- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Approved statement on the ALAC Review Final Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

Appended and attached is the statement approved at today's ALAC meeting. Alan -------------------------- ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. Implementation: While we agree with many of the WG's comments and recommendations, we also consider them to be a significant expansion of the ALAC's functions and responsibilities and stress that if they are to be achieved then they must be adequately resourced, and that those resources must be provided in a timely manner. We ask the WG to recommend to the board that budget be put aside so the WG's recommendations can be implemented in a timely manner and there is no need to wait for a future budget and/or planning cycle.

1 0

ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009) It is also appended here for your convenience. The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical). So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up. Alan ======================= ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome.

5 9

Board Liaison April Update
by Wendy Seltzer April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

The Board held a long meeting April 23, <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm> (with several of the items moved to the discussion agenda, including RAA). Minutes have not yet been posted. As Bruce Tonkin reported on the Council list and Alan forwarded here: Based upon the board discussion, it was determined that staff should prepare a letter to the DOC, confirming the benefits of the new RAA, prior to the Board's final approval. The board expects to act on the RAA amendments during its next board meeting in May 2009. The Board will hold a two-day strategic retreat mid-May. I expect major items are will include strategic discussions including security and stability functions and the conclusion of the JPA; new gTLDs; and organizational reviews (particularly the GNSO structure and stakeholder and constituency structures within it). In response to Adam's question, no decision on the location of the Africa meeting (after Seoul in Oct. 2009) has been announced. --Wendy

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft IRT Report
by Carlton Samuels April 27, 2009

April 27, 2009

Thanks for sharing this Alan. I'm too am no expert but sooooo many things are commonsensical if you understand and subscribe to principle. One of the recommendations is for a Globally Protected Marks List with a high threshold to entry. In context, here's an interesting formulation from the report: *"Certain categories of marks may warrant different levels of protection. For example, extremely strong globally‐recognized marks may justify a higher level of protection than lesser‐known marks; "* Um, I wonder what is the legal criteria that separates a "swoosh" from a "hemp leaf"? That Nike has loads of money to hire IP lawyers in every jurisdiction in the world but a small clothing manufacturer don't? So now, it appears these eminences would junk the principle of equal protection of the laws and give the green light to copycats, depending on the strength of cash of the mark holder? Say it ain't so! Is there a sense that a mark may become more "globally-recognized" - translate that term to mean valuable - in time? And who's counting that? I will tell you the story about a local Mom-and-Pop food shop owned by a family named McDonald and the McDonald Corporation - yes, the Ronald McDonald one - one day......... Carlton Samuels On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > The draft IRT report on Intellectual Property issues associated with gTLDs > was released yesterday. > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm > > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect… > > Note that although it is posted for a 30 day comment period, the final > report is due on 24 May 2009, and comments to be considered in the drafting > of the final report must be submitted by 6 May 2009 - 11 days from today. > > It is clear that the IRT group has done an enormous amount of work in a > very short time. I will leave it to experts in the field to comment on the > appropriateness of their recommendations. > > Alan > > >

3 2

Draft IRT report
by Alan Greenberg April 25, 2009

April 25, 2009

The draft IRT report on Intellectual Property issues associated with gTLDs was released yesterday. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect… Note that although it is posted for a 30 day comment period, the final report is due on 24 May 2009, and comments to be considered in the drafting of the final report must be submitted by 6 May 2009 - 11 days from today. It is clear that the IRT group has done an enormous amount of work in a very short time. I will leave it to experts in the field to comment on the appropriateness of their recommendations. Alan

1 0

ALAC Statement on the Draft Applicant Guidebook v2 for the Introduction of New gTLDs
by At-Large Staff April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

