- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Rules of Procedure (RoP) re-write
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

We are clearly not going to have any time to discuss this as a group in Mexico City, but I would like to ask all of you to think about what you believe needs to be changed in any way. We have already identified: Rules associated with the ExCom and Performance Guidelines, but input on those is certainly welcome. I am also interested in hearing how detailed and exhaustive you believe the RoP should be. Input is welcome via e-mail (privately or to the list) and in person while in Mexico City. You can find the current version ALAC/2007/1/1.Rev10 in English French and Spanish at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure. Alan

5 6

Draft report to Board on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

As you are no doubt aware, the Board of Directors asked the At-Large and GNSO Communities to jointly develop a set of recommendations on the subject of individual user involvement in the GNSO. We asked for a deadline extension to Friday, Feb. 20th, and that was granted by the Board. The draft statement is attached. The working group members were: GNSO: James Bladel, Avri Doria, William Drake, Robin Gross, Zahid Jamil, Milton Mueller, Mary Wong ALAC: Carlos Aguirre, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Adam Peake, Vanda Scartezini, Baudouin Schombe, Danny Younger (Danny Younger has chosen to disassociate himself from this Statement and the recommendations therein) Although the report is still open for correcting typographical and similar errors or for the addition of minority comments by WG members, it is essentially completed. I must say that when I entered into this process, I did not know if we could indeed get a statement that would be endorsed by such a wide variety of participants. For that reason, I am quite pleased with this outcome and commend all of the WG members for their hard work. Alan

1 0

gTLD applicant's guide - version 2
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

FYI http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-redline-18feb09-en.pdf Patrick

1 0

WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and I will post the location of the MP3 as soon as I get it. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Twitter and the Users Voice
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 17, 2009

Feb. 17, 2009

Dear Andres: What is demonstrated by the story is the value of direct action. In this regard and assuming ICANN is connected, Twitter or other social media could be additional tools for our use in communicating with ICANN. This is not to say some useful tools don't already exist. Some are hosted by ICANN itself! There are entire blogs dedicated to ICANN issues. Ditto wikis. Even these LACRALO email discussion lists qualify! Unfortunately, not enough of us from LACRALO take the time to connect and comment on issues that would be of interest to ordinary users. And even with comments, ICANN does not have a strong track record of responding to social pressure. This is not to say we should despair. For it appears ICANN tends to be an equal opportunist for non-responsiveness, as evidenced by the recently published gripes of the United States Government. Kind regards, Carlton 2009/2/17 Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com> > > Estimados (english below) > > > El summit será una interesante oportunidad para debatir cuestiones tales > como la que aquí ponemos a su consideración. ¿Como llevar la voz de los > usuarios individuales en casos como este? ¿Más allá del caso legal, que rol > nos compete y que podemos hacer desde At Large? > > > > El resumen del "conflicto" entre cvander y GoDaddy lo pueden encontrar, en > español, en > http://alt1040.com/2009/02/le-roban-maestrosdelwebcom-y-forosdelwebcom-a-ch…, > sus comentarios y notas relacionadas. > > > > AGEIA DENSI ha posteado al respecto en http://ar.ageiandensi.org > > > > Esperamos feedback al respecto. > > > > Saludos, > > > > Andrés > > > > ---- > > > > Dear All, > > > > The summit will be an excelent opportunity to start new debates related to > matters such us this we put here. ¿How is possible to carry the individual > users voice? ¿Far from the Legal Case, how can At Large act in this kind of > issues? > > > > An english review of cvander and GoDaddy "conflict" can be seen here: > http://www.domainnamenews.com/registrars/twitter-users-gang-up-on-godaddy/4… > > > > AGEIA DENSI made also a post, in spanish. http://ar.ageiadensi.org > > > > We look forward for feedback here. > > > > Regards, > > > > Andrés > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia > Contest > http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >

2 1

Twiter and Individual Users Voice
by Andres Piazza Feb. 17, 2009

Feb. 17, 2009

Estimados (english below) El summit será una interesante oportunidad para debatir cuestiones tales como la que aquí ponemos a su consideración. ¿Como llevar la voz de los usuarios individuales en casos como este? ¿Más allá del caso legal, que rol nos compete y que podemos hacer desde At Large? El resumen del "conflicto" entre cvander y GoDaddy lo pueden encontrar, en español, en HYPERLINK "http://alt1040.com/2009/02/le-roban-maestrosdelwebcom-y-forosdelwebcom-a-ch ristian-van-der-henst" \nhttp://alt1040.com/2009/02/le-roban-maestrosdelwebcom-y-forosdelwebcom-a-c hristian-van-der-henst, sus comentarios y notas relacionadas. AGEIA DENSI ha posteado al respecto en HYPERLINK "http://ar.ageiandensi.org/" \nhttp://ar.ageiandensi.org Esperamos feedback al respecto. Saludos, Andrés ---- Dear All, The summit will be an excelent opportunity to start new debates related to matters such us this we put here. ¿How is possible to carry the individual users voice? ¿Far from the Legal Case, how can At Large act in this kind of issues? An english review of cvander and GoDaddy "conflict" can be seen here: HYPERLINK "http://www.domainnamenews.com/registrars/twitter-users-gang-up-on-godaddy/4 001" \nhttp://www.domainnamenews.com/registrars/twitter-users-gang-up-on-godaddy/ 4001 AGEIA DENSI made also a post, in spanish. HYPERLINK "http://ar.ageiadensi.org/" \nhttp://ar.ageiadensi.org We look forward for feedback here. Regards, Andrés Andrés Piazza Research Director AGEIA DENSI Dot Mobi Policy Advisory Board Member HYPERLINK "http://ar.ageiadensi.org"http://ar.ageiadensi.org HYPERLINK "http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar"http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar HYPERLINK "http://advisorygroup.mobi/policy_advisory.htm"http://advisorygroup.mobi/pol icy_advisory.htm No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1957 - Release Date: 17/02/2009 07:07 a.m.

