- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> To: patrick(a)vande-walle.eu Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:22:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [ALAC] Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities In my view, it should be clearly enunciated that ALAC is the official conduit to ICANN Board of end user interests. We must clearly state what we mean by end users; the person who uses a device to access the internet via browser, non-human devices excepted. This is not to trespass on the freedom of other constituencies in ICANN to court end users for their own sectoral interests. Carlton Samuels On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>wrote: > I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with > other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be > the only entity to represent individual internet users. > > The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments > welcome. > > ---------------------- > > 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different > groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these > groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the > only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other > issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC > members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. > > 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. > The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. > The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly > identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There > is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these > groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to > the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if > the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. > > > On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical > issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the > policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account > that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. > > > Relationship with other ICANN entities > > 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and > concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes > > 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of > the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN > entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice > > 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be > strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and > within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Resumen de la primera reuni�n de ALAC en El Cairo
by jsalgueiro＠cantv.net Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Resumen de lo sucedido en la primera reunión de ALAC llevado a cabo en el marco de la 33ra reunión de ICANN celebrada en El Cairo el 2 de noviembre de 2008 Antes de empezar se debe señalar que la traducción al español es terrible, la peor en todos los meetings de ICANN a los que hayamos asistido. La reunión empezó a las 9 de la mañana. La reunión se inicio discutiendo el informe del grupo de trabajo para la revisión de ALAC. EL informe contiene reflexiones relacionadas con el informe presentado por Westlake. Se adjunta la versión en español para quienes no lo hayan visto. Posteriormente representantes del grupo de trabajo se hicieron presentes para discutir con ALAC dicho informe. Uno de los puntos mas discutidos fue la recomendación de dar a ALAC dos puestos con derecho a voto en el Board de ICNN. Si bien es interesante, el problema no es el numero de representantes sino lograr que la opinión de éstos sean consideradas. Se discutió igualmente el tema del multilingüismo y la traducción de documentos. Carlos hizo una interesante exposición en la cual se hizo claro que no se trata solamente de hacer las cosas en otros idiomas sino entender que se trata de diferentes culturas y diferentes realidades para los usuarios de las diferentes partes del mundo. Luego Colin Jackson y Andy Levin hicieron una presentación sobre el proceso de revisión independiente del Root Server System Advisory Committee. Su funcion es determinar si en comité mantiene su propósito en la estructura de ICANN. En el punto siguiente se trató el tema de las exigencias de trabajo esperado de los miembros de ALAC tomando en cuenta que se trata de trabajo voluntario, para lo cual cada uno de los miembros señaló la razón por la cual realizan este trabajo voluntario. Luego del receso para almorzar se continuó la agenda con la reunión conjunta con el SSAC. Posteriormente se discutió la posición de ALAC con respecto al informe de revisión. Los miembros se dividieron entres grupos para discutir de los siguientes puntos: Proceso de desarrollo de polìticas. Donde se puede hacer Fast track? Se recomendó la traducción como punto Priscila y la necesidad de que los grupos trabajen correctamente. Igualmente se recomendò la consulta a expertos que hay dentro del mismo ALAC Participación y responsabilidades de los miembros de ALAC y los liaisons Las conclusiones del grupo es que difícilmente se podrá mejorar la participación con las modificaciones planteadas. Los criterios cuantitativos de participación no son los mejores pero es una forma de medir la participación. Los criterios cualitativos son demasiado subjetivos para ser medidos. El grupo recomienda no modificar la regla 21 en la forma planteada en el documento presentado en Cairo Working Groups, y actividades de alcance Se recomendó solicitar facilidades a ICANN en el presupuesto para actividades de alcance. Por último Marilyn Cade y Yrjö Lansipuro presentaron un informe del proceso de trancisiòn de ICANN. Ver: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/action-plan-revised.htm Se terminó la reunión siendo las 6 de la tarde José Ovidio Salgueiro y Carlos Aguirre Representantes de LACRALO ante ALAC -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Comments on ALAC review: Relationship with other ICANN entities]
by Jacqueline A. Morris Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