Dear Carole: At the Request of the Chair of the ALAC, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, we have the pleasure to provide by attachment the Statement of the ALAC on the Draft Applicant Guidebook and Related Materials for the Introduction of New gTLDs. By copy, this Statement is also being transmitted to the Board of Directors of ICANN as an Advisory Committee statement to the Board, to the ALAC Liaison to the Board, and Denise Michel. This statement is the result of a process begun when representatives of eighty-eight (88) At-Large Structures (³ALSes²) from five Regional At-Large Organizations (³RALOs²) representing ICANN's global At-Large community met in the At-Large Summit (ATLAS) as a part of the the 34th International ICANN meeting in Mexico City. Amongst the various activities of the Summit were five working groups on issues of concern to the At-Large community. One of the five was devoted to New gTLDs including IDN gTLDs. The final statements of all five working groups was compiled into the Declaration of the At-Large Summit, presented to the Board of ICANN at the Public Board Meeting in Mexico City. The text that follows is the compilation of all statements presented to the Board of ICANN at its public session in Mexico City. In order to ensure that the entire At-Large community had the opportunity to review the five statements, and for their perspectives to be taken into account, the ALAC resolved upon a process of consultation and amendment for the statements by resolution at its 24th March 2009 teleconference. As a result, the Summit Working Group statement was opened for public comments by the At-Large community on 1st April, closing on 11th April. The New GTLD Working Group then amended the statement to incorporate comments received. The Chair of the ALAC then requested the Staff to open a vote on the document, said vote opening on14th April and closing on 17th April. The results were announced on 19th April by the Staff, said result being that the Statement was endorsed by a vote of 13-0-0. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [council] Update on RAA
by Alan Greenberg April 23, 2009

April 23, 2009

For your information. >Subject: [council] Update on RAA >Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:27:06 +1000 >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hello All, > >There was a long discussion regarding the RAA amendments at the Board >meeting today. > >Personally I abstained from the discussion as I am employed by a >registrar, and the registrar would be subject to the registrar >accreditation agreement. > >It was noted that the Public Comment period ended on 6 April 2009 and >ICANN Staff provided a summary to the Board prior to the Board Meeting. > >In addition, ICANN had recent discussions with the US Department of >Commerce, following up on concerns originally raised in the DOC's 1 >August 2008 letter. > >Based upon the board discussion, it was determined that staff should >prepare a letter to the DOC, confirming the benefits of the new RAA, >prior to the Board's final approval. > >The board expects to act on the amendments during its next board meeting >in May 2009. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Board Meeting, April 22/23
by Wendy Seltzer April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

Thanks Alan, Several Board members have asked to move this to the regular agenda. The concern from ALAC and GNSO members is noted. --Wendy Alan Greenberg wrote: > Wendy, the RAA is on the agenda as an "informational item". A decision > on it was deferred at the Mexico City meeting, pending a 30 day comment > period. The period is now over and the comments (according to the staff > summary) supported adoption "the sooner the better". The Board itself in > Mexico committed "to act on approval of the amendments at the earliest > opportunity" following this public comment period. > > Do you have any insight into what is going on, why there is an apparent > delay, despite overwhelming (and unusual) bottom -up support for this > measure, all the more so because contracts that we miss between now and > the eventual approval will cost ICANN real money to get on board the new > RAA? > > Alan > > At 22/04/2009 09:14 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> The ICANN Board will meet tonight/tomorrow, with this agenda: >> >> C. Informational Agenda >> 1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update >

2 1

Board Meeting, April 22/23
by Wendy Seltzer April 22, 2009

April 22, 2009

The ICANN Board will meet tonight/tomorrow, with this agenda: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-23apr09.htm> Special Board Meeting - Proposed Agenda 23 April 2009 A. Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes – 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 2. Approval of Board Audit Committee’s Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for FY09-10 3. Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN’s Present Geographic Regions 4. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework 5. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for Posting of the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment 6. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation of Procedures for Board Nominations 7. Approval of Redelegation of .NG 8. Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment 9. Approval of Posting for Public Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency 10. Approval of Staff to Follow the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries B. Regular Agenda 1. GNSO Improvements 1. Implementation Efforts 2. GNSO Council Restructuring 2. New gTLD Implementation Updates 1. Implementation Recommendation Team 2. Geographical Names 3. Timeline 3. Approval of Seoul Budget - October 2009 Meeting Location 4. Agenda for Upcoming Board Retreat 5. Other Business 6. Board Executive Session C. Informational Agenda 1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update 2. .PRO Registry Agreement Renewal 3. IDNccTLD Update 4. Update on FY10 Operational Planning & Budget Process 5. Reports from Board Committees 1. Audit Committee – 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 2. Board Governance Committee – 11 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 3. Finance Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 4. IANA Committee – 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report 5. Public Participation Committee – 17 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 6. Risk Committee – 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Reports 7. Structural Improvements Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

3 2

***SPAM*** Good vacancy August Insurance USA.
by alac＠icann.org April 21, 2009

April 21, 2009

1 0