1 0

Regional Advice - CETIC AJB, AUI Peru and Internauta Venezuela certification as ALS
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 13, 2009

Feb. 13, 2009

Dear Nick: We posted an inquiry to the LACRALO list on January 23, 2009 seeking the advice and consent of the membership for confirmation of CETIC AJB, AUI Peru and Internauta Venezuela as At Large Structures within LACRALO. There being no objection and in conjunction with the strong expressions of support from Internauta Argentina, Internauta Brasil and Internauta Chile, the LACRALO Secretariat is pleased to report a NO OBJECTION from LACRALO. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels LACRALO Secretariat

1 0

New Socialtext wiki software
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

For those who may have found the "Dashboard" link useful to move between parts of the Wiki, it is still there, but now called "Home", still near the upper left of all pages. Alan

1 0

Mexico City Meeting Schedule Published
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 9, 2009

Feb. 9, 2009

Thanks to GNSO Secretariat Glen de Saint Géry. ================= The schedule for the upcoming meeting in Mexico City on 1-6 March is now published on the <http://mex.icann.org/>Mexico City Meeting Website. http://mex.icann.org/ <http://mex.icann.org/node/2429>You can view the full schedule here. http://mex.icann.org/node/2429 The schedule format has been redesigned to present a clear picture of the overall structure of the meeting, identifying the different sessions, rooms, and their associated time slots. Extensive use of standardized session and break times will provide a buffer between sessions to facilitate a smooth meeting flow and allow more time for delegate interaction. Other parts of the schedule that we wish to draw the community's attention to include: Increase in time allocated to Public Forum, with buffers to allow for unexpected overruns. A 90-minute Q&A session dedicated to the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook on Monday, 2 March. A Joint Public Meeting on Monday afternoon where representatives from the different Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will discuss and debate the issues of most importance to them. Everyone is invited to attend and a feedback session at the end will allow for commentary from the floor. An At-Large Summit will open on Saturday at the Sheraton, with a closing report to the community just prior to Thursday's Public Forum. Additional sessions will run in the nearby Hotel Melia on Sunday and Tuesday. A number of introductory sessions covering new gTLDs, IDNs and ICANN itself are designed to give first-time attendees an overview of the organization and its work. The community is invited to attend a public meeting of the new Public Participation Board Committee on Wednesday to discuss ways of improving participation within ICANN. An e-Crime Workshop is slated for Wednesday afternoon. Staff updates are now scheduled just before Friday's Board meeting to allow for presentations that reflect community feedback and give more time for public forums. We hope the community find the new schedule format useful and look forward to seeing you all in Mexico City.

1 0

Motion on Individual Users in the GNSO.
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 2, 2009

