- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Geographic Regions Review
by Wolf Ludwig Dec. 17, 2011

Dec. 17, 2011

Dear all, thanks for this forward of the statement. This is just to note that EURALO shares some of the concerns expressed in the draft ALAC statement, e. g.: *"It removes countries from their original regions to which they belong to a different region, far from their lands, with very different language and culture, and a far different level of Internet penetration (Example: Yemen from Asia to Europe)" -- besides other strange and unconceivable examples like this. Furthermore and as indicated in an earlier EURALO suggestion, we support the ALAC advise that • any country should be allowed to request for a change from its current region • the request for change should bring the country to a region closer to its land. Thanks for your consideration and kind regards, Wolf ICANN At-Large Staff wrote Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:49 >Dear All, > >Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Geographic Regions Review" in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. > >The draft ALAC Statement can be downloaded here: >https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/28902425/Draft+ALAC+Statem… > >The draft Statement can also be found on the At-Large Geographic Regions Review Workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/GQS5AQ > >Information on the Public Comment announcement is available on the ICANN Public Comments page: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report-30sep… > >Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by Saturday, 17 December 2011, 23:59 UTC. A five day vote is to commence after comments have been collected. > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine >ICANN At-Large Staff >E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0

Fwd: Message from the GNSO IRTP Part C Working Group
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

FYI. We will be speaking briefly about this during our ALAC conference call next Tuesday, in the section "Policy Advice Development Calendar". Although the ExCom has concluded that we neither have the bandwidth nor the immediate knowledge to comment in the current public process ending 22 Dec 2011, I encourage members who have the knowledge and interest of such matters to participate actively. Seeing that the message contains a call for volunteers to participate in the group and that the attached file contains questions to our community, I shall be asking if there are any volunteers to collate our response in time to submit it by 6th January 2012. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Message from the GNSO IRTP Part C Working Group Date : Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:51:45 -0800 De : Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Pour : ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com> Copie à : James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> Dear Olivier, The GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Policy Development Process has begun and the Working Group formed to do the work is requesting your group's input to help inform its deliberations. As required by the ICANN Bylaws an ICANN Public Comment period <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-c-charter-21nov11-en.htm> is currently open until 22 December. As recommended by the new GNSO Policy Development Process which was adopted by the ICANN Board on 8 December, the WG is making direct outreach to several Advisory Committees and to the ccNSO. The IRTP Part C Working Group has been charged with responding to three charter issues: * "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. * Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. * Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. To assist the GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups with producing their comments, an input template has been created. The WG has decided to forward you copy of this template with the request that your group consider using it as a basis for comment on the issues being discussed by the WG. The template is attached to this email. While the template was created specifically for the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, it is hoped that it might also be useful in any comments your group might decide to submit to the IRTP Part C WG. However, should you decide to submit your comments in a different way that would be welcome too. The WG membership would also like your group to know that the IRTP Part C WG is open to participation by members of the ICANN Community either as representatives of a group, such as an AC, or as individuals participating in their own capacity. We encourage your members to participate in the IRTP Part C WG if they are concerned by the issues in the WG's charter and wish to have a direct voice into the bottom-up formation of the WG recommendations. The WG also would welcome a designated observer or participant in the group, which can be designated using the template or via email. If possible, we would appreciate your feedback by 6 January 2012 at the latest. Best Regards, James Bladel and Avri Doria, co-chairs of the IRTP Part C Working Group

1 0

Fwd: Comments from ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) re: Dec 8th Senate Committee hearing on "ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains"
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

