- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by Alan Greenberg June 30, 2012

June 30, 2012

Gee, some of you people do not know how to take a weekend off after a rather tiring ICANN week. I will be commenting on this at some length, but not today! Not sure why this is on the regular list and the internal one, but keeping my reply on the regular list. Alan At 30/06/2012 12:41 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Dear Fouad, Jean-Jacques and all, > >as sb. who has no say here neither, I dare to express my opinion as well: > >* to me, JJ's suggestions seem to be well measured and appealing >with a clear diversification of roles, commitments and >sub-responsibilities as an accomplishment - or discharge - of the >multi-multi functions of the Chair. I am often wondering how one >person / Olivier can meet all those expectations and roles without >sliding into a burnout sooner or later? > >* I have not understood that JJ suggests more positions or any >sounding titles but is advocating for a clearer assignment of >complementary functions to make the ALAC leadership more effective >and prepared for new and increasing challenges! > >Therefore, I entirely agree with his suggestions what may also >strengthen regional aspects and concerns. > >I would have strongly appreciated such moves, models and discussions >in Prague -- instead of repetitive briefings and permanent dancing >in a round (like secondary language or procedure issues etc.), as >mentioned at the ExCom meeting ;-) > >Kind regards, >Wolf > > >Fouad Bajwa wrote Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:03 > >Dear JJS, > > > >I believe we are At-Large and not extra ordinary. Why not allow the Chair > >to appoint Special Advisors instead of so many Vice Chairs should the Chair > >require it on adhoc basis and that ends as soon as the task ends. > > > >Even appointing more Vice Chairs would be a legal concern and would require > >equal consensual deliberation. > > > >In today's world flatter organizations achieve more because of remote > >dispersion but 24/7 Internet based availability. Highly structured > >organizations are a vision and bureaucracies of the past and are crumbling. > > > >ALAC has wonderfully pragmatic and ethically sound members from my POV and > >they do not need additional VP posts as such posts are to boast and do not > >add to the great meaningful contributions they make. > > > >ALAC would sound like a bank with such designations in a large number and > >it feels that we want to make another structured ICANN in ICANN. > > > >Though I do not know the fine print in details of what provoked such a > >motivation but WG and their Chairs work so make 3 or more alac WGs with 3 > >or more Chairs. > > > >You should look at the ICANN board. There is one Chair with the rest as > >members of the board where as the board members chair a number of board > >committee. > > > >Let us be At-Large and not Extraordinarily Structured. > > > >Fouad Bajwa > >On Jun 30, 2012 6:22 AM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> *This is to follow up on comments by Carlton and Fouad:* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Carlton,* > >> *- thanks for supporting the general idea.* > >> *- You suggest this be discussed at the next ALAC meeting, and taken to > >> the ALAC RoP WG: I agree. As I'm not a member of the RoP WG, I would > >> appreciate being associated with its work if my proposal is taken up.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Fouad,* > >> *- thank you for your support.* > >> *- Number of Vice Chairs: I do not hold any religious belief about this. > >> I say no to 5 because representation of regions is not the point here. I > >> put forward the figure 3 because, IMO, the main tasks of ALAC fit into 3 > >> categories.* > >> *- You suggest entrusting these 3 lines of responsibility to RALO > >> representatives, and not to ALAC members. This requires legal advice on > >> whether the two solutions are really equivalent (voting rights, etc.).* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> 2012/6/30 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > >> > >>> As an observer with no say in this, though I support many of the > >>> suggestions, I do not support 5 Vice Chairs for ALAC. There > should be just > >>> one vice chair to help the chair or two to sit in on his behalf if > >>> anything > >>> arises. > >>> > >>> Why have so many vice chairs when there are reps to the alac from the > >>> ralos. They are already helping the chair. You can have more reps on the > >>> alac if the work increases. Creating more positions in alac > should reflect > >>> ralo needs and not a new organizational structure on the top to honour > >>> people. > >>> > >>> Strengthen ralo participation and alac would appear evolving if you see > >>> ralo leaders rising up to share the alac burden, not the other > way around. > >>> > >>> vice chairs from ralos should then be allowed to participate in alac work > >>> if there is too much burden. Have the vice chairs from ralos come in as > >>> additional vice chairs to alac should the need arise but 5 vice chairs in > >>> alac is out of the question and gives undue authority to members to male > >>> public statements without following the bottom up process. No more > >>> structures should be made. The new gtlds do not call for more structures, > >>> they call for efficiency while sustaining transparency. Resolve the > >>> process > >>> obstacles and you will he happy without more structures. > >>> > >>> If our regional reps made such suggestions for new vice chairs without > >>> discussing