Sorry This didn't go to the list, so resending JAM Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi Patrick > One very important thing to note is that individual internet users are > different from individuals acting as businesses, academia, etc. My > role as an academic at work is very different from my personal > internet user life - my concerns are different. As an individual, I > may have an Internet-related business. So my concerns may align in > that role with the Business constituency, and not with the individual > internet user. So I think the definition of individual internet users > needs to be really well crafted to separate it from the concept of an > individual in other roles. And if we get that done, then there's no > discussion left as to whether we can have individuals, groups, > organisations etc as At Large members. Or individual academics as NCUC > members etc. For example, my University may not be interested in > joining NCUC as an institution (that's a lot of paperwork etc) but > they may be perfectly willing to pay for my professional membership in > NCUC if my academic interest (research etc) coincided. > Jacqueline > > Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >> I am tasked with coming up with a position on the relationship with >> other entities, and particularly, the fact that ALAC should or not be >> the only entity to represent individual internet users. >> >> The summary is as follows. There is a clearly two perceptions. Comments >> welcome. >> >> ---------------------- >> >> 1. ALAC should be the sole representative. If there are different >> groups, the voice of end users may actually be diluted, because these >> groups may not come up with similar positions. Further, the ALAC is the >> only end-user group in ICANN to be able to have positions on other >> issues than just gTLD policy. Finally, the process to elect ALAC >> members, though heavy and indirect, is real bottom-up. >> >> 2. There should be other groups representing users within the community. >> The rationale is that some users may not exactly fit in the ALAC mold. >> The suggestion is that the GNSO user house should have clearly >> identified groups (domain name registrants, end users, academia). There >> is a concern concerning the legitimacy of the representatives of these >> groups and it is not clear how they will be chosen. Further and due to >> the several levels of decision within the new GNSO, it is not clear if >> the voice of individuals will still be heard in this context. >> >> >> On point 12, it has been several times reminded that real logistical >> issues that reduces the potential of ALAC to be more efficient in the >> policy development. It is noted that other SOs should take into account >> that the multilayer structure of ALAC slows down considerably the work. >> >> >> Relationship with other ICANN entities >> >> 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organisational channel for the voice and >> concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes >> >> 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of >> the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN >> entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice >> >> 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be >> strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and >> within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Fwd: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

