- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010]
by Beau Brendler July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

I like the general assemblies idea The summit was a more effective policymaking activity than ALAC, so a similar function should figure prominently in future ALAC ops -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jul 30, 2009 3:55 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] [Fwd: Travel Support for At-Large FY 2010] > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The meeting was not held to decide on the fate of RALOs or their >> budgets. I was a wrap-up to make sure that the results of the weeks's >> meetings were followed up on and that there were no omissions in the >> various "to be done" lists. We asked Kevin and Steve to join us to >> make sure we understood the current travel situation and tried to >> cover things to improve the Seoul meeting. >> >> I have said in public (probably to you as well as others) that if this >> is indeed the situation for this budget year, perhaps it is too late >> to change it, but we still need to try to fix it in future years. I >> spend quite a while on Saturday morning talking to Kevin about the >> budget analysis I did last fall, to try to make sure that he >> understood that this year's At-Large budget is not a continuation of >> the status-quo, but a cut. (For the record, I did this as the person >> who had spent the most time on travel budget issues over the last two >> years, and not as a ExCom member - my discussions predated my taking >> on that role.) He said he would go home and root around to understand >> what happened. I plan to talk to him this week to find out if I was >> successful. > >Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation -- though I still think it would >have helped had there been a wider audience for that session. > >What do you think about my idea for biennial general assemblies as a way >to meet the ICANN budget folks half-way? > >- 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

Proposal for Creating an At-Large Review WG Implementation Plan
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 29, 2009

July 29, 2009

Dear ALAC and Community members: As you know, a number of agenda items from the meeting of the 28th will be addressed at a special session of the ALAC (date to be chosen by doodle). We would like to propose the following for consideration at that time, as an outline of how to begin to give effect to the Board's resolution to adopt the recommendations of the At-Large Review Working Group's Final Report. 1. Staff will create a document showing the recommendations, at a high level. 2. Underneath each major recommendation, the staff would propose an initial list of those activities or improvements to processes which seem relevant. 3. Staff would propose relative priority to each, at a high level ('near term' - 3-6 months; 'medium term' - 6-9 months; 'longer term - 9 months or longer). We would do under the premise that the community does not want to spend a majority of its time or energy engaged in process improvements, and that it is therefore important the work undertaken is not to the detriment to the community's other priorities, but rather is complementary to them. 3. All of the above would then be provided for the At-Large community to review, for a 30-day period. During that time, the community members could propose the addition of new subjects, deletion or modification of existing subjects, ask questions and provide any other comments they think relevant. 4. During the comment period, special purpose teleconferences would be organised for community members to gather and discuss all of the above, and provide additional input and ideas. 5. At the end of the comment period, a new version of the document would be produced incorporating the views expressed. This could then be subjected to a vote of the ALAC; at the same time, the staff could begin to look at the resourcing of the various initiatives. The objective of all this is that we would have, in good time for the Seoul meeting, a high-level plan for implementation of the review working group proposals which the Board approved. This, in turn, could then be the subject of discussions at the face-to-face meetings in Seoul. It is worth noting that the Board has frequently directed plans of this type to general ICANN public comment periods, and it may wish to do so in this instance - though there is no certainty that it would do so. The procedure outlined above is not meant to suggest that we staffers wish to set the agenda for the improvements - on the contrary, we believe that would be precisely the wrong way to proceed. We believe it is essential that At-Large feel the programme of work ultimately undertaken is to its benefit and serves its interests. That is only possible if At-Large is in the 'driving seat' with respect to the entire programme. We have proposed originating a draft as we know that it is often easier to get the 'creative juices flowing' on an issue if there is a 'strawman' proposal to review, rather than simply handing a large group of people distributed throughout the world a blank sheet of paper. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track Proposal v3
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