Feb. 2, 2009

At 29/01/2009 05:42 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >Motion 4 >Motion re: Individual Users in the GNSO >======================================= >Motion proposed by Chuck Gomes seconded by Bill >Drake with friendly amendments by Alan Greenberg >Whereas: > * On 11 December 2008, the ICANN Board > approved Resolution 2008-12-11-02 seeking a > recommendation on how to incorporate the > legitimate interests of individual Internet > users in the GNSO in constructive yet > non-duplicative ways and requesting that the > recommendation should be submitted no later > than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board. > * In an email message to the GNSO Council > list dated 20 January 2009, the ICANN Vice > President, Policy Development clarified that > the11 December Resolution is an effort to help > the Board identify a strategic solution that > balances ALAC/At-Large and GNSO opportunities > for all user and registrant stakeholders. > * The Working Group on GNSO Council > Restructuring Report sent to the ICANN Board of > Directors on 25 July 2008 recommended that the > Non-Contracted Party/User House would be open > to membership of all interested parties that > use or provide services for the Internet, with > the obvious exclusion of the contracted parties > and should explicitly not be restricted to > domain registrants as recommended by the BGC > and that such recommendation was made in > response to the suggestion of the ALAC Liaison to the Council. > * The GNSO Council Chair previously > contacted the ALAC Chair and the GNSO ALAC Liaison to discuss this topic. > * The potential members of the two GNSO > Council Non-Contracted Party Stakeholder Groups > have been tasked with submitting proposed > Stakeholder Group Charters to the ICANN Board > prior to the Board meeting on 6 March 2009. >Resolve: > * The Council requests the GNSO Council ALAC > Liaison in consultation with the ALAC Chair to: > * Determine whether the ALAC and > At-Large community have any concerns with > regard to the recommendation that membership in > the Non-Contracted Party/User House would be > open to individual Internet users in addition > to domain name registrants and, if so, to > communicate those concerns to the GNSO Council as soon as practical The ALAC and At-Large continue to support having users (which includes registrants) involved in the Non-contracted Party/User House of the GNSO. Our initial reply to the Board is appended below. > * Determine whether the ALAC and At-Large > community would like the GNSO to identify some > user representatives, especially individual > users, who would be willing to work with the > ALAC and At-Large community to develop a > recommendation regarding the Boards request > that could be forwarded to the appropriate > groups for their consideration in developing a > stakeholder group charter and to the Board for > action on GNSO improvement recommendations. We are most certainly interested. As noted in our initial response to the Board, we are committed to responding to the Board by February 20. Our intent is to try to reach some common ground with the GNSO-names individuals. To the extent that we do or do not meet this goal, our response to the Board will note it. >If in either case the ALAC or At-large community >do not accept this proposal the GNSO council may reconsider the issue. > * Provide weekly progress reports to the > Council list regarding the above. > > * The Council directs the Council Chair to: > * Apologize to the Board that it failed > to meet the Board established deadline of 24 January > * Inform the Board that the GNSO: > * Is awaiting information from the ALAC. > * Is willing in cooperation with > users to identify user representatives, > especially individual users, who would be > willing to work with the ALAC and At-Large > community to develop a recommendation. > * Will promptly consider next steps > and respond to the Board as quickly as possible > after requested information is received from > the ALAC as well any recommendation that may be > developed by the ALAC and At-Large community. >The motion passed unanimously by voice vote *Letter from the Chair of the ALAC to the Chair of the Board of ICANN* I write to you today in connection with ICANN Board Resolution 2008-12-11-02. Whilst the resolution asked that a recommendation on the modalities for including Individual Internet users in the GNSO should be presented to the board by 24^th January, the various parties have been unable to conclude work in the timeframe provided. Considering that much of the available time between 11^th December and 24^th January was over the festive season, I'm sure you and the other board members will understand that whilst we are working on the question, as volunteers during a major family holiday we have had less time for this issue than would otherwise be the case. With respect to At-Large we are also very busy with new gTLDs, the ALAC Review, and the organisation of the At-Large Summit; the Board's request really couldn't have come at a worse time. Nevertheless we are working on the question. I have had discussions with Avri Doria, GNSO Council Chair, on how to convene the various interested parties and I compliment her efforts to encourage constructive work on this question. Unfortunately the modalities for joint work by all interested parties has in itself proven controversial enough that no meeting of that kind has taken place yet, it does appear that things are moving in a positive direction and that discussions of a suitably representative nature will be forthcoming. In the meantime, At-Large has convened a regionally-balanced ad-hoc working group and we have committed to having a considered response not later than 20^th February, irrespective of what efforts involving broader interests is able to produce. What we can say to you at this point is the following: * At-Large and ALAC does not believe that the answer to individual Internet user participation in the GNSO requires -- or is even well-served -- by simply inserting the At-Large community's structures into the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. In fact, we believe that would be both confusing to the community and quite counterproductive. * The concept of opening the GNSO to "users" instead of "registrants" was included in the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring at the instigation of the ALAC. We remain convinced that the GNSO must include meaningful participation for those speaking on behalf of individual Internet users within both the commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. But to be clear, our definition of "user" includes registrants. * "meaningful participation" in this context means that those engaged on behalf of individual Internet users must feel that their voices are influential and effective and equal to the voices of other groups in their Stakeholder Group. Without this, there is no chance that new players can be drawn into the GNSO community. * We have seen the draft NCUC petition and charter for the NCSG, held a meeting with members of the NCUC during the ICANN Cairo meeting to discuss it and we continue to evaluate the proposal. Without prejudice to that proposal, we believe that the ultimate structure of the NCSG must provide a place where all voices and views can be heard on the questions of the day, and where the structures of the NCSG ensure that no voice is disenfranchised and in particular that individual personalities are unable to impose their views on others. Just as "takeover" is an issue within ICANN as a whole, it is also an issue within a SG. Whilst I know that the above is not all that you hoped to receive from us this month, I hope that you will find it useful and we look forward to concluding our work on this question, as soon as possible. Of course if you or your colleagues require clarification on any of the above, I, our ALAC Executive, and the Working Group established for this topic, remain at your service. Kindest regards, (Signed on behalf the ALAC ad-hoc WG on NCSG : GNSO Improvements Implementation) Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2009

1 0