- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Reconfiguring the URS?
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

The following message is from the GNSO Council list and has generated a lot of reaction. To summarize: Apparently the potential providers of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) have said that the described process cannot be done for the expected price (or even a fair amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there was not at least a heads-up that this rework needed to be redone, and that the only formal indication of it was in a minor item in the proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least. For a more complete summary of my views on this, see (including one from me - see my comment to the GNSO Council list at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 >Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? > >All, > >Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but >buried in the new budget document >(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) >just put out for comment is a note on >reconfiguring the URS. Excerpt provided >below. I guess they could not find any URS >providers that could do it for the costs that >they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 >summits to work on a new model. My question for >the Council, is whether this is really a policy >issue that should be referred back to the GNSO >Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own >resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the >controversy around this over the past few years, >any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K >At present there is a significant gap between >the features specified for the URS procedure and >the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we >will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure >the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one >session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 >plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize >URS Model in consultation with current UDRP >providers and community members; and conduct RFP >based on URS Model and select URS providers. The >goal is have a URS program in place and >providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Reconfiguring the URS?
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Hong, you are correct that it is not knew. But the fact that ICANN had decided that action needed to be taken, the form that this action is taking is, and the lack of involvement of the GNSO which created the original plan (based on some VERY difficult negotiations between the various stakeholders) is new. You might remember that following the lack of acceptance of the URS proposed by the IRT, ICANN staff developed their own proposal (presumably based on the IRT model factoring in community input). That model was pretty well universally condemned. This sounds disturbingly like another go-around of that methodology. Alan At 06/05/2012 09:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Alan, the issue not new. WIPO, which tried 80% of UDRP cases, had >openly expressed that it could not handle URS cases at the proposed >price before and after FAG release. URS proceeding design (with appeal >and retrial) is several times more complicated with UDRP but the price >is around 1/3 of it. > >Given the situation of WIPO, the other three UDRP providers, which are >more "local" and "small", would not be able to handle URS as well. > >Hong > > > > >On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > The following message is from the GNSO Council > > list and has generated a lot of reaction. > > > > To summarize: Apparently the potential providers > > of the URS (Universal Rapid Suspension System) > > have said that the described process cannot be > > done for the expected price (or even a fair > > amount higher) in the time-frame required. Some > > on the GNSO (and I) find it unusual that there > > was not at least a heads-up that this rework > > needed to be redone, and that the only formal > > indication of it was in a minor item in the > > proposed budget. And many feel that the proposed > > way of addressing the problem is unusual, to say the least. > > > > For a more complete summary of my views on this, > > see (including one from me - see my comment to > > the GNSO Council list at > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12997.html. > > > > Alan > > > >>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> > >>To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >>Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:09:09 -0400 > >>Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? > >> > >>All, > >> > >>Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but > >>buried in the new budget document > >>(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ > op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) > >>just put out for comment is a note on > >>reconfiguring the URS. Excerpt provided > >>below. I guess they could not find any URS > >>providers that could do it for the costs that > >>they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 > >>summits to work on a new model. My question for > >>the Council, is whether this is really a policy > >>issue that should be referred back to the GNSO > >>Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own > >>resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the > >>controversy around this over the past few years, > >>any tweaks to the URS should probably go back > to the community in my opinion. > >> > >>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) $175K > >>At present there is a significant gap between > >>the features specified for the URS procedure and > >>the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we > >>will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure > >>the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one > >>session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 > >>plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize > >>URS Model in consultation with current UDRP > >>providers and community members; and conduct RFP > >>based on URS Model and select URS providers. The > >>goal is have a URS program in place and > >>providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. > >> > >>Jeffrey J. Neuman > >>Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > >>21575 Ridgetop Circle, 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > > >-- >Professor Dr. Hong Xue >Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) >Beijing Normal University >http://www.iipl.org.cn/ >19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street >Beijing 100875 China

2 1

Msgs on GNSO Council list regarding Friday Board meeting
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