Hello, While incorporating comments in the draft comment statement, in the context of "ALAC raises the following comments with a view to contribute to the process of evolving the Plan further as a complete Plan so as to ensure that IDN TLDs are smoothly implemented globally without technical or policy related implementation issues and seamlessly integrated in the domain name system. At the same time ALAC empathizes that all that needs to be examined needs to be examined expeditiously as expressed in the opinion within that 'Fast-track IDN ccTLDs must be implemented as planned, i.e. in Q4 of 2009 as the latest, to meet the "pressing need" of non-ASCII user community", I have added the following statement contextually. "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter-constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave way for implementation." The statement with changes is at page https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. Apart from non-substantive, structural changes in the process of merging comments with the original draft comment statement, the above addition related to focused inter-constituency meetings on IDN TLDs at the next ICANN meeting is an important addition that DID NOT form part of the draft comment while it was open for alac comments during the last 7 days. Added contextually to reconcile the need for urgency and the necessity for the required further work. I hope this is permissible post comment period, and be accepted as part of the statement to vote. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello CLO, > > I have incorporate the comments and prepared a more concise comment as the > ALAC comment on the 3rd revision of the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN > ccTLDs. This is at page > https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. > > By a copy of this message to staff I am requesting that this may please be > copied to the alac docs page and anywhere else as may be required or emailed > to initiate the voting process. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mathias, >> >> Thanks. >> >> Will work on this today. And send you a revision incorporating comments in >> a few hours. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthias Langenegger < >> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Siva, >>> >>> According to the At-Large Policy Development schedule, the final draft of >>> the At-Large Comment on the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLD Fast >>> Track Process Revision 3 is due today. Did you receive a response to your >>> Email from Wednesday and did you have a chance to revise the Draft >>> Statement? As soon as we receive the final Draft Statement from you we will >>> start the ALAC vote on the document. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Matthias Langenegger >>> At-Large Coordination Officer >>> Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> Phone: +41 79 644 65 35 >>> Skype: matthiaslangenegger >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ >>> idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy [isolatedn(a)gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:21 AM >>> To: ALAC Internal List >>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Tina Dam; idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track >>> Proposal v3 >>> >>> Hello CLO >>> >>> The revised draft incorporating comments is due tomorrow (9th July) and >>> the >>> statement has to go to alac vote tomorrow. Apart from incorporating >>> comments, should any of the nine points need to be DELETED ? >>> >>> Please advise. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello Tina >>> > >>> > The points raised in point 7,8,9 in the ALAC draft comment in >>> reference to >>> > the absence of links to documents etc. are general, minor observations, >>> and >>> > to be taken as a suggestion for maintaining the completeness of the >>> draft >>> > implementation report. It was NOT implied that this is a serious >>> omission, >>> > nor implied that there was any reason for any intent. >>> > >>> > The draft comments may please NOT be seen as directed to IDN staff, and >>> > certainly there was no misunderstanding about staff / working groups >>> that >>> > would have compiled the third revison of the plan on which the draft >>> > comments were prepared. >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> > IDN liaision. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < >>> > nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear IDN Working Group and ALAC members: >>> >> >>> >> Tina Dan at ICANN had a look at the draft statement, and thought I >>> should >>> >> advise you of the following, which she thinks may be a >>> misunderstanding: >>> >> >>> >> In 7-8-9, where it appears the ALAC is understanding the Module 7 >>> revision >>> >> to be that there are no outstanding issues. In fact all outstanding >>> issues >>> >> related to financial considerations, relationship between ICANN and >>> manager, >>> >> and variant management are still outstanding, hence the supporting >>> papers. >>> >> We simply provided supporting papers as opposed to keeping these long >>> >> discussions in Module 7. >>> >> It is correct that we did not add link to the supporting papers in the >>> >> Draft Implementation Plan. This was difficult to do because of the >>> posting >>> >> deadlines and instead we posted all papers together at: >>> >> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may09-en.htm >>> >> I hope this is of use to you. Of course if you have any questions >>> related >>> >> to the above, I'm sure Tina would be happy to help. >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> >> >>> >> Director for At-Large >>> >> >>> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >> >>> >> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >>> >> >>> >> USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 >>> >> >>> >> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> >> >>> >> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >>> >> >>> >> email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org >>> >> >>> >> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >>> Skype: >>> >> nashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> ALAC-Internal mailing list >>> >> ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… >>> >> >>> >> ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IDN-WG mailing list >>> IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… >>> >>> IDN WG Wiki: >>> https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy >>> >> >> >

3 5

ALAC and ALAC Liaison Position Description
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

As discussed at our meeting in Sydney, work is progressing on setting up policies to ensure active participation of ALAC members. There were two decisions that came out of that meeting (according to my notes): 1. We need a comprehensive Position Description before we can work on the policy on how to enforce it. 2. We should continue work on this as a committee-of-the-whole (that is, the entire ALAC). At the request of the Chair, ICANN staff were asked to draft an initial Position Description (PD). It was reviewed at the last ExCom meeting (following some extensive discussion on this and other lists). Three changes were made: 1. A change was made to ensure that the PD was aligned with the recommendations of the ALAC Review Report as accepted by the ICANN Board. 2. A section on recommendation to the Nominating Committee was removed as it contained errors in fact, and because recommendations to the NomCom, although very important, do not belong in the PD. 3. Sections were numbered to make it easier to comment on particular parts. The revised PD can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?draft_alac_pd. Please review this document and add comments at the bottom (I have already added my initial comments there). To make sure that everyone is commenting on the same document, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE PD ITSELF, even if you have editing rights. If you agree with someone else's comments, please say so. If you disagree with any of the original text or someone else's comments, please also say so. Periodically, I or staff will merge the comments into the document to make it easier to read. Please note that this document is just the PD, not the policy on how we will try to enforce it. That policy is needed, but let's not confuse the two. This document may be and should be shared within your RALOs (hopefully we will soon have translations that will facilitate this). If there are comments from within the RALOs, it would be useful to know to what extent they are supported by RALO leadership and the regional ALAC members. Alan

