEW DAYS IN WHICH TO ACT. In Toronto, The IPC and BC presented a list of suggested rights protection mechanisms to ICANN. The document can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/metalitz-to-pritz-17oct12-en.pdf. The substance was the following 8 points. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. Note that these statements are rather vague in some cases, but no further details have been provided. A meeting to iron out differences and clarify issues on the TMCH was held in Brussels about 2 weeks ago. The outcomes can be found at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/building-a-secure-and-reliable-trademark-clea…. There will be a follow-up meeting in Los Angeles to discuss, (perhaps among other things), the BBC/IPC proposals. My understanding is that I an likely Evan will be invited to participate (remotely since no travel funding is being provided). Following discussions with Evan and Olivier as well as Kathy Kleiman and Robin gross from NCUC, here is what I believe the current positions to be supported by ALAC to be. IF YOU FEEL THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, PLEASE SPEAK UP QUICKLY. ========================== Our overall position is that we would prefer to not make any substantive changes at this late date, and particularly not ones that can reasonably be considered policy. This is said with the full understanding that throughout the new gTLD process, parts of the community have often considered things that they want changed to be "implementation", and things that they do not want changed to be "policy". In fact, the entire STI discussion (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-en.pdf) was deemed to be one of implementation and investigating the "policy implications" of the TMCH and URS. Note that some of the proposals are clearly not "Policy" from a GNSO point of view. That being said, it is possible that change will occur based on the issues raised by the BC/IPC, and the ALAC needs to consider the specific issues. 1. Extend Sunrise Launch Period from 30 to 60 days with a standardized process. ALAC has no strong feelings on this.My understanding is that it may already have been resolved during the Brussels meeting. 2. Extend the TMCH and Claims Notices for an indefinite period; ensure the process is easy to use, secure, and stable. A TM Claim sends a notice to a potential registrant that the name they are registering possible overlaps with a TM's term. It does not stop the registration, but asks that the registrant confirm that their use is legitimate and does not violate TM rights (since TM rights are specific to the type of service/product offered and a geographic local, this is quite possible). The STI report said that Post-Launch Claims are not required. The AG says that at a minimum, Claims must be used for 60 days following general registration availability. Since neither of these terms are fully defined, it is not clear if these two requirements conflict or are both simultaneously possible. One of the outcomes of the Brussels meeting is to firm up some definitions, so perhaps this will become clear. That notwithstanding, the ALAC issued a minority report to the STI saying that with some specific reservations, we supported ongoing TM Claims. So we are basically supportive of the request. 3. Complete the URS as a low cost alternative and improve its usefulness - if necessary, ICANN could underwrite for an initial period. This seems like a motherhood statement and as such ALAC has not problem with it. The only reservation is to the exact meaning of "increase its usefulness". If this is implying substantive change, we do need to consider it on its merits. That being said, the ALAC in its minority statement had supported the concept of allowing a URS claimant who was successful to have the domain transferred to them similar to what is allowed following a successful UDRP. The concept of ICANN underwriting the URS for some period of time was originally suggested by me, so I support it in concept. The ALAC has never discussed it. At this point, it looks like there will be one or more URS providers who can do it for the required fee without subsidization. 4. Implement a mechanism for trademark owners to prevent second-level registration of their marks (exact matches, plus character strings previously determined to have been abusively registered or used) across all registries, upon payment of a reasonable fee, with appropriate safeguards for registrants with a legitimate right or interest. The ALAC in its minority statement did support allowing strings to be registered in the TMCH which included its TM term in conjunction with terms related to its service/products (ie Ford-Trucks). So we *might* be supportive of that part of the request. However, the term "prevent" is onerous, even with "appropriate safeguards". We would suggest a position that this is a substantive change and should not be done at this time, but rather considered as in a future policy process. Furthermore, it is something whose value will not be significantly lower if it is somewhat delayed. 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. The ALAC certainly supports this concept and our presumption has been that this will be included in the next RAA. To the extent that this BC/IPC request increases the pressue on ICANN to ensure that this happens, we support it. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to an amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. This is already being discussed in the context of the new RAA. In particular, registrars believe that they should not be at a competitive disadvantage because some registrars stay on the old RAA and thus have lower costs (such as those associated with verification). From an ICANN point of view, there will certainly be sufficient compliance issues associated with new gTLDs that having all registrars who market them on the current RAA can only be viewed as good. ALAC strongly supports this. 7. Enforce compliance of all registry commitments for Standard applications. It is unclear exactly what this one means. Certainly ALAC supports any position that strengthens compliance enforcement. The reference to "Standard applications" is unclear. It *may* mean that like Community TLDs, standard (ie non-Community) TLDs should be required to honour the use of the TLD described in the application (currently there is no such requirement - they can apply for a TLD string for one purpose and change that purpose completely on implementation). ALAC has generally advocated such a requirement, although it seems like it is a bit late to impose it on applicants who have applied under the current rules. 8. Expand TM Claims service to cover at least strings previously found to have been abusively registered or used. This is a possibly interesting new TM protection mechanism, and is a probably a subset of the "TM along with related terms" statement that we made in our minority report. Nevertheless, it is a substantive change, and like item 4, should be the subject of a policy process prior to implementation. Alan (and 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…