with their ralo then I will be disappointed. > >>> > >>> Fouad Bajwa > >>> On Jun 29, 2012 4:07 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > *Dear Olivier & Colleagues,* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier > kindly gave me > >>> > the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Background & rationale * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its > >>> > parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in > >>> > approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new > >>> gTLD > >>> > programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the > >>> > allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear > >>> > principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP > >>> are > >>> > making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider > >>> community > >>> > are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization > >>> and > >>> > the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will > >>> > impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation. > >>> > Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish > >>> this > >>> > would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed > >>> to > >>> > accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and > >>> therefore > >>> > its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose > >>> > implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Clear, committed lines of responsibility. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be > >>> led > >>> > by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one > >>> of > >>> > the three lines:* > >>> > *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* > >>> > *2) Policy, Process, Legal* > >>> > *3) Finance, administration* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair, > >>> > whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be > >>> > expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial > >>> > element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first > >>> > stage.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation > >>> > comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond > >>> the > >>> > pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal > >>> engagement > >>> > from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our > >>> > structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at > >>> > other levels.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this > >>> morning > >>> > at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your > comments.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Best regards,* > >>> > *Jean-Jacques.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > ALAC-Internal mailing list > >>> > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >>> > > >>> > ALAC Wiki: > >>> > > >>> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >>> > > >>> > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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-Internal mailing list > >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > >ALAC Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > >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 >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >ALAC Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Hi Beau It makes more sense for you to say something than for me. My statement was a disappointment that what was a multi-stakeholder working group with a range of proposals to improve the RAA for all users is now seen as just a GNSO working group dealing with LEA proposals in two party negotiations. But what you say is more broadly drawn. Comments on your statement: On redrafting of 3.7.8: the conclusion we came to was that even the new version uses the term 'reasonable' - and unless it is clear what steps a registrar must take for their behaviour to be considered as reasonable, the term can let registrars off the hook And I like the other proposals HOlly On Thu 28/06/12 6:36 PM , Beau Brendler beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net sent: 1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC Working List >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 [1] >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [2] >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [4]) >> >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [7]) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [10]) Links: ------ [1] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ic… [2] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [3] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [4] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [5] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [6] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [7] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [8] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [9] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [10] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Fwd: Revised motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this topic on the Thursday 28 June public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum topic list. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action nor of the content of the .com agreement. The process followed by the Board is objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. To give the impression that the Board is interested in additional community comment but then make a decision five days earlier is not appropriate. It is imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