I am way behind on my e-mail, and I am not sure if this has already been relayed to the ALAC. I call your attention specifically to the first item. We have previously taken a strong position that the user perspective should be represented in some way through the Non-Commercial Users Stakeholders Group on the GNSO. The Interim report from the BGC ALAC Review Working Group has now put forward a strong position that individual users should NOT be represented on the GNSO. It is unclear to me exactly what the boundaries are between a group that represents the interest of users, and a group representing users. I think that we will need to make sure we discuss this in Cairo. Alan >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:26:42 -0700 >From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> >Subject: [liaison6c] Re: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements > >Dear Community Members: > >1) Individual Users -- As previously indicated, the ICANN Board has >asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and >representation of individual Internet users in the GNSO. To further >encourage discussion and comment, Staff opened a public comment forum >to solicit online input, and provided a document summarizing the >issues involved. Please see ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>. The forum >closes on 28 November 2008. > >2) Board Seat Elections -- As noted previously, Board members also >requested additional community input before making final decisions on >the methodology for GNSO elections of Board Seats #13 and #14. Please >see the attached background document for more information. Comments >are requested by 27 November 2008. > >3) Stakeholder Groups -- Attached is a draft template for new >Stakeholder Groups. Since the establishment of these Stakeholder >Groups is a new endeavor and requires Board approval, Staff is >offering a draft template as a starting point for discussion. > >4) Constituency Renewal -- Staff is working on a draft template to >assist with the development of a streamlined process that will assist >with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing >constituencies. It will be emailed shortly to facilitate constituency >consideration of how this process should be done. > >Please don't hesitate to email me/policy-staff(a)icann.org with any questions. > >Regards, >Denise > > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy > >On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear Community Members: > > > > In advance of the 16 Oct. GNSO Council > meeting, I wanted to provide everyone > > with the follow-up action items from the Board's most recent draft GNSO > > Restructuring Resolution (see draft resolution below and at > > <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm>). I'd be happy > > to elaborate on these during the Council call, or feel free to email > > questions to <policy-staff(a)icann.org>. > > > > 1) COUNCIL CHAIR -- The Board adopted the WG-GCR recommendation that the > > GNSO Council Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its > > own Vice Chair. To address questions on whether a "back-up" process was > > needed in the event that a vote did not yield a Chair, the Board decided to > > ask the Council to consider this matter. "The Board directs the Council to > > develop a process for subsequent balloting, > if needed, until a Council Chair > > is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council." > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and provided to the Board. > > > > 2) BOARD SEATS -- "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions > > about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs > > Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post outstanding questions and solicit input shortly. > > > > 3) VOTING THRESHOLDS -- The Board adopted all voting thresholds proposed by > > the WG-GCR Report. Concerns that implementation of GNSO Improvements (e.g. > > new PDP, working group model, etc) might necessitate additions to, or > > clarifications of, thresholds, the Board requested that "the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or > categories that may be needed as part of > > its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the > > Board for approval." (Note: this draft wording likely will be changed to > > avoid confusion; the Board expects to receive an overall plan for > > implementing restructuring; this is separate from the GNSO's effort to > > create a structure of committees and teams to start the GNSO Improvements > > implementation work.) > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and, if changes or additions are > > deemed necessary, they should be provided to the Board. > > > > 4) NEW/EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES -- The Board acknowledged Staff development > > of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies (*see > > attached) and directed Staff "to develop a formal petition and charter > > template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria > > (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of > > petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with > > the existing GNSO constituencies to design > and develop a streamlined process > > along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely > > recognition and approval of existing constituencies". > > > > *ACTION: Attached is a "Notice of Intent" to solicit and publicly share > > information on entities interested in forming > new constituencies, along with > > a proposed petition and charter template. Staff would appreciate receiving > > any input you may have by 28 Oct. Staff also is developing for your > > consideration a draft template for > constituencies to use to enable the Board > > to "renew" constituencies. Since this is a new endeavor, Staff is offering > > a draft as a starting point for discussion. Staff will collect and share > > input with the community during the Cairo ICANN meeting. > > > > 5) STAKEHOLDER GROUPS The Board "reinforced its support for the following > > principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and > > requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply > > with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements > > Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, > > including: the need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN > community, in a structure that can > > change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders; and the > > inclusion of new actors/participants, where > applicable, and the expansion of > > constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable." Further, Staff > > was directed to work with the GNSO community to develop "a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures." The Board directed that plans for each of the four new > > Stakeholder Groups be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting, and the plans "must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim > action to fill Council seats in > > the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or > > delayed." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will provide some initial draft material shortly to support > > community consideration and discussion. > > > > 6) ROLE/REPRESENTATION OF USERS The Board requested additional community > > "dialogue and input on the appropriate role > and representation of individual > > Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet > > users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, > > and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly > > helpful and should address the inclusion of > registrants and individual users > > in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting > > structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' > > gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post a public comment solicitation and will provide > > background information to encourage community > consideration and input to the > > Board. > > > > 7) IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE The Board amended its previous implementation > > timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council > > voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that > > begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new > > Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: > > > > -Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > - Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > *ACTION Staff will assist the GNSO in developing a restructuring > > implementation plan that the Board expects to receive later this year. > > > > =================== > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board > > authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee > > Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an > > independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management > > support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. > > > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council > > to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that > > the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting > > its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process > > for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly > > elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have > > outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board > > seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and > > seek additional input. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds > > proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as > > part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be > > submitted to the Board for approval. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational > > Concerns:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's > > development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new > > constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and > > charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative > > criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's > > evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is > > directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and > > develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that > > will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing > > constituencies. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for > > the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new > > Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other > > relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working > > Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing > > the newly formed structures, including: > > > > - The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that > > can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. > > > > - The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the > > expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. > > > > > > It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs > > Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each > > of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above > > principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council > > seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be > > deficient or delayed. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the > > GNSO:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community > > dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of > > individual Internet users, including individual commercial and > > non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the > > ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new > > constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the > > inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner > > that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures > > that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are > > effectively represented within the GNSO. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous > > implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new > > bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased > > implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 > > with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be > > as follows: > > > > Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > > > > > > >Content-type: application/msword; name="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmuzlnus2 > >Content-type: application/msword; > name="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM" > WG-GCR.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; > filename="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS" > FROM WG-GCR.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmv196yu3

3 2

GNSO Liaison report - GNSO Council Meeting - 16 Oct. 2008
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 1, 2008

Nov. 1, 2008

I have posted my report of the 16 October 2008 GNSO Council meetingwith the Cairo documents at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. Alan