FYI - further to my earlier message, please find attached, the letter to Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV. -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Comments from ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) re: Dec 8th Senate Committee hearing on "ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains" Date : Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:19:39 +0100 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : erik_jones(a)commerce.senate.gov, tyler_roth(a)commerce.senate.gov Copie à : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> Dear Sirs, Please find attached a letter to Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV which I send on behalf of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) as a comment following up on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation hearing on "ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains" that took place on Thursday, December 8th, 2011. Please be so kind to ask Senator Rockefeller to acknowledge receipt of this letter. Yours sincerely, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Hello everybody, thank you for your suggestions. Cheryl: as this is an introductory letter, I thought a picture might distract from the main message, but there are several links to the ALAC & NARALO Web sites, so this should help. If we get enquiries for further information, I suggest we use the picture in a 2nd wave of info. Garth: At this point in time, it would be hard to point to specific policy issues such as the Mexico summit statement (apart from the fact that this is 2009 and we're pointing out the fact that Ms. Dyson's input is obsolete, but I have now added a pointer to our correspondence page, which includes all of our most recent statements, and more! JJS: point well taken, and I totally agree with it so it is to keep in mind for future messages... or even some parts of it added to the current message. (yes, they made it just in time) A version with amendments has been sent to Senator Rockefeller and I'll forward the email to the ALAC and the NARALO lists in a moment. I just wish to thank all of you for your quick response which has greatly helped in drafting a letter in such a short time. The question that now faces us, is whether, based on the discussions that took place today at the House of Representatives: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> NARALO and the ALAC should or should not send a similarly drafter letter to Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce? Kind regards, Olivier On 14/12/2011 21:11, gbruen(a)knujon.com wrote : > Well-stated > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:42:46 +0800 > *To: *Beau Brendler<beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > *Cc: *Garth Bruen at Knujon.com<gbruen(a)knujon.com>; Olivier MJ > Crepin-Leblond<ocl(a)gih.com>; <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; > ALAC Working List<alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ICANN AtLarge > Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House > Energy & CommerceCommittee > > /Congratulations, Olivier & Beau, on a timely initiative. The remark > on Esther's presentation set things straight./ > / > / > /I would like to offer a general remark, which may be worth adapting > for future public messages (never mind the wording, I'm suggesting a > notion, not a draft): / > / > / > /While recognizing the historic role played by the United States of > America in the construction of the Internet, we note that its > pertinence in the future depends on its ability to serve and protect > the general user anywhere in the world. So, whereas we follow with > great attention hearings in the two legislative houses in Washington, > it is the duty of the ICANN, and of the ALAC, to impress upon > legislators and the executive branch in all countries that the > touchstone of future Internet development is and should remain the > public interest. In parallel, we wish to draw the attention of > legislators in the USA to the fact that, because their conclusions and > choices regarding the Internet have the potential to affect users > elsewhere, US initiatives and laws should seek to be compatible with > the public interest internationally./ > / > / > /Regards,/ > /Jean-Jacques. > / > 2011/12/15 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net > <mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net>> > > That's the Mexico City statement? Might not be a bad idea. Oliver > and Heidi are really the ones who have done the heavy lifting > here, and I know time is of the essence, so I leave it to them as > to whether a reference of this sort can be included > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com > <mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>> > >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 12:20 PM > >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC Working List > <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Beau Brendler > <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net <mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net>> > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > CommerceCommittee > > > >Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference > ALAC's > >statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. > > > >The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not > asked/invited?) to > >testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of > constituent groups > >who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current > stand on > >the new gTLD program is/can be found..." > > > >Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the > record, but > >the message should be on point with the subject matter. > > > >-------------------------------------------------- > >From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM > >To: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>; "ALAC Working List" > ><alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > >Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> > >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > >CommerceCommittee > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding > >> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate > >> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and > a hearing > >> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee > (held on Dec > >> 14th -- i.e. today). > >> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept > >> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is > included below. > >> > >> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau > Brendler, > >> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent > to the > >> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be > sent via > >> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) > Rockefeller. > >> > >> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but > >> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user > input in > >> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal > vote, but it > >> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. > >> > >> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of > >> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred > Upton, > >> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be > one of the > >> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to > see what > >> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is > >> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : > >>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber > Sterling > >>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. > >>> > >>> There are two different hearings > >>> > >>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation > >>> <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) > >>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able > to send > >>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 > >>> > >>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee > >>> > >>> > <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> > >>> (to be held Dec 14) > >>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be > able to > >>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) > >>> > >>> > >>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate > >>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there > before > >>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who > participated in > >>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House > hearing > >>> this Wednesday. > >>> > >>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House > committee > >>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the > content > >>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the > Senate > >>> committee. > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@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… > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…> > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

That's the Mexico City statement? Might not be a bad idea. Oliver and Heidi are really the ones who have done the heavy lifting here, and I know time is of the essence, so I leave it to them as to whether a reference of this sort can be included -----Original Message----- >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 12:20 PM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee > >Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's >statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. > >The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to >testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups >who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on >the new gTLD program is/can be found..." > >Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but >the message should be on point with the subject matter. > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM >To: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" ><alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & >CommerceCommittee > >> Dear all, >> >> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding >> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate >> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing >> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec >> 14th -- i.e. today). >> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept >> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below. >> >> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, >> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the >> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via >> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. >> >> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but >> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in >> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it >> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. >> >> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of >> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, >> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the >> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what >> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is >> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : >>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling >>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. >>> >>> There are two different hearings >>> >>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation >>> <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) >>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send >>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 >>> >>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee >>> >>> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> >>> (to be held Dec 14) >>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to >>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) >>> >>> >>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate >>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before >>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in >>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing >>> this Wednesday. >>> >>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee >>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content >>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate >>> committee. >>> >>> >>