1 0

Draft statement on registrant rights responsibilities
by Evan Leibovitch July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

Prepared by staff at the request of a joint ALAC/GNSO effort https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?draft_summary_of_registrant_righ… Remember, this is simply a list of what already exists, not of what additional we might want to be there. - Evan

1 0

registrar issues (from /.)
by Gareth Shearman July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/22/2023247/Registrars-Still-Ignoring-I… Gareth Shearman

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 19, 2009

July 19, 2009

Dear All, As per Sébastien Bachollet's request please find attached the Draft ALAC Statement on the document entitled "Improving Institutional Confidence - The Way Forward" which was published by the President's Strategy Committee on May 31st. This Draft Statement should have sent to you on July 1st but Sébastien was on holidays during the last couple of days and experienced problems when he tried to access his files remotely. A revised version of the Draft Statement incorporating all comments received on the attached version by the members of the ALAC and the Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN ill be posted in early August for full community feedback. Please comment on the current version by responding to this email. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by Alan Greenberg July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Two comments: At 14/07/2009 07:49 PM, carlos aguirre wrote: > >Another Question: Why EX Comm is currently >formed by Nom Comm appointees, and no by RALO >representatives?, Nom Comm appointees are better >user representatives than RALO representatives? I don`t think so. First, my understanding is that both Cheryl and Sébastien are elected by their RALOs and are not NomCom appointees. Second, all four officers positions were filled by candidates who were not opposed - two from RALOs, two from NomCom. And if they had been opposed, whoever was elected would have been selected by the majority of voters, as democracy dictates. NomCom appointees are not de facto better user representatives than RALO representatives, but perhaps not de facto worse either. At 14/07/2009 08:19 PM, Andres Piazza wrote: >About the last part, I don´t think that anyone could disagree with, for >example, ALAN´s words. But this is not an easy matter to raise. Firstly, >because some of the analysis are made in quantity matters, but not with a >complete vision. I share many of the comments but be carefull, who is who to >be jugdamental to the performance of other ALAC Members? > >Specially RALO Leaders! Are we in a position to say something so strongly >about ALAC Members from our region? The whole RALO elected them, not just >ourselves. And also, they or some other person could also come with some >criticism with the role of one of us, RALO leaders. And they could use many >different criteria to analyze that (for example: "What are RALO Leaders from >that region that hardly can encourage 1 or 2 ALS rep to be involved in >remote participation during the meeting?. I put this example because FOR ME, >in LACRALO, a lot of work is done in private emails, chats, calls, with >members from the region to encourage, answer doubts, and etc etc, more that >to be in some particular WG providing what is just my personal opinion). I >could continue the whole night providing examples, but is not the sense. > >I´m not saying that this "performance discussion" shouldn´t be raised, but >just to be careful and not to put this as an argument against other idea >that has been displayed. I guess we may have a different vision here. In my mind, RALO leaders are elected by their ALSs to take responsibility for their RALO. That is what leadership is all about. I agree that this is potentially a very difficult job. It is not easy to formally assess performance in cases such as this, and particularly when the person being assessed is a colleague. But that is the job that RALO leaders have been given, and they must use all of their skills to try to understand how effective their ALAC representatives are. And they will no doubt have to talk to other ALAC members to try to make this assessment. It is important (in my mind) to differentiate between someone who is working effectively within the RALO, and someone who is working well within the ALAC. You can have one without the other (in both directions). So should we be careful in both setting up the rules and then carrying them out? Most certainly! But ignoring the responsibility should not be one of the options. Alan

8 12

Call for Agenda Items for 30 July 2009 Board Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Please note the July 20 deadline for items for the Board agenda. Let me know if there are things ALAC would like to recommend for the agenda. The Board resolved in Sydney that the item of ALAC Board members be moved there, and it's likely that IRT will be on the agenda. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Diane Schroeder writes: The next Board meeting is scheduled for 30 July 2009 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda and materials will be distributed 7 days before the meeting. If you have any items that you would like to be included on the agenda please send them to me by 20:00 UTC on Monday 20 July 2009. Items submitted will be considered by the Chairman, in discussion with the Vice Chair and CEO, at their agenda setting call before the meeting. Items that are completed, and ready for board action such as written Committee recommendations are likely to be given higher priority than unwritten materials. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by At-Large Staff July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Dear Excom: We've taken the liberty of including a number of items for your agenda tomorrow, though of course it is a draft agenda until you adopt it. You'll recall mention of these items previously and that the Staff were asked to produce drafts in relation to items 3 and 4 at your meeting at the end of the Sydney meeting. The agenda may be reviewed at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?15_july_2009. ---- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

8 9