- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ACTION: Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Dear All, As requested by Sebastien Bachollet, the Draft ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation is available for comment on the wiki page listed below. Wiki page: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?draft_alac_statement_on_reconsider… You may add your comments directly to the page by clicking the orange comment button located at the top and bottom of the wiki page. Please submit your comments by Thursday, 14 May 23:59 UTC. Thank You. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Surprise on ICANN Brussels schedule page ...
by Rudi Vansnick May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

Dear colleagues, I was surprised looking at the webpage on the ICANN Brussels schedule http://brussels38.icann.org/sched-overview I do not see any announcement of ALAC meetings ... and in regards our EURALO Outreach activities this is really not very helpful as we are trying to get sponsors for this event. Can staff check why ALAC is not mentioned ? Best regards, Rudi Vansnick Internet Society Belgium vzw - president   Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN)  ALAC ccNSO liaison Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39  GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32  www.internetsociety.be

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

I have seen no comments on this statement. I would like to hope that this means there has been no violent objection to it. I leave it to the Chair to instruct staff to start the vote as suggested, or hold off. Alan At 05/05/2010 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO Prioritization Process >Recommendations > >At the last ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft a statement for >endorsement by the ALAC during the ongoing Public Comment period on >the "New GNSO Council Work Prioritization Process Recommendations" - >http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#wp. > >In summary, the recommendations describe in detail the process to be >used by the GNSO to prioritize its work. This document does not >discuss how the results of this process will be used in the policy >development management process - that is the next thing to consider. > >The recommendations discuss how GNSO Council "members" will >participate in the prioritization effort. The ALAC Liaison is not >formally a Council "member", but the Bylaws call for the Liaison to >be granted all privileges of members, with the explicit exception of >making and seconding motions, and voting. So my assumption was that >the Liaison *would* participate. > >I verified this with the current chairs of the GNSO Council and the >Work Team that drafted the recommendations. > >The draft statement can be found at >https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_prioritization_recommendat…. > > >The comment period ends on Sunday, May 16. Subject to the agreement >of the ALAC Chair, and I would suggest that we discuss this on the >list, and assuming there is general agreement with the statement, >that it (or a modification of it) be put to a 5-day vote beginning >on Monday, May 10. This will allow the vote to end and the statement >posted to the formal ICANN Public Comments no later than Friday, May >14. We could have a longer vote, or have it end on the weekend, but >that would mean that our staff would have to handle this during the >weekend. Given that I do not expect that it will be a controversial >issue, I see no reason to do this. > >Comments on the statement please! > >Alan > >PS I also am working on a second statement on the GNSO >Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated >Recommendations. You should have that shortly. > >

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the GNSO CCT Recommendations
by Alan Greenberg May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

At the last ALAC meeting, I was asked to draft a statement for the endorsement of the ALAC on the New GNSO Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations. In general, the report is worthy of supporting, although I have identified one area where I disagree with the recommendations. The report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf (not easy to find, since it is not pointed to by the Public Comment web page). The report is a rather difficult to follow and for a document discussing communications, I think that it is an example demonstrating that we need improvement. Nevertheless, it does identify a lot of areas where improvement is needed. Some of them are of specific interest to the GNSO, but many are particularly relevant to those who are trying to understand and/or influence GNSO policy discussions and to At-Large in particular. I was personally gratified to see "The GNSO Council has been very well served by the nonvoting ALAC liaison who participates actively on Council calls and in various policy working groups." and the recommendation that this be used as a model for engagement of other ICANN groups. My one significant concern is with a recommendation concerning Working Group Charters. The recommendation reads: >5.8 Lack of Known Desired Outcomes or Ultimate Objectives The CCT >believes that the GNSO's work and communications would be much more >efficient and easy to handle by all participants if proper context >is established, including a clear explanation of the outcome that >the Council hopes for in convening the Working Group or work >activity. The CCT recommends that Working Group charters be drafted >with careful attention to the issues or questions that should be >considered and the outcomes desired. The CCT acknowledges that the >Working Group Work Team is developing a set of guidelines that will >recommend more precision in the drafting of charter documents and it >fully endorses this effort. Although WG charters must carefully identify the scope of the problems or issue, I strongly object to the concept of the GNSO specifying the outcomes of a WG and in particular a PDP WG. The WG must be free to craft outcomes that really will address the issue, and not be constrained by the position of the GNSO prior to the start. The draft statement can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?gnso_cct_recommendations. The comment period ends on May 16. Our original intent was to have the is statement ready for discussion much earlier and to vote on it prior to the comment period ending. Due to the lateness of the draft, I would suggest that we allow most of this week to discuss, and start a 5 day vote at the end of the week, submitting the statement within the deadline if there is not a strong disagreement with the statement (and noting that a vote is in progress). Given that this is not an extremely high priority issue, our vote should be complete prior to the summarization. Alan

1 0

Survey from Geographic Regions Working Group
by Carlton Samuels May 4, 2010

May 4, 2010

Dear Colleagues: The Working Group has devised a survey we feel will provide a keener sense of our community's views on the geographic regions in ICANN. It can be accessed on Big Pulse at: Big Pulse survey instrument - https://www.bigpulse.com/p9044/register?l=en ( https://www.bigpulse.com/p9044/register?l=en) The At-Large community is invited to visit, register and fill out the survey. The survey link will be open for four (4) weeks through Tuesday 1 June. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels

1 0

ICM Vote
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010

I note that in the text on the Wiki at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_icm_application_for_t…, the secnd paragraph of the NARALO statement reads "The NARALO members present on the call considered this to be a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." As discussed amongs the NARALO and confirmed during the 27 April ALAC teleconference, it should read "The consensus of the meeting was that this was a free speech issue and as such the establishment of the domain should not be refused." Also, there is no need to repeat the statement twice... Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 30, 2010

April 30, 2010

Indeed we did Avri there is an AI for staff to put the preamble on the font of it explaining the BG of our statements in the usual way and bump it over to you and Robyn c.c. to Adam SO I expect you'll see it VERY shortly... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 30 April 2010 19:21, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Did you approve sending the message as a joint ALAC/NCSG Statement? > > Thanks > > a. > > On 22 Apr 2010, at 03:05, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > > Hi Avri, > > > > Our ALAC meeting is next week Tue 27th 1400 UTC and I'm happy to put this > (Current Draft attached to this message) up on the Agenda for formal ALAC > support as Joint ALAC-NCSG Statement and to assist in this I have sent thie > reply to you c.c. to the ALAC Working List to ensure we give the opportunity > for any pre meeting feedback from the ALAC and Regional Leadership... > > > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > > > > > > > > On 22 April 2010 15:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > hi, > > > > At yesterday NCSG meeting I was asked what was happening with this. > > > > Can we send it in as a joint statement? I have been > authorized/instructed to send it in as a NCSG statement if we do not have > ALAC approval to act at this time - though we would prefer to send it as a > joint statement. > > > > Please get back to me on this. We can wait if you are in the midst of an > approval process. > > > > thanks > > a. > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > >> Date: 11 April 2010 11:05:11 EDT > >> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >> Subject: Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution > >> > >> did anyone receive this? > >> do we want to complete this action or has the time and opportunity > passed us by? > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> > >>> Date: 1 April 2010 16:19:05 EDT > >>> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >>> Subject: Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> So we have got text which I think is complete. > >>> and then we left nairobi and pretty much forgot about it. > >>> > >>> what do we do now? > >>> > >>> Release it singed by both ALAC and NCSG? > >>> > >>> or? > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> a. > >>> > >>> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>>> From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > >>>> Date: 12 March 2010 04:39:15 EST > >>>> To: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >>>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution > >>>> > >>>> I've made just a few edits to the attached document (nothing > substantive). Take a look and let me know what you think. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Robin > >>>> > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Avri, thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm happy with this text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Evan, are you OK with it? What's our next step for the ALAC? > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At 11:17 AM +0300 3/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Adam and I sat together to do a final edit of the language that came > out of yesterday's discussion between ALAC and NCSG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As our respective groups have entrusted us with the final edit, I am > hoping we can finish this today. Please let the rest of us know if you have > any objections to the text attached to this email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Draft ALAC-NCUC Stat#456E5F.doc > (WDBN/«IC») (00456E5F) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> IP JUSTICE > >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director > >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > <rdg-Draft ALAC-NCUC Statement on Transparency of Staff Documents.doc> > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 22, 2010

April 22, 2010

Hi Avri, Our ALAC meeting is next week Tue 27th 1400 UTC and I'm happy to put this (Current Draft attached to this message) up on the Agenda for formal ALAC support as Joint ALAC-NCSG Statement and to assist in this I have sent thie reply to you c.c. to the ALAC Working List to ensure we give the opportunity for any pre meeting feedback from the ALAC and Regional Leadership... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 22 April 2010 15:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > hi, > > At yesterday NCSG meeting I was asked what was happening with this. > > Can we send it in as a joint statement? I have been authorized/instructed > to send it in as a NCSG statement if we do not have ALAC approval to act at > this time - though we would prefer to send it as a joint statement. > > Please get back to me on this. We can wait if you are in the midst of an > approval process. > > thanks > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > *Date: *11 April 2010 11:05:11 EDT > *To: *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Subject: **Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution* > > did anyone receive this? > do we want to complete this action or has the time and opportunity passed > us by? > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> > *Date: *1 April 2010 16:19:05 EDT > *To: *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Subject: **Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution* > > Hi, > > So we have got text which I think is complete. > and then we left nairobi and pretty much forgot about it. > > what do we do now? > > Release it singed by both ALAC and NCSG? > > or? > > thanks > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > *Date: *12 March 2010 04:39:15 EST > *To: *Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Cc: *Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > *Subject: **Re: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution > * > > I've made just a few edits to the attached document (nothing substantive). > Take a look and let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Avri, thanks. > > I'm happy with this text. > > Evan, are you OK with it? What's our next step for the ALAC? > > Adam > > > > > > At 11:17 AM +0300 3/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Adam and I sat together to do a final edit of the language that came out of > yesterday's discussion between ALAC and NCSG. > > As our respective groups have entrusted us with the final edit, I am hoping > we can finish this today. Please let the rest of us know if you have any > objections to the text attached to this email. > > thanks > > a. > > Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Draft ALAC-NCUC Stat#456E5F.doc > (WDBN/«IC») (00456E5F) > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > > > > > >

1 0

ALAC Position on VeriSign Domain Name Exchange Service request
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

The ALAC has now formally endorsed the following statement. Alan Greenberg ----------------------------- The ALAC cautions against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

1 0

Weather and the Brussels meeting
by Evan Leibovitch April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

In keeping with past practice, I am awaiting notice from GoDaddy and ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency that it will be too dangerous for them to travel to the next ICANN meeting in Brussels. I have not yet had any confirmation of the rumour that they want to stage an alternate meeting, to be held at a location about 10km east of Naples, Italy. - Evan

2 1