- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Board Liaison Report, Dec. 8, 2008
by Wendy Seltzer Dec. 8, 2008

Dec. 8, 2008

The Board has not met since our last ALAC meeting. The agenda for its Dec. 11 meeting is below. Note particularly the discussion on the GNSO restructuring and the Role of Individual Users in GNSO. I will gladly include ALAC and At-Large community perspectives in that discussion. We are also to get a report from Denise on the ALAC Summit. Please let me know if there is anything you wish to add to those or any other item of discussion. --Wendy <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/> 11 December 2008 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors Proposed Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes 2. New gTLD Implementation Issues 3. 2009-2012 Strategic Plan 4. Report from Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad 5. United States Elections Results Transition Discussion 6. Report on the ALAC Conference in Mexico City 7. GNSO Improvements / Implementation 8. Role of Individual Users in GNSO 9. Proposed Change to ICANN Bylaws regarding imposing Term Limits for GNSO Council Members 10. Registry Agreements Update - .AERO and .POST 11. Monthly President’s Report 12. Reports from Board Committees 13. Other Business 14. Board Only Session -- 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/

2 1

Fwd: [council] Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 5, 2008

Dec. 5, 2008

Attached is the Issues Report request by the ALAC two weeks ago. Alan

1 0

My Preliminary Report to Dot Mobi
by Andres Piazza Dec. 3, 2008

Dec. 3, 2008

Dear All, I made a preliminary report with information about my Dot Mobi Position. It´s available at: HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dotMOBI%20Liaison%20Report"https://st.i cann.org/alac/index.cgi?dotMOBI%20Liaison%20Report# in both languages. Regards, -- Estimados: Realicé un informe preliminary con información acerca de mi Rol en Dot Mobi. Está disponible aquí: HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dotMOBI%20Liaison%20Report"https://st.i cann.org/alac/index.cgi?dotMOBI%20Liaison%20Report# en ambas lenguas. Saludos, Andrés Piazza Director de Investigaciones AGEIA DENSI Argentina HYPERLINK "http://ar.ageiadensi.org"http://ar.ageiadensi.org HYPERLINK "http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar"http://www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.13/1825 - Release Date: 02/12/2008 08:44 p.m.

2 1

At-Large Members for the Geographic Regions Working Group
by At-Large Staff Dec. 1, 2008

Dec. 1, 2008

Dear Rob: It is our pleasure to advise you of the appointees from At-Large to the Geographic Regions Working Group: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC Chair): cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au Carlton Samuels (LACRALO Secretariat): carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Thanksgiving
by Vanda Scartezini UOL Nov. 27, 2008

Nov. 27, 2008

Dear friends To all of you thanksgiving is an important date, I wish a peaceful day with the warm presence of all you love! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."

1 0

Motions with respect to the Ex-Com
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

Here are formally worded motions which I believe capture the intent of the discussion at the meeting just ended. If I have erred, please correct. Alan ----------- Whereas the ALAC has had a de facto an Executive Committee composed of ALAC Officers for the past year; Whereas, it is at times necessary for the ALAC to take action without sufficient time to formally engage the entire ALAC and hold a vote; Therefore I move that: 1. The ALAC create a 4-member Executive Committee composed of the four ALAC Officers. Until such time as a more refined specification be defined, the Executive Committee shall have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, save that in urgent situations, the Executive Committee may make decisions on behalf of the ALAC, such decisions communicated to the ALAC prior to or at the time of decision, and to be ratified at the next ALAC meeting. ----------------------- Whereas last year's de facto Executive Committee included Officers from four or the five ICANN regions; Whereas this present year's Officers represent four of the five ICANN regions; Whereas in keeping with ALAC and ICANN principles, it is felt that there is a benefit in all five regions participating in an Executive Committee; Therefore I move that: 1. The ALAC expand the Executive Committee to five people. The Executive Committee shall be composed of the four ALAC Officers and one additional ALAC member. 2. The ALAC redefine the two positions of Vice-Chair and the position of Rapporteur, and the associated voting processes to ensure that the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and the Rapporteur all represent different ICANN regions, the detailed Rules of Procedures to be approved prior to the 2009 Officer elections; 3. Following the election of the four officers, the ALAC shall nominate and elect an ALAC member from the as-yet un-represented ICANN region to the fifth Executive Committee position.

