- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Draft ALAC statement on the Policy Development Process Work Team Interim Report
by Alan Greenberg July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

As you are aware, as part of the GNSO Improvements process, the rules under which PDP are run is being reviewed. The is an immense job, since there are so many issues involved to ensuring that policy can be developed in a bottom-up consensus-based way. The Work team (WT) is led by Jeff Neumann of Neustar and has produced a very comprehensive and thoughtful 150 page report. I have been involved in the process from the start, and have some appreciation of the effort that has been made, and the job is f ar from over. An Interim Report (http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pdp-initial-report) was issued that makes interesting reading if only for its thoroughness and the insights it gives into the 50+ hours of discussions that have been held to date. At the ExCom meeting last week, I was asked to draft a comment to be considered by the ALAC. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#PDPWT and is also reproduced below for your convenience. The 4 areas that I have highlighted in the comment are: 1. Fast Track PDP - a possible way to address urgent problems, or simple ones that need to be addressed but do not warrant the full PDP process. 2. Accommodating input from from Advisory Committees (and other SOs) into the GNSO policy development process. 3. A comment that perhaps we should look at how effective Working Groups have been before committing to them as the sole alternative for PDPs. 4. Supporting the recommendation that PDPs should not end with the Board deliberating on secret documents that the PDP WG, the GNSO and the community have not seen. Alan ---------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT ALAC Comment on the Policy Development Process Work Team Initial Report and Draft Recommendations The ALAC appreciates the enormous task taken on by the Work Team and is suitably impressed with the 150 page of thoughtful deliberations in Interim Report. The ALAC supports the efforts of the Work Team and offers comments on four specific issues: Recommendation 15 Fast Track Process The PDP process must be able to deal with enormously complex issues. However, there are also issues which are simpler and potentially those that need urgent attention. For these latter classes of PDP, the ALAC supports the development of a streamlined process which will require less volunteer and staff time, and less elapsed time. Recommendation 21 AC/SO Input into the Policy Development Process Over the last several years, the GNSO has voluntarily included the ALAC and At-Large into its various policy development and other activities. Such involvement has been equally beneficial to both the GNSO and to At-large. It is encouraging to see that such cooperation is being contemplated on a more formal basis and will be institutionalized. Stage 3 Working Group The GNSO has been using Working Groups for several years as was mandated in the GNSO reform process. Some of these Working Groups have performed well, and others less so. A number of recent PDPs have in fact stressed the WG model. Prior to formally institutionalizing the model, it may be appropriate for the PDP WT to undertake or commission a review of whether the WG model is in fact optimal for addressing PDP issues. Recommendation 39 Reports to the Board In line with a recent ALAC/NCSG statement on the Transparency of Staff Documents (<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20may10-en.htm>http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20may10-en.htm) the ALAC strongly supports this recommendation. It is essential that a PDP WG and the GNSO know exactly how their work products are being presented to the Board prior to the Board discussing the results of any PDP.

2 2

PLEASE REVIEW: ALAC Final Recommendations on At_Large Community Director Selection Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 27, 2010

July 27, 2010

Dear ALAC Members, During today’s teleconference, you will discuss the ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process. You will find the complete agenda under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?27%20july%202010 In advance of today’s teleconference, please review the attached ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process. The document was sent to the ICANN Board Structural Improvements Committee on June 9th 2010, with no one from the ABSdt opposing it. Although the ALAC has delegated responsibility for the At-Large director selection process to the ABSdt, in order to make it official, the ALAC is asked to formally accept the recommendations during today’s call. The question that will be asked is the following: Does the ALAC agree that the ALAC Final Recommendations on the At-Large Community Director Selection Process (the attached document) be considered as the final version? If you can not join today’s ALAC call, please send your opinion on the ALAC Final Recommendation to the ALAC-working list. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010

The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended. A ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group. The only substantive variation is one person who believes that e-mail should continue to work after expiration, up until the time the domain is actually deleted/sold - the other participants feel that since earlier notices have either not been delivered or have been ignored, "breaking" e-mail as well as web and other services is the only thing likely to alert a registrant to the potential loss of their domain. Approval of this comment by the ALAC will indicate that At-Large is still behind its original request. Also, note the message that is also going to the At-Large list at this time. RALO leaders should encourage their ALS participants to complete the survey attached to the Public Comment Period. Alan -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group. It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders. In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports: 1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars. It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system. Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices".

