- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN Compliance Department response to issues raised about the WHOIS WDPRS System
by At-Large Staff Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

Dear NARALO and ALAC Members: As you will recall, questions were raised by Danny about a number of specific issues related to the WDPRS. The Compliance Department has provided the following response to the various points Danny raised. We hope you will find this response helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

NEW: [council] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

More question on GNSO. This time with a Sept 26 deadline (7 days from now). In the absence of another volunteer, I will draft some comments. If someone other ALAC member wants to volunteer, please let me know and I will not bother. Long trip coming up, so I will likely have them done by sometime early (UTC) on Sunday, Sept. 21. Alan >Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:37:27 -0700 >From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Re: Input Requested on Council Restructuring >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, > liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org>, > Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, > Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, > Janis Karklins <janis.karklins(a)icann.org>, > Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com> > >Dear Community Members, > >As previously noted, discussions continue on >outstanding issues related to GNSO Council >restructuring. I wanted to keep you apprised of >issues and ideas under consideration that I am >aware of, and give you (individually or as >constituencies/advisory committees if time >permits) an opportunity to provide input. Thank >you to those who responded to my previous email >(included below). Additional input received >before 26 September on the issues noted below >will be summarized for the Board prior to their >30 September meeting at which these issues will be discussed. > >1) Registrants and/or Individual User >Participation -- If the Non-commercial >Stakeholder Group includes individual Internet >user groups, should any distinctions be made >with the membership of the ALAC and supporting >At-Large structures (which represents individual >Internet users' viewpoint across all of ICANN's >structures and activities)? The GNSO Working >Group (WG-GCR) recommended the inclusion of "all >interested parties that use or provide services >for the Internet..." in the non-contracted party >house and stated that it "should not be >restricted to domain registrants." The BGC GNSO >Improvements Report adopted by the Board in June >stated that a new Non-commercial Stakeholders >Group "must go far beyond the membership of the >current NCUC" (which is chartered to represent >non-commercial entities). "We must consider >educational, research, and philanthropic >organizations, foundations, think tanks, members >of academia, individual registrant groups and >other noncommercial organizations, as well as >individual registrants, as part of a >non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." > >2) Voting Thresholds for New Working Group Model >-- An additional issue raised is whether voting >thresholds were needed for electing the chair of >a PDP WG and approving the charter for a PDP >WG. If so, what should the thresholds be? (see >previous email below for other thresholds recommended by the WG-GCR). > >3) Electing Council Leadership -- There seems to >be agreement with the WG-GCR proposal to elect >the chair by 60% vote of both houses, and the >discussion is focused on whether a back-up >provision is needed. If you have not provided >comments, input would be appreciated on whether >an alternate provision is needed in case no >candidate achieves such supermajority and, if >so, what that provision should be. Ideas >discussed include: the full Council voting with >a simple majority with weighted voting in the >contracted party house to make the total house >votes equal, and the NCAs would each have a >single vote; and elect a chair by more than 50% of the vote of both houses. > >4) Implementation Plan -- The Board has directed >that an implementation plan be submitted for >Board approval that creates a transition to the >new Council structure. Further input would be >appreciated on this point, including on >transition timing and whether additional >guidance or requirements are needed on the >implementation plan. Also, views would be >appreciated on what provision should be made to >fill seats on the new Council if a Stakeholder >Plan is not approved by the Board. > >Thank you for your continued involvement and input. > >Regards, >Denise > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org > > > > >On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Denise Michel ><<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: >Dear GNSO Community Leaders: > >As I reported during yesterday's GNSO Council >teleconference meeting and previously via email, >the ICANN Board made significant progress >discussing various aspects of the GNSO Council >restructuring at its 28 August meeting. During >the meeting, Board members discussed a number of >consensus recommendations developed by the >special working group on GNSO Council >Restructuring (WG-GCR). The Board endorsed the >direction of the WG-GCR Report and approved a >bicameral voting structure that includes >contracted and non-contracted party houses each >composed of voting stakeholder representatives >and independent nominating committee appointees >(see ><<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05417.html>). >The Board directed that a transition to this new >structure be accomplished by January 2009. > >Several Council restructuring issues remained >unresolved. The Board is continuing its >discussions and intends to address these issues >at its next meeting on 30 September. There are >five major issue areas yet to be decided: (1) >the role of an independent third Nominating >Committee Appointee (NCA) that the Board has >decided will serve on the Council; (2) the >process for electing Council leadership (Chair >and Vice Chairs); (3) the process for filling >Board seats #13 and #14; (4) the voting >thresholds for various Council decisions as >proposed by the WG-GCR; and (5) general >implementation issues. (It is important to keep >in mind that the Board is actively considering >Council restructuring and additional ideas and issues could emerge.) > >To assist Board members in their deliberations, >Staff will be preparing an analysis and >recommendation for each of these remaining >decision points. I would like to include >additional community input in that process and >invite all GNSO constituencies, other ICANN >structures, and the nominating committee >appointees to share their views as >appropriate. For each of the four WG-GCR >recommendations outlined below I am requesting >each group to submit a one-paragraph statement >clarifying its perspective on that topic. I >also hope that each group will take the >opportunity to highlight in one paragraph what >they believe to be the most significant >implementation issues that will need to be >addressed (Issue 5). Note: your comments will >not be edited or summarized, but will be >collated and submitted directly to Board members >for their consideration. A copy of this >submission will be posted on the public GNSO email list. > >Any group intending to contribute comments >should submit them to me via email to ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org >by COB on 18 September (PDT). That will give >Board members adequate time before their meeting >to review your submissions. A copy of the Final >Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your >reference. The remaining issues also are >summarized below, but please reference the >report directly for the precise WG-GCR language. > >Issue 1 Role of the Third NCA: > >At it 28 August meeting the Board directed that >each voting house include one voting Nominating >Committee appointee (NCA). The Board also >directed that a third "independent" NCA continue >to serve on the Council a matter on which the >WG-GCR could not reach consensus. The Board has >not yet determined what the role, function or >status of that third NCA will be on the >Council. Ideas currently under discussion >include: making this NCA non-voting and not >assigned to either house (recommended by Staff); >making the third NCA voting (unclear yet how >this would fit into the bicameral voting >structure); including the third NCA as a voting >member of the non-contracted party house to >maintain a 6:1 ratio of constituency representatives to NCAs; > >Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair > >The WG-GCR proposed that the GNSO Council Chair >be elected by a 60% vote of BOTH voting houses >and that each house elect its own Vice Chair to >serve in that capacity. A WG-GCR non-consensus >compromise suggested that if that process could >elect no Chair, then a third Council-level >Nominating Committee Appointee should serve as a >non-voting Chair. The Board generally discussed >the leadership selection options at it 28 August >meeting, but did not reach a decision. Ideas >currently under discussion include: adopting the >WG-GCR proposal (recommended by Staff); adopting >the WG-GCR proposal as well as the proposal to >use the third NCA as a non-voting Chair if >needed; and have the Chair elected by a simple >majority of the full Council with weighted >voting (12 votes each for the contracted and >non-contracted party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). > >Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats > >The WG-GCR proposed that, at the end of the >current terms for Board seats #13 and #14, the >contracted party voting house elect Seat 13 by a >60% vote and that the user/non-contracted party >voting house elect Seat 14 by a 60% vote. The >WG-GCR agreed that the two seats cannot BOTH be >held by individuals who are employed by, serve >as an agent of, or receive any compensation from >an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, nor >can they both be held by individuals who are the >appointed representatives to one of the GNSO >user stakeholder groups. Staff is exploring >concerns that changes in the Board election >methodology for Seats 13 and 14 as proposed by >the WG-GCR would have the effect of creating >Board members from each of the voting houses, >rather than Board members from the entire GNSO. >(All Board seats are to serve the interests of >ICANN's public benefit mandate, not the >interests of individual groups; the SO level >represents a view of an entire sector of the >ICANN community and there is concern that to >more narrowly define the parameters of selection >within an SO is inconsistent with the >non-representational capacity of the members >once they reach the board of directors). > >The Board did not have time to thoroughly >address this matter at its 28 August session. >Ideas currently under discussion include: >adopting the WG-GCR proposal; deferring this >issue and dealing with it as part of the Board >Review (which is ongoing); adopting a >Council-wide supermajority selection criteria; >adopting a method which uses a simple majority >of the full Council with weighted voting (12 >votes each for the contracted and non-contracted >party houses, and single vote for each of the three NCAs). > >Issue 4 Voting Thresholds: >"The WG-GCR reached consensus on the following >collection of voting thresholds: "Create an >Issues Report (currently 25% of vote of >Council) either greater than 25% vote of both >houses or simple majority of one house >Initiate a PDP within Scope of the GNSO per >ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC >(currently >33% of vote of Council) -- greater >than 33% vote of both houses or greater than 66% vote of one house >Initiate a PDP not within Scope of the GNSO per >ICANN Bylaws and advice of ICANN GC >(currently >66% of vote of Council) greater >than 75% vote of one house and a simple majority of the other >Approval of a PDP without Super-Majority >(currently >50% of vote of Council) -- Simple >majority of both houses, but requires that at >least one representative of at least 3 of the 4 stakeholder groups supports >Super-Majority Approval of a PDP (currently >66% >of vote of Council) Greater than 75% majority >in one house and simple majority in the other >Removal of Nominating Committee Appointees for >Cause subject to ICANN Board Approval (currently >75% of Council): a) At least 75% of User/NCP >House to remove Nominating Committee appointee >on User/NCP House; b) At least 75% of Contracted >Parties House to remove Nominating Committee >appointee on Contracted Parties House; c) [At >least 75% of both voting houses to remove the >Council-level Nominating Committee appointee]. >All other GNSO Business (other than Board >elections) simple majority of both voting houses." >The Board did not have time at its 28 August >meeting to discuss these voting >thresholds. Staff has recommended adoption of >all voting thresholds noted in the WGGCR Report, >except for Category F, the threshold for removal >of an NCA. Staff has recommended that the Board >consider this threshold further as it continues >its related work on the NomCom Review and >improvement efforts. Additional ideas under >consideration include adding a voting threshold >for the approval of a charter for a PDP working group. > >Issue 5 Implementation > >At its 28 August meeting, the Board directed the >GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff on an >implementation plan that creates a transition to >a new bicameral voting structure by the >beginning of calendar year 2009. Board >discussion continues on how to ensure diversity >in each stakeholder group, whether specific >Board recommendations are needed to support >expansion and inclusiveness for new actors, and >whether the Board should encourage fostering >different representation. Questions about >whether additional guidance or requirements are >needed on the implementation plan, and >transition to the new structure by January 2009, >also are being explored. Comments about this >time frame, the issues noted, or about >particular areas that might require special attention are most welcome. > >Thank you for your continued involvement and input. > >Regards, >Denise > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org > >