4 3

Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

JJS' wording is particularly elegant and appropriate, I agree. As noted before, Olivier, Evan and Heidi have really done the work on this, if there is time to get it in, I'm sure they will give it a shot BB -----Original Message----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Sent: Dec 14, 2011 3:01 PM To: JJS Cc: Beau Brendler , "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" , ALAC Working List , ICANN AtLarge Staff , na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee I absolutely agree with Jean Jacques. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:42 AM, JJS <[1]jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: *Congratulations, Olivier & Beau, on a timely initiative. The remark on Esther's presentation set things straight.* * * *I would like to offer a general remark, which may be worth adapting for future public messages (never mind the wording, I'm suggesting a notion, not a draft): * * * *While recognizing the historic role played by the United States of America in the construction of the Internet, we note that its pertinence in the future depends on its ability to serve and protect the general user anywhere in the world. So, whereas we follow with great attention hearings in the two legislative houses in Washington, it is the duty of the ICANN, and of the ALAC, to impress upon legislators and the executive branch in all countries that the touchstone of future Internet development is and should remain the public interest. In parallel, we wish to draw the attention of legislators in the USA to the fact that, because their conclusions and choices regarding the Internet have the potential to affect users elsewhere, US initiatives and laws should seek to be compatible with the public interest internationally.* * * *Regards,* *Jean-Jacques. * 2011/12/15 Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > That's the Mexico City statement? Might not be a bad idea. Oliver and > Heidi are really the ones who have done the heavy lifting here, and I know > time is of the essence, so I leave it to them as to whether a reference of > this sort can be included > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <[3]gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 12:20 PM > >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <[4]ocl(a)gih.com>, > [5]na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, ALAC Working List < > [6]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <[7]staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Beau Brendler < > [8]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > CommerceCommittee > > > >Thanks. I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's > >statement on the program which is the subject of the hearings. > > > >The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) to > >testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent groups > >who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current stand on > >the new gTLD program is/can be found..." > > > >Comments about Dyson's statements are important to correct the record, but > >the message should be on point with the subject matter. > > > >-------------------------------------------------- > >From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[9]ocl(a)gih.com> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 12:00 PM > >To: <[10]na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "ALAC Working List" > ><[11]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Cc: "ICANN AtLarge Staff" <[12]staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & > >CommerceCommittee > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding > >> hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate > >> Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing > >> by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec > >> 14th -- i.e. today). > >> Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept > >> comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included > below. > >> > >> Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, > >> NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the > >> Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via > >> two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. > >> > >> Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but > >> rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in > >> ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it > >> will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. > >> > >> We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of > >> Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, > >> should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the > >> witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what > >> gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is > >> required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : > >>> An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling > >>> of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. > >>> > >>> There are two different hearings > >>> > >>> 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation > >>> <[13]http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) > >>> After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send > >>> comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 > >>> > >>> 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee > >>> > >>> < > [14]http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> > >>> (to be held Dec 14) > >>> After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to > >>> send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) > >>> > >>> > >>> So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate > >>> hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before > >>> Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in > >>> the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing > >>> this Wednesday. > >>> > >>> We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee > >>> after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content > >>> of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate > >>> committee. > >>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [15]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [16]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [17]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [18]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [19]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [20]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [21]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [22]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 References 1. mailto:jjs.global@gmail.com 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:gbruen@knujon.com 4. mailto:ocl@gih.com 5. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 6. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 7. mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org 8. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 9. mailto:ocl@gih.com 10. mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org 11. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 12. mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org 13. http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH 14. http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134 15. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 16. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 17. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 18. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 19. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 20. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 21. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 22. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

Dear all, there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec 14th -- i.e. today). Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below. Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : > An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling > of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. > > There are two different hearings > > 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation > <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) > After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send > comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 > > 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee > <http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> > (to be held Dec 14) > After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to > send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) > > > So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate > hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before > Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in > the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing > this Wednesday. > > We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee > after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content > of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate > committee. > >