1 0

Revised travel policy statement
by Alan Greenberg July 25, 2010

July 25, 2010

In light of the comments received, I have re-drafted the message to Kevin. I have also revised the introduction. I have advised Kevin that a revised version will be coming. The major changes are: - highlighting that travelers purchasing their own tickets is optional, not the only method; - clarifying and strengthening the case that per diems and not reimbursement is preferred; - explicitly mentioning the need for a travel agent who is aware of transit visa issues; - mentioning that there should be an exception process for handing abnormally high local travel costs (to/from departure airport); - streamlining the approval process for tickets that are issued by ICANN's travel agent. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts. Alan ====================== Dear Kevin, Thank you for joining the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels. We appreciate you listening to our concerns, and we found your insights based upon your discussions about travel support with other SO/ACs helpful. The current process for travel support is unwieldy and appears expensive for ICANN. Many (or perhaps most) of the volunteer travelers seem unhappy with the experience and results. To spend that amount of effort without the "gold medal" performance that you were aiming at must be disappointing. I suspect that minor tweaks are not likely to fix the problems, so I offer a new approach. I think that it may address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers. In short, I am suggesting that you OPTIONALLY allow travelers to make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds. I believe that you will still need an "official ICANN" travel agent, but offered as a resource not as a requirement. I am sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial amount of guaranteed business. I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss later in this note. 0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. 1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in passenger comfort. Such bookings would still be subject to the price limitations to be described. 2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the sense of traditional business travel and understands transit visa issues for those not from North America or western Europe. If some needed cities are omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. 3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should be far fewer of them. One exception that I would explicitly call out would be travel to and from the local airport where such travel clearly exceeds what could reasonably covered by per diem allocations. 4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. 5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, and volunteers should be offered no less. 6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues for those travelers where business class is allowed. With the ICANN travel agent understanding this rule, many of the current exemptions would no longer be necessary. 7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. 8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of self-reservation privileges. 9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the traveler may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still coming out ahead! 10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the greater of $300 or 10%. 11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for other events that support the mission of the group. For Board members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. 12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable". Although not related to air travel, some people have hypothesized that reimbursing real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a net savings to ICANN. However, I strongly question whether this is worth the additional staff time required to administrate it, the volunteer time to submit claims, or the grief that will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.