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Se vi interessa un guadagno extra ...
by alac＠icann.org Nov. 26, 2008

Nov. 26, 2008

1 0

RAA
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Over the past day, there has been a discussion about steps forward with respect to the RAA amendments on the NA-discuss list as well as the ALAC list. There has also been at least some mis-information. I have tried to summarize the current situation in preparation for tomorrow's ALAC teleconference. Please see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?raa_the_way_forward for details. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

I don't think that was what I was saying at all. For the record, no such thing was decided. I can point you to the MP3 and you can see for yourself. In fact, we explicitly did not decide anything at that time. The GNSO has been told that they have a binary decision to be made (this is my wording, not that of ICANN staff). Endorse the proposed RAA amendments by a 2/3 vote, or not. Regardless of that decision, the policy process can be started on RAA-related issues. The policy process starts with an Issues Report and can then lead to a full-blown PDP. Some aspects of the proposed RAA amendments could be addressed through the PDP process. Some might be deemed to be contractual issues and out of scope. If out of scope, the GNSO can STILL do a PDP, but there is a much higher threshold required to do so. Alan At 24/11/2008 11:41 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >Opening this discussion up to the broader ALAC, hope no one minds. > >Adding to this: I was recently told by a reliable source that during >an early November GNSO council wrap-up it was basically agreed there >would be no further RAA review or negotiations in the foreseeable future. > >Which I guess is sort of what you are saying. I think that may mean >we need to initiate a PDP if we believe that the current amendments >are not sufficient as is. Also, someone clarified that ICANN does >keep registrar contact data for emergencies, but it includes things >like the home addresses of CEOs, so there may be some trouble with >releasing that -- also, apparently, the registrars have said they >won't agree to any Web site contact data requirement. > >So if we believe that this requirement is important enough we should >initiate a PDP or whatever bureaucratic step is necessary. It would >seem, given the comments from users to the RAA-WG list, that the >user community believes disclosure of the transparency information >is very important. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:30 AM >To: Brendler, Beau; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; Robert Guerra >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > >Thanks beau. > >Regarding the "one minor nuance", my belief is that if the GNSO does >anything other than to approve the current amendment package (that >is, if they start discussing the merits of particular issues) there >is no chance of a fast-path approach, everything would potentially >be on the table, and we are back at square-one in terms of timing >and agreements. If we don't touch the current package I think there >is a possibility that (as implied by ICANN legal staff) the GNSO can >ratify the proposed amendments and it is a done-deal. > >Note that I do not really understand why we (the GNSO) can accept >this package by simply ratifying but would need to initiate a >full-fledged PDP if we re-open the entire discussion, but that is >what I think I heard, and as I understand it, both ICANN legal >counsel and (at least some) registrars have agreed on this position >(because the definition of Consensus Policy was not linked to the >current PDP process at the time the registrars's agreement was first >signed). It will be further discussed at the December GNSO meeting. > >Alan > > > >At 24/11/2008 11:10 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: > >One minor nuance here is that I think there was some agreement among > >members of the ALAC that we should try to, basically, fast-track an > >amendment to the existing RAA amendments that would require registrars > >to provide basic business information (address, contact information, > >physical location, etc.) I reference, for instance, the letter below > >from Mark Parker as an example. > > > >Towards the end of the ALAC meeting with registrars in Cairo, a member > >of ICANN staff whose name I did not catch, who I think is based in > >Belgium, noted that this information already exists and is kept on > >record by ICANN (?) Perhaps we could get some memory refreshment here > >from Matthias or Nick so that we can determine whether we need to > >advocate loudly and quickly to add this transparency requirement as an > >amendment, or whether we need to make this before-unheard-of data more > >available to the user community. > > > >As for the broader question about the RAA amendments themselves, we did > >provide a fairly detailed statement that the ALAC signed off on in > >September. I believe Alan's comment: "The position that I have taken > >within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to see the already agreed-upon RAA > >changes put in place immediately (since sooner would require a Wayback > >machine with more functionality than our current one). And that needs > >to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA review, preferable in > >reasonable chunks so that the entire review/revision does not get > >bogged down until the next millennium," > >is accurate of where we left things with the RAA. If not, we should > >figure that out now, it sounds like. > > > >Beau > > > >(example letter follows) > > > >Dear ICANN RAA Consultation Staff, > > > >I am writing to you to request a change in the Registrar Accreditation > >Agreement that will improve transparency and accountability. It has > >come to my attention as an Internet user that there is no requirement > >in the standard Registrar contract to that requires public disclosure > >of Registrar ownership or location. I am concerned that this loophole > >in the agreement opens the door to fraud, secrecy and consumer abuse. > >Please consider adding the following language or equivalent to the RAA: > > > >*"All Accredited Registrars must submit main office location, including > >country, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory. > >Post Office boxes, Incorporation addresses, and mail-forwarding > >locations will not be acceptable. Registrars must also provide for > >public display the name of CEO or President. ICANN must be notified > >within 30 days of a location or presiding officer change."* > > > >Without public disclosure there cannot be true transparency, > >accountability or trust. I appreciate your consideration. > > > >Sincerely, Mark Parker > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] > >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:00 AM > >To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; Robert Guerra; Brendler, Beau > >Cc: NA Discuss > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > >Danny, my understanding was that there was general belief that the > >proposed RAA amendments were woefully inadequate and incomplete, but > >that in their own right, they would be useful. Since your 2nd questions > >focuses on finding out why the Board has not already taken the > >unilateral paths that you believe viable to enact the revised RAA, I > >would assume that you support this position. > > > >The position that I have taken within the GNSO is that ALAC wants to > >see the already agreed-upon RAA changes put in place immediately (since > >sooner would require a Wayback machine with more functionality than our > >current one). And that needs to be followed by a more comprehensive RAA > >review, preferable in reasonable chunks so that the entire > >review/revision does not get bogged down until the next millennium. > > > >If you or others feel that this is not a reasonable position to take, > >please provide specific guidance. > > > >Alan > > > >At 24/11/2008 10:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > >Alan, > > > > > >As I, and doubtless others, have no idea what position the ALAC has > > >adopted with respect to the RAA amendments, could we trouble you to > > >articulate the official position, and the specific actions that the > > >ALAC will support in the GNSO? > > > > > >Many of us have major issues with a lot of the amendments and we > > >don't want to see these put through on a blanket basis. It's bad > > >enough that Staff is in bed with the registrars; we don't need to > > >have the ALAC pushing an ill-considered program that gives the > > >registrars everything that they want while the views of the rest of > > >the community are routinely ignored. > > > > > >Danny > > > > > >--- On Mon, 11/24/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Agenda > > > > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, "Robert Guerra" > > > <lists(a)privaterra.info>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> > > > > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 8:19 AM Although not answering > > > > any of Danny's questions (but acknowledging where were are today > > > > with the RAA amendments being punted to the GNSO), I do note that > > > > as ALAC Liaison, I am taking what I hope will be successful action > > > > to fast-path the first round of RAA amendments through the GNSO > > > > and forwarded to the Board for quick approval. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 24/11/2008 07:14 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > >Dear North American reps to the ALAC: > > > > > > > > > >The entire point of having a RALO is so that grassroots > > > > input may be > > > > >brought to the attention of the ALAC. There were > > > > several items that > > > > >I raised that have not made it onto the ALAC Agenda for > > > > tomorrow's meeting: > > > > > > > > > >1. the failure to inaugurate a comprehensive review of > > > > registrar > > > > >accreditation processes > > > > >2. a request for a formal explanation from ICANN Staff > > > > as to why > > > > >(1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause in the > > > > RAA may not be > > > > >pursued and (2) why an updated RAA agreement may not be > > > > substituted. > > > > >As both of these options are permitted by contract, we > > > > need to know > > > > >why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course > > > > of action. > > > > >3. a response to users that have posted comments to > > > > the RAA-WG. > > > > > > > > > >As reps for the NARALO you have a duty to raise the > > > > issues that have > > > > >been brought forth by the membership and to place these > > > > issues on > > > > >the agenda if they merit discussion, otherwise there is > > > > no point > > > > >whatsoever in having these RALO structures or an ALAC. > > > > > > > > > >see my orginal comments at > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004938.html > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.i > > > cann.org/2008q4/004939.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > > > > >NA-Discuss mailing list > > > > >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg > > > e-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > > >------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >*** > >Scanned > > > >** > >This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) > >named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any > >attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not > >the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute > >or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all > >or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in > >error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and > >permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer > >system. > > >*** >Scanned > >** >This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) >named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any >attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are >not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, >redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, >or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received >this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply >e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from >your computer system.