The following two messages from the GNSO Council list address some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to the cancellation of the regular Friday Board meeting. Too bad some of this was not included in the original announcement. Alan =================== >De : Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com> >Objet : Rép : SO and AC plenary time at ICANN meetings >Date : 4 mai 2012 14:49:44 HAEC >À : Stéphane Van Gelder ><<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > >Stéphane, > >Thanks for your thoughtful note. We're >gathering inputs, getting the Prague meeting >organized and will be sending at least one >additional note to the community to cover these items. > >The Friday Board meetings had been very lightly >attended and didn't really provide either >insight on the Board's thinking or opportunity >for the community to interact with the >Board. The other parts of the Friday schedule, >reports from the Board committees and reports >from the SO and AC chairs do provide a little >bit of room for interaction, mostly around the >SO and AC chair reports. I think that's >something we want to make sure continues in some >fashion, and we will weave this into the overall >schedule. We will also allocate time for >interaction with the Board during the Thursday afternoon session. > >Once in while there are Board actions that have >some content and even a bit of drama. The XXX >decision in San Francisco and the decision in >Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program >are the two recent examples that come to >mind. For matters of this import, we will have >a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did >this at the beginning of the week. This was a >big improvement and really helped set a positive >tone for the entire week. I think this is a >good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this >when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll >have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. > >Another element in our thinking is that it's >usually inappropriate to rush through a >resolution at the end of the week based on >developments during the week. We need to take >some time to develop the proper >documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the >week off with resolutions passed on the basis of >the week's work, we will report on what's come >up during the week, what happened between the >last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we >plan to do following this ICANN meeting. > >I look forward to inputs from you and the other chairs of the SOs and ACs. > >Finally, we'll work hard to get this right by >Prague, but if what we do in Prague is not good >enough, we'll keep working on it. > >Thanks, > >Steve >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding improvements in Board processes >Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:40 +0000 > >Hello All, > >I have been reading the various comments about >the announcement on 30 April 2012 that there >will not be a public board meeting on Friday 29 June in Prague. > >I thought I would set out various improvements >being made in Board processes to set this in context. > >(1) In the past, the Board has typically worked >with staff until midnight, and in some cases >2am, on the Thursday before the public session >to prepare resolutions for voting. This is >after a busy week listening to feedback from the >community, and the end result is often Board >resolutions that are poorly crafted and create problems in future. > >(2) For Prague, the intent is that the Board >will focus on listening to the community, and >then give the community some idea of what future >resolutions will be voted on in response to >feedback. A board meeting will then be held >shortly after Prague to approve those resolutions. > >(3) An example of this approach was on the topic >of Conflicts of interest in Dakar in October >2011. The Board listened to the community >during the week, and then in the public session >on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to >the community on specific measures that would be >taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful >review by the legal team, and review by Board >members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 >- where a resolution was passed on managing >conflicts for new gTLDs, along with other >resolutions that resulted from the discussions in Dakar. > >(4) The Board has also been working to ensure >that most resolutions at the Board level are >relatively routine. This means that bodies >like the GNSO have already reached consensus on >a topic (e.g the recent work on the transfers >policy), or staff have managed a public comment >process on a topic - and there are no >controversies associated with the matter. For >such routine resolutions - we either have a >short teleconference or we take advantage of >face-to-face time at a Board workshop to pass >these resolutions. For example, at the Board >workshop just concluded in Amsterdam we had a >short Board meeting to pass mostly consent >resolutions. It is likely that in Prague we >will pass resolutions on routine matters in the >Board workshop on the weekend of 23/24 June - if >there are matters submitted by staff for >approval - and can report on them during the >public meetings. If there are controversies on >a matter, the general approach would be to seek >to return the matter to the relevant body or >bodies to reach a stronger consensus. Thus >you will see fewer matters that are not on the >consent agenda at Board meetings. > >(5) Where there is a major policy vote, or where >there are differing views on a major policy, the >Board will continue to schedule such discussions >for the public meetings. Past examples of such >matters include the .xxx decision and the >approval of the new gTLD program in Singapore in June 2011. > >(6) With respect to transparency. the Board has >been publishing rationales for each of its >decisions - including those on the consent >agenda. There are also detailed minutes of >meetings, where contributions from Board members >made during a Board meeting are captured. >For example, from the minutes of the meeting on >8 Dec 2011 >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-08dec11-en.htm) >there is a detailed record of the discussion on >conflicts as well as on batching. > >(7) We are still refining improvements and >certainly welcome feedback from the community. > >Feel free to get in touch with me if you have >any questions or concerns, and certainly feel >free to provide feedback to the Board in the Board/GNSO meeting in Prague. > >Also be aware that I continue to read emails on >this list, and I pass on examples of emails that >raise concerns about Board processes to the >Board list to keep the Board aware as well. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget posted for public comment ; includes proposed responses to requests from AC/SOs
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