7 9

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

Fouad, my comments embedded below, in addition to Evan's comments which I generally support. Alan At 21/07/2010 07:18 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >I would like to step in to share perspectives and recommendations as a >person who travels from the developing world. I was hoping more of the >participants from such regions would also do so because they also >share many of the troubles as mine. > >First and foremost, it is very hard to pay for air-ticket bookings on >our own and secondly the per-diem facilitates a great deal of us to >manage the on-ground expenses during meetings. On various occasions >other than ICANN, I have been compelled to cancel certain engagements >because the tickets weren't facilitated before-hand by the hosts. > >When I arrived in Brussels on the 18th, I had overlooked the hotel >booking that said it was from the 19th. Funny because the Air-Ticket >and Hotel were both booked by the same travel team. Lacking the amount >of one night's hotel expense and a credit card that leaves my side at >the nick of time (Pakistani credit cards are like that, they don't >work when you need them to), I almost thought of myself to be out on >the street or maybe finding my way to some Youth Hostel far away if i >could find it or trying to convince one of you folks to let me spend >the night on the couch in your rooms which wouldn't have been >convenient either. Okay, I had an advantage of wits and lively >communication that worked well convincing the ladies at the reception >that the highest order in ICANN will be soon in touch with them on the >issue but I almost freaked out!!!!! Okay, people may be in better >positions than mine but hey....I hope you understand. It is an unfortunate fact that no matter how good the policy, there will always be errors. Having arrived at the Delhi ICANN meeting and found that my hotel was booked for the wrong night, I do understand the issue (and yes, I talked by way into the hotel as well). You may have noticed that you were (or should have been) sent a confirmation of your hotel reservation showing both the dates and a confirmation number. I and a number of others fought very hard for those bits of valuable information (neither of which I had been given before my arrival New Delhi). You were also given a listing showing when others were arriving in Brussels, many of them with phone numbers (including ICANN staff), so hopefully you did not need too many wits to fix the problem (although a surplus of wit is always useful). >Travel policy recommendations should not be just from the perspective >of the developed regions but should be accommodating volunteer >travellers from developing regions. Do you feel that the proposal is portraying just the needs of the developed world? Items 2, 7 and 8 were carefully crafted to take into account the issues faced by developing country participants. >Let me also share another example, >if we take note of say the cost of accommodating a developing region >participant, many of us may be surprised to learn that the cost of his >participation in one meeting may actually be equal to his 6 or 9 month >income (based on situation in the best income earning scenario) > >My recommendations: > >1. Volunteer travellers from developing/low-income/least developing >regions should continue to receive advance ticketing but with >improvements in flight bookings. I don't disagree that this should be available at the traveler's option, but is this different from the original document which said that ICANN should continue to offer tickets booked by their travel agent and paid directly by ICANN? You should be aware that some of the people who have been most frustrated with ICANN's refusal to let travelers buy their own tickets are from developing countries. In many such countries, tickets can be purchased for MUCH less than a similar ticket in the US (perhaps related to the amount that local travelers can pay, as per your example shared above). The tickets also often have more flexibility (changes, cancellation) than those issued in the US. That was the motivation for the necessity for Travel Advances in such cases (Item 7). >Recommendation 1: ICANN Travel Policy Exceptions for Travellers from >Developing Regions. > >2. ICANN should maintain a Diary of Allowed Travel Routes for >Developing Region Travellers. One or two meetings should be sufficient >to do so. For example, for Brussels meeting, I was twice sent a >proposed itinerary that was forcing me to go through Heathrow whereas >residents of my country are not allowed transit through UK without >following the prior 6 month long duration transit visa acquisition >application submission process and it took me quite some time to get >the message through. I do have allowance to travel through EU. >Interestingly, I could still fly direct to Brussels cheaper on middle >eastern airline carriers that flew direct from my city of Lahore, >Pakistan and ICANN got it right in the end though but it does get >overly time consuming and considerable tension goes in to it as we >stay uncertain whether we will make it or not. I actually had a sentence about transit issues in item 2. Also one related to origin cities that are not served by airlines. However, the section was getting to large, and I felt that such issues could be laid out in detail if and when ICANN accepts the overall proposal. I summarized these points and several others by saying they needed a travel agent who was well versed in travel from "unusual" places. It does not cover all requirements, but sets the stage for needed a travel agent who does not assume that all travelers live in New York and travel on a US passport. >Recommendation 2: Diary of Allowed Travel Routes for Developing Region >Travellers. > >3. Issue 2 also implies that when we travel, we have to >reschedule/allocate a lot of changes in our work plans, engagements, >commitments etc and we should be on a boot-camp style or concentration >camp style regime for travelling. I would like to second the issue of >allowing a day before the actual meeting and would also suggest to >at-least allow us to attend the board meeting that's where the crux of >the whole week comes out at and missing that is like missing a major >portion of what we invested our time and efforts in, unless personal >requirements create the need to fly early. The Brussels meeting rules explicitly allowed you to attend the Board meeting. This is another battle that has been fought for several years, but based on this last meeting's experience, we have won it. But to be sure, my item 5 reiterated the requirement. Current rules already allow you to arrive the day before the meeting. What they don't do is make sure that you arrive sufficiently early to be able to get a night's sleep. >Recommendation 3: Improved Arrival and Departure Facilitation > >4. Urgent change to allocated travel plan policies - What if an >emergency comes up and one has to change or modify their travel plan - >Threats - they start coming. You will pay this, you will pay that, you >will pay this. Interestingly, these arguments happen over a nights >stay expense or maybe a minor 50Euro investment to make the >rescheduling. It feels like an important and urgent request but all >hell breaks loose when replies come in mentioning, you will have to >pay this and that and no this can't happen. It seems as the issue of >urgency isn't being realized. We may recommend having ICANN's travel >constituency to place a Travel Support desk at all meetings with staff >that can take decisions especially when the CFO and ICANN staff are >around the meetings to take last minute decisions in situations of >urgency. I think that this is overkill, but publicizing a "help" phone number is probably warranted. >Recommendation 4: Eliminate Antagonist Behaviour towards Traveller's >Urgent/Unavoidable Circumstances > >5. Both the organization and volunteer travellers are giving something >important to each other and the role of travel and commitment by both >parties are significant. Volunteers shouldn't be treated like minors >undergoing air-travel and accompanied by a guardian. They should be >treated equally with ICANN Staff and Board Members and thus should >receive equal attention. I also reserve my right to object to the fact >that I see less developing region people in the staff and board but >that's not the issue at hand but it would definitely teach ICANN >operations a great deal of mutual respect and better handling of >everyone. Its interesting how the Board was interested in >compensations to the Board but not improving the issues within ICANN >participation, better developing region representation etc and that is >an advantage that the Public Face of ICANN in the form of At-Large >brings to ICANN. Therefore we should feel the mutual request and equal >level treatment first before we say to the world that ICANN has mutual >request and equal treatment/relations with all its stakeholders. > >Recommendation 5: Mutual Respect of all travellers including >Volunteers, ICANN Staff and Board Representatives as Equal! > >Recommendation 6: ICANN should deploy an ICANN Travel Team Support >Desk right near the registration desk at all ICANN meetings that >should be operative from the day that ICANN staff or travellers >arrive. Period! > >These were the ones that came to mind. Don't mind the details, we >really do not have many outlets in such discourses. > > > >On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Gareth Shearman ><shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca> wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification Alan. On first reading I thought > there was an option for changing the per diem arrangements. > > > > I would prefer that the designated travel agency book the flights > so as to remove the need for reimbursement, but I like your > suggestion for allowing more flexibility to allow the traveller > more input into the arrangements. If we can find a cheaper option > early in the process, so much the better. > > > > Gareth > > > > On 2010-07-21, at 1:53 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > >> Perhaps I am missing something. My proposal was that the > traveller be able to optionally book their own flights and that > would require reimbursement. If you want to use ICANN's travel > agent and have them pay directly, that is also provided for. And I > am suggesting that they continue using per diem instead of claims. > >> > >> Alan > >> > >> At 21/07/2010 04:31 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote: > >>> I'm opposed to having to submit claims after the fact for either. > >>> > >>> Gareth > >>> > >>> On 2010-07-21, at 12:13 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >>> > >>> > Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel?? > >>> > > >>> > Alan > >>> > > >>> > At 21/07/2010 01:52 PM, Gareth Shearman wrote: > >>> >> Very thoughtful contribution, Alan. > >>> >> > >>> >> I certainly like the comment about possible slightly > improved seating arrangements but I would be opposed to any > requirement for having to submit claims - been there, done that. > >>> >> > >>> >> Gareth > >>> >> > >>> >> On 2010-07-21, at 10:42 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Very well worded, Alan. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > D > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Darlene A. Thompson > >>> >> > Community Access Program Administrator > >>> >> > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP > >>> >> > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > >>> >> > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > >>> >> > Phone: (867) 975-5631 > >>> >> > Fax: (867) 975-5610 > >>> >> > E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -----Original Message----- > >>> >> > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> >> > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan > >>> >> > Greenberg > >>> >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:52 PM > >>> >> > To: ALAC Working List > >>> >> > Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief > >>> >> > Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my > >>> >> > own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's > >>> >> > ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our > >>> >> > meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in > >>> >> > adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would > >>> >> > suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the > >>> >> > mailing list prior to the meeting. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Alan > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org> > >>> >> >> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >>> >> >> Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Dear Kevin, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you > >>> >> >> confirmed what we already knew - that the current process > for travel > >>> >> >> support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps > >>> >> >> most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the > experience and > >>> >> > results. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and > >>> >> >> I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to > >>> >> >> fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may > >>> >> >> address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary > >>> >> >> responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the > >>> >> > travelers. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to > >>> >> >> make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of > >>> >> >> constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the > >>> >> >> benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel > >>> >> > funds. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am > >>> >> >> sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process > >>> >> >> were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in > >>> >> >> ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which > >>> >> >> should be a prime the target. I do not know if you > currently use the > >>> >> >> same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, > >>> >> >> but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to > >>> >> >> keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial > >>> >> >> amount of guaranteed business. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per > >>> >> >> group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss > >>> >> >> later in this note. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever > >>> >> >> air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board > >>> >> >> members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current > >>> >> >> rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or > >>> >> >> overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on > >>> >> >> premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few > of the real > >>> >> >> perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in > >>> >> >> passenger comfort. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent > >>> >> >> should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of > >>> >> >> cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include > >>> >> >> 50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not > >>> >> >> take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this > >>> >> >> well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues > >>> >> >> related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the > >>> >> >> sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are > >>> >> >> omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be > based on fares > >>> >> >> of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I > >>> >> >> exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares > >>> >> >> offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package > >>> >> >> travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service > to recover > >>> >> >> from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service > >>> >> >> fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle > >>> >> >> requests outside of the constraints described here, but > there should > >>> >> >> be far fewer of them. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based > >>> >> >> on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled > >>> >> >> meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous > >>> >> >> messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter > this note with > >>> >> >> such details. In short, the person should be allowed to > arrive early > >>> >> >> enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first > >>> >> >> meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this > >>> >> >> may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that > >>> >> >> allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should > >>> >> >> include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number > >>> >> >> of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are > >>> >> >> equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff > travelers, > >>> >> >> and volunteers should be offered no less. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is > greater) above > >>> >> >> the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what > was used for > >>> >> >> a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher > >>> >> >> level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average > >>> >> >> burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate > similar issues > >>> >> >> for those travelers where business class is allowed. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at > >>> >> >> substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or > >>> >> >> 10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances > to pay for the > >>> >> > ticket. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of > >>> >> >> reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by > >>> >> >> ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be > >>> >> >> easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to > >>> >> >> audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of > >>> >> >> self-reservation privileges. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by > >>> >> >> scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules > >>> >> >> should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per > >>> >> >> diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 > >>> >> >> or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, > >>> >> >> the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the > >>> >> >> traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still > >>> >> >> coming out ahead! > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has > >>> >> >> been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the > >>> >> >> airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the > >>> >> >> greater of $300 or 10%. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. > >>> >> >> Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that > >>> >> >> budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for > >>> >> >> medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any > >>> >> >> significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either > >>> >> >> to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for > >>> >> >> other events that support the mission of the group. For Board > >>> >> >> members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> 12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel > >>> >> >> expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after > submission > >>> >> >> if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on > "reasonable". > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing > >>> >> >> real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a > >>> >> >> net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the > >>> >> >> additional staff time required to administrate it, or the > grief that > >>> >> >> will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with > the general > >>> >> >> support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be > >>> >> >> discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is > possible that the > >>> >> >> ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >> > ALAC mailing list > >>> >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> >> > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > >>> >> > .org > >>> >> > > >>> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > >>> >> > > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >> > ALAC mailing list > >>> >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> >> > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> >> > > >>> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > >>> >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > > >-- >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa

4 3

Re: [ALAC] DRAFT - 'Nominations Open -Election Call Message' - for ALAC Appointment of Nominating Committee Members for NomCom 2011.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

Further to my previous email dated July 17th confirming the request from NomCom 2011 for appointments to be made by the ALAC and proposing the following time table and methods for Regional input / advice on candidates for ALAC appointment to the 2011 NomCom as regional representative voting members. In preparation for these ALAC Appointments I am now formally calling for Regional Input / Advice, and ask you to note that as only minor modifications (to point 5 marked *5) to the time table now below, were proposed and none effected the starting date, can all Regional Leaders please begin what processes they deem suitable between timetable point 1. 'Nominations Open' and point 6. 'ALAC Voting begins', to ensure that their advice to the ALAC on proposed candidates for this important role in ICANN is conducted as outlined. Proposed Time line and process for ALAC appointed NomCom members (1 from each Region) to serve on the 2011 Nominating Committee (to be completed by end August and *candidates must be willing and able to attend the Cartagena Meeting no. 39 in December this year. (see http://cartagena39.icann.org/) *NomCom positions* for 2011 committee (note term will begin in December 2010) Current Regional ALAC Appointed NomCom voting Members are: *ALAC-1 / AfRALO => Yaovi Atohoun ALAC-2 / APRALO => Hong Xue* has served 2 consecutive terms and therefore must be replaced for 2011. ALAC-3 / EURALO => Olivier M. J. Crepin-Leblond ALAC-4 / NARALO => Eduardo Diaz ALAC-5 / LACRALO => Jose Ovidio Salgueiro* * * *Current NomCom Members in seats 1,3,4 & 5 are able to serve a second consecutive term on the 2011 NomCom, but would need to be re affirmed as a preferred choice or sole candidate from their RALO's in keeping with the timetable below.* *Election Timetable* 1. Nominations Open: No later than 2359 UTC 23 July 2010 2. Nominations Close: on or before 2359 UTC 6 August 2010 3. Nomination Acceptance Deadline: on or before 2359 UTC 10 August 2010 4. Period for any select preferred RALO candidate: 11 August 2010 to 2359 UTC 15 August 2010 *5. ALAC Notification: RALOs to transmit all accepted nominations, with a recommendation of a preferred candidate if the RALO wishes to provide one: by 2359 UTC 16 August 2010 6. ALAC Voting Begins: 18 August 2010 7. ALAC Voting Ends: 2359 UTC 24 August 2010 8. Notification to NomCom of Appointees: No Later than 31 August 2010 *Requirements and Obligations:* Please click here<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?obligations_and_requirements_of_no…> for an overview on the general obligations and requirements for NomCom Delegates as specified by ICANN's organising instruments. *Received Nominations will be listed in a Table Form placed on a wiki page here https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_nomcom_delegates_2011 and list as we did in 2009 all candidates put forward by the RALO's along with any comments such as preferred status and any links to bio or candidate statements background materials etc., and then election results will also be recorded on this page. * Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