1 0

More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Two points: 1. It is unclear at this moment if the GNSO will or will not pass such a motion. 2. I strongly disagree regarding Whois, and request that you defer discussion of this until I arrive (I am at the GNSO wrap-up now). Alan At 28/06/2012 04:57 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to >substance and remind them that we regret the renewal without the >thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the >substantive point of departure of our previous statement. We should >not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >was not added as a requirement. > >There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. > >There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. > >It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >last Saturdays Board meeting. > >The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >rather just the process that has been followed. > >Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >the ALAC pass this motion. > >================= > >The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. > >ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >agreement at its closed session. > >This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. > >_______________________________________________ >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… >

1 0

Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois was not added as a requirement. There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at last Saturdays Board meeting. The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. The statement will not question the content of the contract, but rather just the process that has been followed. Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that the ALAC pass this motion. ================= The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

3 3

GNSO Liaison Report - Prague
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

I am currently at the GNSO Wrap-Up session and will join the ALAC Wrap-up part-way through the meeting. My Report ========= I has been a busy but relatively calm meeting, at least compared to the last one. In terms of immediate actions required, the proposed ALAC statement on the .com agreement is the only one. The most interesting session was a review of a number of GNSO issues with ICANN staff. It was a "jaw-dropping" session in that there were a number of issues that most of us in the room found outrageous. The two main issues were: - ICANN doing significant work related to the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, including hiring a consultant to develop EPS (Extensible Provisioning Protocol - the mechanism used for communication the registries) extensions, all without any involvement of or communication with registries or registrars - the ones who are the experts in EPS and who will have to implement the results. - The URS, one of the key protections that ICANN has been claiming to provide security to trademark holders, has been found to be un-implementable at the specified cost. Although the URS was developed by a GNSO body (with involvement of ALAC), but the only notification of this problem was that there was a line in the proposed budget that ICANN was providing funds to hold "summits" to attempt to resolve the issue, all without any explicit involvement of the GNSO. - Digital Archery - well understood that the Board did not consult at all. There has been considerable discussion on issues related to the Red Cross/Red Crystal/International Olympic Committee, Intergovernmental Organizations and the wider non-governmental international organizations (and charities in particular). There are multiple activities going on and this is an issue that will continue for some time. It is quite controversial within At-Large and I would strongly suggest more ALAC/At0Large involvement as the processes go forward. A statement on the open Preliminary Issue Report will be drafted over the next few days (AG, EL, HR). I did not attend the bulk of the open GNSO session yesterday, as I was in the ALAC RoP meeting. I will review the records of the meeting and report on that on the agenda. Alan

1 0

Pointers for Prelim Issue Report on IGO domain name protections
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

The call for comments is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… and the Preliminary Issue Report is at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…. Alan

1 0

Fwd: informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

>From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:10:59 +0200 >Subject: [council] informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions >To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Councillors, >this is a follow-up to the invitation that I sent to the list earlier. > >Please feel free to share the document with your respective groups. > >Thomas > >On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened >to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of >Batching and Digital Archery. > >The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to >present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow >for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were >presented and commented on. > >With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more >ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and >try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent >the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. > >The main areas of discussion were > >- Application Evaluation Batching and >- Delegation Batching. > >However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of >the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also >discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a >superior solution to the current approach. > >The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a >sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than >guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with >the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the >question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of >interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the >delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal >meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does >not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than >the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the >year i.e is a rate per year. > >For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and >little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single >batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz >emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not >easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, >ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially >identical information in applications using the same Registry >Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I >am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only >the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. >the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to >concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of >those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should >be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I >understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted >which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. > >There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of >initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether >they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A >proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications >as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for >delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit >of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. > >Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of >processing and then delegating TLDs. > >These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: > >- Clustering > >Several participants argued for different treatment for different >types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, >grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be >delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by >contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped >with .hiphop). > >- Financial > >Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who >agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and >that such points can be traded. > >- Choice > >Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio >applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. > >- Natural sequencing > >Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural >sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended >evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract >negotiation and execution. > >In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will >further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. > >Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis >for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the >requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. > >Conclusions: > >It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs >etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No >matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either >prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at >the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. > >Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for >clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for >processing and delegating them. > >A combination of various elements described above could be an >eligible solution. These elements could be: > >- Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an >expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. > >- Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible >delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The >applications will be processed in that order. > >- Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made >between external and internal factors. > >Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where >no additional information has to be requested and where no extended >evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that >quality should be a factor. > >External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are >given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. > >The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no >clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was >required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining >applications, the results should be published whenever the >evaluation is completed. > >The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next >stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of >different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. > >It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under >ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. > >Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize >and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible >approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not >necessarily represent the view of the participants. > >Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect >feedback and make that available later this week. > >Thomas Rickert

1 0