1 0

At-Large representatives to cross-community Working Group on Geographic Regions
by At-Large Staff Nov. 24, 2008

Nov. 24, 2008

Dear Members, In response to Board resolutions 2008.11.07.08 and 2008.11.07.09 (attached below) the At-Large community is being asked to provide representatives to the Working Group on Geographic Regions. The ALAC is expected to address this issue in its teleconference of tomorrow; those interested in being one of the representatives may wish to let the ALAC know of the interest ASAP. ---- ICANN Board Resolution on Community-Wide Working Group to Review ICANN's Geographic Regions http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-07nov08.htm#_Toc87682556 Resolved (2008.11.07.08), the Board authorizes the formation of a community-wide working group to study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, consult with all stakeholders, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The Board requests that all interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees nominate two individuals to serve on the working group, the composition of which the Board would like to approve at the December Board meeting. Resolved (2008.11.07.09), the Board requests the working group, as its first order of business, to draft and seek community input on a proposed charter, and submit the draft document for community review, and Board consideration and approval at the March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City. In drafting the charter, the working group is directed to focus, but not limit, its work on the criteria for assigning countries, dependencies and recognized geopolitical entities to a Geographic Region, and to take into consideration the relevant ccNSO Board paper, the recent GNSO comments, and other community advice - including the GAC's original advice on the topic in 2000 <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/communique-14jul00.htm. Further, the Board directs ICANN Staff to support these efforts. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2