Following is a message that I have just sent to ICANN's Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Wilson. As noted, it was sent purely on my own behalf, although it was very briefly discussed at this week's ExCom meeting and there was general support. I suggest that at our meeting next week, the ALAC decide whether there is any interest in adopting this proposal, or something similar, as an ALAC statement. Given that time during our meetings is always very tight, I would suggest that any comments (negative or positive) be made on the mailing list prior to the meeting. Alan >To: Kevin Wilson <kevin.wilson(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > >Dear Kevin, > >At the ALAC Executive Committee wrap-up meeting in Brussels, you >confirmed what we already knew - that the current process for travel >support was unwieldy and expensive for ICANN and many (or perhaps >most) of the volunteer travelers were unhappy with the experience and results. > >Since you agree that the current process was less than optimal, and >I suspect that you would agree that minor tweaks are not likely to >fix the problems, I offer a new approach. I think that it may >address the overall concerns that ICANN has regarding fiduciary >responsibility while putting more control in the hands of the travelers. > >In short, I am suggesting that you optionally allow travelers to >make their own air travel arrangements, but subject to a number of >constraints. I am also offering one variant that will maximize the >benefit to ICANN and its constituent units of the budgeted travel funds. > >I believe that you will still need an "official" travel agent. I am >sure that many travelers will be happy to use them if the process >were streamlined. Moreover, they will play an essential role in >ensuring that the overall process costs are "reasonable", which >should be a prime the target. I do not know if you currently use the >same travel agency for staff travel as you do for volunteer travel, >but I would suggest that doing so maximizes the agent's desire to >keep ICANN happy on all counts, and guarantees them a substantial >amount of guaranteed business. > >I support the current allocation of travel by "slots" allocated per >group per meeting, but with an important variant I will discuss >later in this note. > >0. In the interest of transparency, I would suggest that whatever >air travel rules are used be applied equally to Board >members/liaisons as well as other volunteer travelers. > >1. Travel is based on economy or business class as per the current >rules. However, for long haul travel (flights over 6 hours or >overall travel time over 18 hours), I suggest that booking on >premium economy be allowed. Premium economy includes few of the real >perks of business class, but does afford a modest increase in >passenger comfort. > >2. Prior to starting travel for any given event, your travel agent >should compile a list of "ball-park" air fares for the list of >cities typically used by ICANN travelers. The list might include >50-60 cities but based on my personal experiences, it should not >take much time or effort to compile. I acknowledge that doing this >well will require a good travel agent who understands the issues >related to travel from and to locations that are "unusual" in the >sense of traditional business travel. If some needed cities are >omitted, they can be added later. Estimates should be based on fares >of regularly schedules "business oriented" airlines. By that I >exclude charter airlines, fares provided by consolidators and fares >offered by airlines that focus on vacation and tour-package >travelers - all of whom tend to provide very poor service to recover >from irregular operations. The estimate should include the service >fee that would be charged by the agent if they did the booking. > >3. I recommend that there still be an "exception" policy to handle >requests outside of the constraints described here, but there should >be far fewer of them. > >4. Hotel nights and per diem (if used - see later) should be based >on the need to be sufficiently rested for the first scheduled >meeting. I have included details of such scheduling in previous >messages, and can do so again, but I will not clutter this note with >such details. In short, the person should be allowed to arrive early >enough to get a full night's sleep the night before their first >meeting. For venues where flights only arrive in the evening, this >may mean that they be allowed to arrive a day early. > >5. Hotel nights and per diem should be based on departures that >allow the participant to attend all scheduled meetings. This should >include the ability to stay in their room until a reasonable number >of hours prior to flight time. Both this rule and the prior one are >equivalent to the "reasonable" constraint placed on staff travelers, >and volunteers should be offered no less. > >6. Air travel fairs up the $300 or 10% (which ever is greater) above >the estimate should be allowed. The $300 figure is what was used for >a number of years and (as far as I understand) resulted in a higher >level of traveler satisfaction and was not an unreasonable average >burden for ICANN. I have added the 10% to accommodate similar issues >for those travelers where business class is allowed. > >7. For those travelers who can provide their own air travel at >substantially below that of the estimate (perhaps the same $300 or >10%), ICANN should be willing to provide travel advances to pay for the ticket. > >8. If a traveler needs to arrive early or late due to the lack of >reasonable air options, the hotel and per diem should be covered by >ICANN. There will be relatively few such cases and they can be >easily audited or verified. Any such "extensions" are subject to >audit by ICANN with the penalty being permanent withdrawal of >self-reservation privileges. > >9. If there is a substantial amount to be saved on airfare by >scheduling an earlier arrival or later departure, such schedules >should be allowed with ICANN paying the additional hotel and per >diem, but only if the net savings is at least the greater of $300 >or 10% of the original estimate. If making their own reservations, >the traveler must document such savings. It is possible that the >traveller may not be working for those days, but ICANN is still >coming out ahead! > >10. For reservations made by the traveler, unless an exemption has >been granted, ICANN will reimburse no more that the lesser of the >airfare paid, converted into US$, or the original estimate plus the >greater of $300 or 10%. > >11. I suggest a variation of the strict slot principle. >Specifically, that the total airfare per group be compared to that >budgeted (with allowance for business class travel granted for >medical or size reasons), and that the group be allowed to use any >significant savings for other pre-approved travel purposes (either >to allow additional people to attend later ICANN meetings or for >other events that support the mission of the group. For Board >members, this should probably be tallied on an individual basis. > >12. I would suggest a *reasonable* deadline for submitting travel >expenses with a commitment by ICANN to pay promptly after submission >if the deadline is met. I would be happy to comment on "reasonable". > >Although not related to air travel, it could be that reimbursing >real and reasonable expenses instead of per diems would result in a >net savings to ICANN, but I question whether this is worth the >additional staff time required to administrate it, or the grief that >will be caused by the occasional rejection of claims. > >I am submitting this proposal on my own behalf, but with the general >support of the ALAC Executive Committee. The proposal will be >discussed at the ALAC meeting next week, and it is possible that the >ALAC as a whole may endorse this or a similar proposal.