4 3

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee
by Beau Brendler Dec. 14, 2011

Dec. 14, 2011

I agree. The structure is baroque; such a diagram may have an unintended consequence. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Dec 14, 2011 2:16 PM >To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee > >On 14 December 2011 12:09, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks OCL I wonder though as you have gone to the second page with >> the layout is it worthwhile inserting the ALAC and At-Large Structure >> diagram as a easy to read and understand graphic on the last (2nd ) page >> below the signature line as a form of 'appendix' You know pictures are >> worth a <insert ###> of words rule... >> > > >I'm not sure that such an introductory letter needs much explanation, let >alone diagrams. We're simply indicating "A forum to represent the public >interest within ICANN currently exists, if you're genuinely interested in >hearing that PoV". > >The mere awareness -- especially if we get on a mailing list to participate >in future solicitations of comment -- is a major step. If a Congressperson >wants to peek inside the sausage factory we can give offer as much (or as >little) detail as necessary. > >Besides, this is the US Congress within an amosphere of political >exceptionalism. Any interest in the geographical diversity of At-Large >(IMO) would be accidental. > >- 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

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from 8 Dec 2011
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Forgot to add, they also approved the new PDP rules with changes to Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws. Alan At 13/12/2011 01:26 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm > >Of particular interest are: > >Item 1.1 approving the new gTLD fee reduction to $47,000 for >deserving applicants as well as supporting the current proposed >process and criteria documents (links in agenda item 4 of ><https://community.icann.org/x/oYHbAQ>https://community.icann.org/x/oYHbAQ) > >Item 1.2 on batching applications seems interesting, but I have not >yet been able to decipher exactly what they are talking about. > >Item 3 approving Board member compensation > >Item 4 approving new Conflict of Interest rules related to new gTLDs. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from 8 Dec 2011
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Well, as I said yesterday during the GTLD-WG call, I was not surprised that the recommendation was not followed, but I did expect some half-way measure - perhaps an explicit increase of 1-2 million, funded by a deferred return-to-reserve and perhaps only in the event of insufficient additional fund-raising. But clearly that did not happen and that is indeed disappointing. However, the actual size of the pool does not need to be fixed until the SARP makes its awards, so there is nearly a year left to continue lobbying the Board (and in our call last week, that was acknowledged by Board members). I think we need to consider how best to do this, not only for ALAC, but by getting others involved as well. Bills note sounds like the start, but it would be good if we can get new voices into this, not just the usual players. Alan At 13/12/2011 03:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Alan, you had my hopes up... for a few seconds. Until I read the >whole resolution. > >The Board may have approved the fee reduction to $47K, but it >explicitly rejected the core JAS recommendation that the fee >reduction be separated from the ICANN fund. > >The implications of this are: > * There is a hard limit on how many applications may receive > cost reductions, meaning that worthy and eligible applications may > have to compete among themselves for funding and that some (many? > we don't know) eligible applicants will not receive the reduction. > Based on the current fund size a maximum of only 14 TLD > applications can receive the reduced rate. > * The fund that ICANN "set aside" for applicant support is > designed to all funnel back into ICANN (some charity!) ... no > assistance is available to help with non-ICANN expenses or capacity building > * The bottom up core JAS community recommendations -- supporting > fee reductions independent of the fixed pool (as endorsed in > the<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm> > joint statement by the ALAC and GAC, as well as endorsed by the > NPOC and NCUC) were explicitly rejected without rationale. We have > no idea who is pushing back against the public-interest community > advice or why; what has been openly published about the JAS > recommendations (of which I'm aware) has been in support or neutral. > >So... the implicit rejection of a core component of the JAS >recommendation is now explicit. > >I know we should be happy for even getting this far -- that ANY >assistance is offered -- but I am disgusted at the opaqueness of the >debate. The bottom up process, done as designed, has either been >enthusiastically endorsed (ALAC, GAC, NCUC, NPOC -- all the >public-interest constituencies) or passed without comment (the rest >of GNSO). There has been no active argument presented against the >recommendations. We have tried to anticipate objections in the JAS >documentation yet have never been able to openly confront and >respond to the opposition. It's a small victory for At-Large getting >anything, but a major fail for ICANN's claims of policy-by-consensus >and transparency. > >- Evan

1 0