Dear All, ICANN has posted for public comment its annual Draft Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Plan and Budget which describes the planned activities and required resources for the fiscal year. Read announcement here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm Direct PDF link to FY13 Operating Plan and Budget: http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy13-01m… On Page 72 of ICANN's Draft FY13 Operating Plan and Budget summarizes the requests from SOs/ACs and ICANN's proposed response to these requests. Funding was approved for several of the ALAC/At-Large requests. The approved requests are: APRALO FY13-001 : Workshop and APRALO Mini-General Assembly at Regional Internet Governance Forums in Asia, Australia and Pacific FY13-002 : Workshop at IGF 2012 at Baku, Azerbaijan NARALO FY13-015 : NARALO Toronto Event AFRALO FY13-004 : Virtual Capacity building sessions for AFRALO ALSes FY13-005 : Workshop at IGF 2012 at Baku, Azerbaijan EURALO FY13-031 : General Assembly during the June 2013 EuroDIG meeting. http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/ops-budget/community-requests-07mar1… shows the full details on each of the FY13 SO/AC Budget Requests --- Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat

3 2

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

To all Working Groups. If you believe you have a public comment coming up, please notify staff accordingly. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List Date : Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:32:59 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear Community Leaders, Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time for me to ask for your input for an update on the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list that is published at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming We are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment in in the rest of the 2012. If your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on any topic that is not on the list or it is in the list but the entry needs an update, please let us know. Maintenance of this list helps raising early awareness about the issues among the ICANN community. Please send your updates to me until 18 May 2012. For your convenience, I am also attaching a template for the submissions you would like to make. Following the process, after receiving your input, we will update the list for 2012 and make another call for updates after June meeting in Prague. Kind regards, ----- Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List
by Carlton Samuels May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Can we have this on the Agenda? - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Update on 2012 Upcoming Public Comments List To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Dear Community Leaders, Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), it is time for me to ask for your input for an update on the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list that is published at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/upcoming We are seeking your input about topics that you think will be opened for Public Comment in in the rest of the 2012. If your groups are planning on originating a public comment period on any topic that is not on the list or it is in the list but the entry needs an update, please let us know. Maintenance of this list helps raising early awareness about the issues among the ICANN community. Please send your updates to me until 18 May 2012. For your convenience, I am also attaching a template for the submissions you would like to make. Following the process, after receiving your input, we will update the list for 2012 and make another call for updates after June meeting in Prague. Kind regards, ----- Filiz Yilmaz Sr Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fwd: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

FYI. I spoke to Heather Dryden when I met her at the INET in Geneva last week and having already discussed the subject, this is our way forward. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting Date : Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:51:17 +0100 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : Heather.Dryden Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Copie à : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Dear Heather, after reviewing the transcript of our very successful meeting in Costa Rica, I am now following up with you regarding the two action items from the meeting. 1. Following-up on human rights issues feeding into the policy rule-making, I extended an invitation to all interested GAC members, to our ALAC Registrant Rights Working Group which is open and would welcome input. This working group is tasked with extending the concept of "Registrant Rights" into the rights of Internet users with regards to Domain Names -- since it is not only registrants that are affected by Domain Names but also every Internet user out there. I therefore invite any of your members interested in taking part in such a group, either officially as a GAC member, but also individually, whichever is more doable, to email me and staff(a)atlarge.icann.org and we'll take it from there. I note from the transcript that during the meeting, there was interest from the EU Commission, Portugal, Australia, Mexico and the Council of Europe and hope that they will volunteer to follow-up in the working group. 2. Action Item: ALAC and GAC to form a small working group which will draft a joint statement on ICANN Conflicts of Interest There is very successful precedent in a small working group being set-up to draft a joint GAC-ALAC statement with the Joint Statement on Applicant Support, which can be found on: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-04aug11-en.htm The ALAC has taken a very strong line about the current ICANN Conflicts of Interest and has drafted TWO statements submitted to a recent public comment period. I invite you and your members to read them from: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-02apr12-en.htm http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-24apr12-en.htm The action item from our meeting in Costa Rica calls for a small working group to draft a joint GAC-ALAC Statement and once again, I'd be happy to receive emails from volunteers, Cc'ed to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org . I note from the session's transcript that Australia and the European Commission contributed to the dialogue and that this needs to be explored. As a reminder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat's suggestion for a starting point was: /"And what I'm thinking of is that there should be a closer examination of, perhaps, real cases of conflict of interest which appear in ICANN, and to study what these conflicts of interest are. Are they supposed? Are they real? Are they perceived? On the one hand. And on the other hand, it's to try to define more precisely the limits within which it is possible to operate. For instance, it so happens that someone noticed and put on a blog recently that at a recent vote of the board of ICANN, nine of the board voting members were conflicted. I mean, that's something which is quite -- quite amazing."/ I should therefore be grateful if you could forward these follow-up action items to your members and look forward to receiving an enthusiastic response. The GAC and the ALAC have a very important part to play in making sure that ICANN acts in the public interest and we have to seize the opportunity of this synergy to make sure it indeed does so. To miss this opportunity would be letting down 2.4Bn Internet users out there. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