10 21

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

At 22/07/2010 03:52 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Good to hear from you and hope all is well. > >Thank you for your reply and comments and you have my support for all >the points you shared/forwarded in your first email. I just forwarded >recommendations and/or thoughts. Yes, the current state is very >different from what it must have been in the past. > >Also just for the future, is it possible that when we forward >recommendations or ideas for improvements with out the intention of >creating further debate, the text be limited because I am finding it a >bit painful having each point being pondered and debated and me >responding whereas that wasn't the intention at all. Its a set of >thoughts/recommendation being based on an experience. Okay, I couldn't >frame point 2 validly but still. Well, I forwarded what I had written, so the size was what it was. I find it refreshing that there were comments of any form - sadly often not the case. If ALAC decides to do anything with this, timing is very important, so I thought it important to identify areas of difference and make sure they were understood. That is why I was trying to make sure I understood where you were just agreeing (always a pleasure!) and where you were proposing alternative answers. >Just an ending point, phone numbers won't work for us because that >becomes an overkill in our case. If I dial-out once, Pakistani global >roaming drains credit balance. Happens in many other countries around >here too. Again, its just a recommendation, it can be trashed. Problem is not unique to Pakistani roaming. You don't want to see what my Canadian company charges (which is why I always get a local SIM if available at a reasonable price). But if no other means of contact is possible, it is an option. In fact, usually one can find SOME ICANN staff or hotel staff willing to call them. I do think that the problem is real, but we need to find a more innovative way to address it than having a desk staffed 24-7. But in any case, that is an operational issue and not fully related to the travel arrangements. I do note that very unfortunately, at recent meetings, several people had to leave early due to emergencies, and ICANN staff addressed they needs SUPERBLY! Alan >Best > >Fouad