1 0

GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: 'secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council

3 2

Fwd: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

FYI >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding Board meeting on WHOIS >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 22:49:07 +0000 > >Hello All, > >Just a note that the Board had a 2.5 hour call on the WHOIS review today. > >A resolution was passed, but the Board requested further work on the >rationale before it is published. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GNSO Comment on WHOIS Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

Yup. A CEO who is "gets it" and is actively paying attention is likely to be more effective than a Board committee that is far less in touch (certainly physically). And the Board is supposedly still watching the CEO. So I am not unhappy with the current situation. Whether it will work, we will all have to wait and see. Alan At 07/11/2012 09:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Thanks Alan. > >Item #4 (and the BC commentary on it) seems moot, now that >Compliance now reports to the CEO. I think the RT intent was, like >ours, to get it out of ICANN legal. > > > >On 7 November 2012 19:40, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Finally, a GNSO comment to the Board on the WHOIS RT Report. Bruce >thanked the Council for getting it to the Board in time for the >Board meeting on WHOIS which is scheduled for tomorrow. > >Alan > >From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] >Sent: 07 November 2012 12:10 >To: Steve Crocker (<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com) >Cc: '<mailto:secretary@icann.org>secretary(a)icann.org' >Subject: WHOIS Review Team Final Report > >Dr Steve Crocker >Chair, ICANN Board of Directors > >Dear Steve, > >Please see the attached regarding the GNSO and the WHOIS Review Team >Final Report. > >Please also accept my apologies for the timing of this response >relative to your meeting tomorrow. > >Yours sincerely, > > > >Jonathan Robinson >Chair >ICANN GNSO Council > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Fwd: MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

FYI. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:42:01 -0500 >Subject: [council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST >ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR > CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE > (IOC) NAMES > >All, > >On behalf of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, I am pleased to present the >following motion which was supported by the Drafting Team. For the >record, I will note that the recommendations were not supported by >the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and Thomas Rickert, but were >supported by the Registries Stakeholder Group, the, Intellectual >Property Constituency, Business Constituency and ISP Constituency, >the representative from the ALAC, and those representatives from the >International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. The >Registrars Stakeholder group did not participate on the Drafting Team. > >Thanks. >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR >CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC >COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES > >Made by: Jeff Neuman >Seconded by: > >WHEREAS: > >The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and >CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . >incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested >Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial >application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice >based on the global public interest, . . ." >(<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >The IOC/RC Drafting Team established [Date] by the GNSO Council has >considered a number of different options with respect to protections >of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal >to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the >second level in new gTLDS; > >The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP >and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC >names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed >on 9 November 2012; > >The GNSO has now [Date] initiated a policy development process (PDP) >to evaluate possible protections for certain international >organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to >recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and > >Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council >recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of >the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the >exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first >round of new gTLDs. > >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: > >That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's >recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and >RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the >Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September >2011pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development >process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental >Organizations. > >That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team >for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby >disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and > >That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these >recommendations to the ICANN Board. > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

1 0

Fwd: Motion to Adopt IGO-INGO PDP WG Charter for Submission to the Council
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2012

Nov. 8, 2012

FYI. Alan >From: Lanre Ajayi <lanre(a)pinet.com.ng> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt IGO-INGO PDP WG Charter for >Submission to the Council >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:34:23 +0100 > >To the GNSO Council, > >On behalf of the IGO-INGO Protection PDP WG Charter Drafting Team, I >am pleased to present the following motion and draft WG Charter >(attached) which was approved by the Drafting Team. > >Motion to approve the Charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group > >Made by: Lanre Ajayi >Seconded by: > >Whereas > >On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development >Process (PDP) on the protection of certain IGO and INGO names in all >gTLDs, and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of >fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; > >Following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its >members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; > >The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. > >NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, > >The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the >GNSO Council Liaison to the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group. > >The GNSO Council further directs that the work of IGO-INGO >Protection PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days >after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can >select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, >the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. > >Charter [ATTACHED]