1 0

Fwd: [council] Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 30, 2008

Oct. 30, 2008

Just released. The issues was discussed in my GNSO Liaison report for the Oct. 14 meeting - https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?gnso_liaison_report_01_10_2008. Alan >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:03:49 -0700 >From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Dear All, > >As requested by the GNSO Council, please find attached the Issues >Report on Registration Abuse Policies. > >With best regards, > >Marika

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Call for nominations to ALAC Liaison and Appointment Positions for 2008 - 2009
by Adam Peake Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Jacqueline, Alan. Thank you. I accept the nomination. Adam At 10:51 AM -0400 10/27/08, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Although we do not have any rule which requires a second for >nominations, we do seem to have a tradition. > >Being a great fan of traditions, I second this nomination. > >Alan > >At 24/10/2008 10:40 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>Dear all >> >>I would like to nominate Adam Peake for ccNSO liaison. >>Jacqueline A. Morris > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

2 1

Updated Cairo Documents page
by At-Large Staff Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Dear Members: We have revised the Cairo Documents page to (hopefully) contain references to all the relevant documents for the main areas of work during Cairo. This can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents Please note: We will provide paper copies of the main texts, in particular a compilation of the various documents associated with the draft applicant guidebook for new gTLDs, during the meeting. I hope you all travel safely and uneventfully and look forward to seeing you again in Cairo in a few days time! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Cairo Public Board Meeting Agenda
by At-Large Staff Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Dear Members: For your information, attached please find the current agenda for the Board meeting on 7th November in Cairo. You may also review this at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes. 7 November 2008 Board Meeting Agenda (approved by Executive Committee 23 October 2008) * Approval of Minutes and Approval of BGC Recommendation regarding Board Committee Minutes Standard and Publication For Board Action - John Jeffrey * Update on GNSO Improvements Implementation For Board Discussion Denise Michel * Single Letter Domains at the Second Level, including Proposed Contract Amendments for DotCoop and dotMobi - For Board Discussion and possible action - Patrick Jones * Inter-Registar Transfer Policy - Denial Reasons Policy Development Project For Board Action Denise Michel * Proposed Bylaw Revisions Requested by Nominating Committee For Board Action Patrick Jones * Approval of site of Asia Pacific Meeting For Board Action - Paul Levins * Consideration of Proposal for At-Large Community Summit Planning Status Report For Board Action Denise Michel * Proposed Creation of A Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN¹s Present Geographic Regions For Board Discussion Denise Michel * President's Strategy Committee Update For Board Discussion * Receipt of Reports from Other Board Committees, Finance, Compensation, et. Al. (possible actions) Various Committee Chairs * Board Response to Discussions arising from Cairo Meeting Thrush * Independent Reviews Update For Board Discussion * Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Update For Board Discussion Kurt Pritz * Other Business 7 November 2008 Organizational Meeting Agenda (Approved by Executive Committee 23 October 2008) * Election of Chair * Election of Vice-chair * Creation of New Committees * Appointment of committee leadership/membership * Confirmation of Officers of ICANN * Other Business -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Dot-Mobi Policy Advisory Board Position
by carlos aguirre Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

Dear Cheryl and all, I would like to nominate Andrés Piazza for the position of Liason at Dot-Mobi Policy Advisory Board. This position could be an interesting opportunity to create a broader participation for Individual Users Community. We need an improvement in this subject and incorporating one member of the ALAC-Ralo process would mean an improvement here, letting committed people from the regions to contribute, to spread the information in more languages than just in English. However, this nomination is not agains John Levine´s work, because I admire and respect him, personally and professionally. I introduce some information about Andrés Piazza, that I consider very useful at this moment: He is an Argentinian Lawyer from Cordoba, who works in Computer Law, in Consulting and advisory. He is also Teacher in the National University of Córdoba and in Blas Pascal University, in 2 postgraduate courses related to Law in Information Society and Internet Governance, and Member of some International Prestigious Academic Organizations such as LASA (Latin American Studies Association), FIADI (Iberoamerican Federation of Computer Law Associations) or DiploFoundation (He is recently developing a Research in IG there) . At ICANN, he is AGEIA DENSI´s reprresentative in LACRALO from Argentina (since he works as Research Director in that ALS), being one of the most commited participants for the last years at the General Assembly. Also taked participation in other related multistakeholder forums in Internet Governance. In the past, he used to work in an Information Techonology Consulting. Definitely he has sufficient knowledge in gTLD issues and could make a contribution to ALAC as a Liason. Regards, Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

1 0