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010

As noted in my last reply to Fouad (we seem to have written these replies in parallel), I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I don't think it is one that we need to take up with the CFO. Alan At 22/07/2010 09:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >The existence of an emergency contact number is >just that -- for emergencies. If you'd note from >the spreadsheets that Alan sends out to all >travellers, even us rich-country folk have >roaming turned off when travelling. An on-site >emergency number can be dialled by a hotel >conciÃ¨rge, other ICANN staff, police or helpful >locals. Or you could send an SMS to it, which is >much cheaper than a call. (One possible >recommendation is that the emergency number >ought to be local to the host country ... at >least one travel staff phone should have a local >number, so that you don't have to call >California from Kenya to find someone in the >next room. Alan, could you possibly build that into your comments?)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

In reply to both Evan and Beau... I am only suggesting that it be ALLOWED and only if within the budget guidelines. I was specifically thinking of long haul flights. Although quite a number of airlines are now offering such service, my own experience is with British Airlines and Qantas. In both cases, there is a fair amount more leg and shoulder room, slightly more seat recline, a powerport. Service and food generally are on a par with economy, but those differences make a world of a change for a 6-14 hour flight. And if booked early, often does not cost all that much. Beau, I am not sure what you mean by "for fear that premium economy might be institutionalized". Evan, not sure what you mean by easier upgrades. Not true with any airline that I am familiar with. United's E+ is a joke, and a bad one at that. Alan At 21/07/2010 04:13 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >evan wrote: > >As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of >that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets >some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage >points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of >people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business >class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this >one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few >airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that >have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those >cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features >alone are worth it. > >> >I'd be careful about mentioning this, for fear premium economy might >get institutionalized. If you're talking about seat comfort, the >only premium economy worth flying is Virgin, and even then only >certain routes. On United premium economy means about four inches >more legroom in the usual uncomfortable cattle seat. It's better to >fly JetBlue economy than United premium. > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >Sent: Jul 21, 2010 3:34 PM > >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN Volunteer Air Travel proposal > > > >On 21 July 2010 15:13, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > >> Do you mean submit claims instead of per diem, or for air travel?? > >> > > > > > >I personally most like your proposal to let individuals make their own > >bookings if within budget. The ICANN appointed travel agents have just blown > >it too many times. Also, if someone knows the're eligible to go long enough > >in advance, they can book the flight months ahead (not weeks), saving ICANN > >many hundreds of dollars in costs. The formal process is so slow to get > >moving, many of the low fares are gone by the time they even send out the > >paperwork. > > > >Another good reason for the claims approach to booking air travel is that it > >allows the traveller to pay for the difference if the specific itinerary > >they want is too far over budget. So far it's been an absolute yes/no call > >with the traveller not being able to "top up" the cost of a more-expensive > >option. > > > >I also strongly approve of your comments dissuading against use of > >charter/vacation airlines. I was booked on one for part of my trip to > >Brussels (Thomas Cook Air) and wouldn't recommend that to an enemy. > > > >As for "premium economy", I'm not so sure. AFAIK the only real benefit of > >that fare is that it allows for no-cost or low-cost itinerary changes, lets > >some frequent flyers upgrade more easily and sometimes gives more mileage > >points. I'm not sure that such a policy would affect more than a handful of > >people, and even then provides them only an increased _chance_ of business > >class. As someone who might directly benefit from such a policy I think this > >one may be the hardest to defend. There are a few > >airlines<http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1314,00.html>that > >have an explicit "permium economy" area with more legroom; in those > >cases the fare can be justified but I'm not sure that the other features > >alone are worth it. > > > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0