US Government Reissues IANA Tender
by Fouad Bajwa April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

http://www.domainpulse.com/2012/04/19/us-government-reissues-iana-tender/ -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .berlin Letter on Batching - Help to protect the Global Public Interest
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Dear Dirk, thank you for your kind email which raises very valid points. I am CC'ing the ALAC working list for discussion. Warmest regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 19/04/2012 14:54, Dirk Krischenowski wrote : > Dear Olivier, > > we write to you to express our serious concern regarding the proposed > batching procedure, known as digital archery. > > Taking the recent activities of domain industry players into account, we > expect that the first and second batch will be populated with generic .com > clone standard applications such as .web, .shop, .wine, .beach or .horse. > > Most of the applicants outside the US, especially small language and culture > communities will be pushed aside to a much later batch. Also Geographic and > Community gTLD applicants with public interest support of governments and > communities will be pushed aside and will suffer serious economic > disadvantages. > > We urgently ask you to not sit back and watch how your achievements and > safeguards for Geographic gTLDs, the Applicant Support Program and other > public interest provisions in the Applicant Guidebook are watered down by a > crude digital archery system which clearly privileges a few "clever" domain > investors from the developed world. > > Some ideas have already been circulated, such as the one giving applicants > with a single application preference over those who apply for up to 50 > strings with the same entity. Another approach could be to incorporate the > different categories of applications in a fairly balanced manner in the > global public interest. > > Please put this topic on the ALAC agenda with urgency to ensure equal > opportunities to all applicants! > > Sincerely, > > Dirk Krischenowski > Founder and Managing Director > _______________________ > dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG > Akazienstrasse 2 > 10823 Berlin > Germany > Tel +49 30 49782354 > Fax +49 30 49782356 > Mobile +49 173 2339156 > E-Mail krischenowski(a)dotberlin.de > Skype "krischenowski" > Web www.dotberlin.com > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

I'm not suggesting the ALAC make a pronouncement that this is a PR disaster. I am suggesting trying to mitigate the PR disaster by sharply prodding ICANN to provide more solid information not only about the system failure, but about the how and the why, along with information about steps taken internally to assure better quality control, if that's the issue. That Rod Beckstrom has now joined the response team is at least a sign the organization is acknowledging the seriousness of at least the perception of a problem. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch Sent: Apr 19, 2012 11:15 AM To: Beau Brendler Cc: JJS , Carlton Samuels , alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? It's for this reason why I wonder what ALAC should be doing. From my PoV, the reputational damage has already been done. To indicate that this was a PR disaster which requires damage control would appear to be stating the obvious, and thus just "piling on" IMO. - Evan On 19 April 2012 10:31, Beau Brendler <[1]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , [2]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1][3]carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> a ÃÂ©crit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: [4]876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2][5]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>wrote: > Greetings, colleagues. > > Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem > and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking > place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I > believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, > as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the > opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. > > In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to > differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current > communique from ICANN staff April 17: > --------------------------------------------------- > TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) > Statement by Akram Atallah, COO > 17 April 2012 > ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD > application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems > from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of > file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see > some other applicants' file names and user names. > As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we > have implemented for this issue is effective. > We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file > names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which > applicants had the ability to see them. > Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed > with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We > will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the > timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but > apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is > going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the > obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be > public-interest gTLD sponsors. > > * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what > went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be > publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? > > * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who > reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem > created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and > security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first > phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for > gTLD applications? > > * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes > involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the > back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer > may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? > > What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? > > * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to > nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency > response protocols are in place? Any? > * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help > ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own > work. > * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. > * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such > incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs > online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make > that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. > * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the > technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, > and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [3][6]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [4][7]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [5][8]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [6][9]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Commit tee+( ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7][10]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [8][11]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9][12]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10][13]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Comm ittee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:[14]carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:[15]beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:[16]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. [17]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. [18]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. [19]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) 7. mailto:[20]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. [21]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. [22]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. [23]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [24]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [25]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [26]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [27]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 References 1. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 2. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 3. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 4. tel:876-818-1799 5. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 6. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 7. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 8. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 9. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( 10. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 11. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 12. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 13. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ 14. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 15. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 16. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 17. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 18. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 19. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 20. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 21. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 22. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 23. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 24. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 25. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 26. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 27. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0