1 0

ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

While working on the Rules of Procedure, it became obvious that we needed a document describing the various ALAC mailing lists giving a summary of their usage and describing who must of should be subscribed. This list will not include RALO lists or the multitude of working group and committee lists Currently there are five such lists. All are archived and are publicly viewable except as noted. ALAC - General ALAC list used for the majority of ALAC e-mail interactions. Originally only ALAC members, RALO leadership, formal Liaisons selected by the ALAC, Liaisons to the ALAC, At-Large Board member and Staff were on it. More recently, it has included (either by accident or intentionally), selected former ALAC member, selected former RALO leadership, and others. (I am using the term "formal Liaisons" to refer to the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC Liaisons - those to other ICANN or external bodies.) ALAC-Internal - Used for things that we do not want to be publicly viewable. Most commonly, this is travel arrangements, social plans and occasionally semi-confidential issues or issues where we want targeted ALAC feedback. Membership is similar to the ALAC list, but no "others" ALAC-ExCom - Publicly viewable list for the ALAC ExCom. Membership is traditionally ExCom members, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, and Staff. More recently a few others were added. ALAC-Announce - General list for announcements. Only ICANN staff and the ALAC Chair (I think) have sending privileges. This list includes pretty much everyone in the ALAC list plus about 175 others. At-Large - General public list. This list has Most but not all of those onthe ALAC list (missing about 10 ALAC members and RALO leadership) plus about 160 others. ALAC-Announce and At-Large membership overlaps. There are 98 people on both lists (about 1/3 of which are ALAC/RALO Leadership), 126 just ALAC-Announce and 98 just At-Large For mail sent to lists from senders not on the lists, there are four possible outcomes, it goes through, it is held for moderation, it bounces or it is discarded without a reject message (moderation requires staff action). Based on a test, I believe that for the ALAC list, such messages are discarded, for the ALAC-Internal list, such mail bounces, and for the ExCom it is moderated. Not sure about the two larger lists. My suggestions for going forward are: ALAC - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or could be receive only - see below) ALAC-Internal - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name used in the new RoP) - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff I think we need to discuss the ALAC-Announce and At-Large lists further. I am not at all sure we need two lists for this. I suggest we create two additional lists that "shadow" the ALAC and ExCom lists. That is, subscription open to all and they receive all messages that got to the ALAC and ExCom lists. This allows those who want to follow the discussions to receive them without the inconvenience of having to go to the archive. This is equivalent to adding the to the lists in receive-only mode, but since we have had regular problems ensuring that the membership of the ALAC and ExCom lists is correct, having a shadow list would be a lot cleaner. Please let me know what you think about these issues. Alan

4 7

Reminder: At-Large Toronto Meeting Reports
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

Please be so kind to find the Reporting Page for all of the meetings you attend at ICANN 45 in Toronto. https://community.icann.org/x/cRAQAg Please fill this table as you attend meetings which are not At-Large meetings. As mentioned at the end of the Sunday working session, it is *really* important that you fill these in order to provide a good overview of the matters discussed in other sessions for those who have not been able to attend. Many thanks, Olivier

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] 2012-2013 ALAC Officers and Liaisons - Results of Elections and Appointments
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Congratulations to all, and yes, you will be seeing something from me related to succession shortly. Alan At 30/10/2012 05:03 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Firstly please note my personal and heartfelt congratulations to this >returning ALAC Leadership Team (nee ExCom) and of course to my fellow ALAC >Liaisons for 2012-13 > >Secondly as you all know I intend to facilitate and support some 'in >training as assist/second' talent in my role as Liaison with the ccNSO to >hopefully provide ALAC with some great choices to replace me next year, and >I hope ALAC will support their other Liaisons (especially the bylaw >mandated ones) in doing the same... redundancy and support planning IS >important... > >Finally I can't help but note with Regional pride where the diversity in >these important roles is coming from => well done AP/Regional ladies... and >note that of course I'm the only RALO one, Rinalia is a NomCom appointment >to ALAC (as is Carlton and Alan) and Julie is Regional expertise based... >So this is way more than a gender diversity issue... something to be very >proud of in my view at least... >On Oct 31, 2012 6:39 AM, "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > We are pleased to announce the results of the calls for the 2012-2013 ALAC > > Officers and ALAC Liaisons: > > > > ALAC Officers making up the ALAC Executive Committee: > > > > ALAC Chair - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (Two year term: AGM 2012 - AGM 2014) > > ALAC Vice-Chair - Evan Leibovitch (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > ALAC Vice-Chair - Carlton Samuels (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > ALAC Rapporteur - Tijani Ben Jemaa (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > ALAC Regional Representative - Rinalia Abdul Rahim (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > > > For additional details, please see the ALAC Officer Election Schedule - > > 2012< > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Officer+Election+Schedule+… > > > > > > > ALAC Liaisons: > > > > ccNSO Liaison - Cheryl Langdon-Orr (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > GNSO Liaison - Alan Greenberg (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > NCSG Liaison - Evan Leibovitch (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > SSAC Liaison - Julie Hammer (AGM 2012 - AGM 2013) > > > > For additional details, please see the 2012-2013 ALAC Liaison Selection - > > Schedule and Nominees Workspace< > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2012-2013+ALAC+Liaison+Selectio… > > > > > > > All positions were elected or appointed by acclamation by the ALAC. > > > > Congratulations to the members of the ALAC Excom and the ALAC Liaisons! > > > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > > Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AFRI-Discuss mailing list > > AFRI-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-discuss > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org > > > > Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to this > > list are more accurate: > > > http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_emec/presentation.html#… > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0