3 2

Unavailable Delivery : Mailbox quota exceeded.
by alac＠icann.org Sept. 20, 2008

Sept. 20, 2008

Response message : To: dan(a)hmail.com.tw Subject: dan's - Experiencing problems with different ED pills?. Reason: Mailbox quota exceeded!

1 0

Thoughts on the Sept. 19 GNSO questions.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2008

Sept. 20, 2008

My thoughts embedded. Alan At 19/09/2008 03:37 AM, Denise Michel wrote: >Dear Community Members, > >As previously noted, discussions continue on outstanding issues >related to GNSO Council restructuring. I wanted to keep you >apprised of issues and ideas under consideration that I am aware of, >and give you (individually or as constituencies/advisory committees >if time permits) an opportunity to provide input. Thank you to >those who responded to my previous email (included >below). Additional input received before 26 September on the issues >noted below will be summarized for the Board prior to their 30 >September meeting at which these issues will be discussed. > >1) Registrants and/or Individual User Participation -- If the >Non-commercial Stakeholder Group includes individual Internet user >groups, should any distinctions be made with the membership of the >ALAC and supporting At-Large structures (which represents individual >Internet users' viewpoint across all of ICANN's structures and >activities)? The GNSO Working Group (WG-GCR) recommended the >inclusion of "all interested parties that use or provide services >for the Internet..." in the non-contracted party house and stated >that it "should not be restricted to domain registrants." The BGC >GNSO Improvements Report adopted by the Board in June stated that a >new Non-commercial Stakeholders Group "must go far beyond the >membership of the current NCUC" (which is chartered to represent >non-commercial entities). "We must consider educational, research, >and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members >of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial >organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a >non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." I have some trouble figuring out exactly what is being asked in the first sentence. Membership of ALAC is a bunch of people and I don't see what this small group has to do with GNSO constituencies. The same goes for the RALO management (or whatever the right term is for those who carry out the chair/secretariat/etc roles). The issue of ALSs I have addressed in several venues when commenting on Recommendation 12 of the ALAC Review. I will reproduce my answer in my formally posted comments here. But in summary, I don't see the confusion. The distinction is one of the interests of the ALS or other organization, and they should be free to participate where they want, in line with other ICANN participation rules. With regard to the other types of groups listed in the BGC report (educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations), the more the merrier as far as I am concerned. My comment to Rec 12: Recommendation 12: That the ALAC should explore ways to differentiate between organizations that genuinely represent individual Internet users, and are therefore ALS candidates, as opposed to those which may be a better fit with the NCUC. I believe that this question was not quite appropriate at the time it was asked, and even less so with the restructuring of the GNSO Council. Without going into the letter of the formal rules, an ALS must credibly represent user interests. And at least one RALO allows individuals to join the RALO directly in lieu of joining an ALS. Pretty much any not-for profit can join the NCUC, and they are now planning to let individuals join as well. There is clearly overlap and that is not likely to change. The differentiator is not necessarily the characteristic of the organization, but rather their interests. Ignoring for the moment the new GNSO structure: o NCUC is a part of the GNSO which has a mandate to develop ALL gTLD policies in ICANN. No more, no less. o ALAC and its At-Large organization have a mandate to advise the Board on ANY ICANN issue of relevance to users. But because of the wider scope, it will always need to pick and choose what it selects to address. It is not formally mandated to develop policy. Depending on where their interest and priorities lie, they may pick who they want to associate with. Or both. There is (as far as I know) nothing that prevents an organization (or individual for the areas where they are allowed) from playing in both sandboxes. The ICANN Bylaws EXPLICITLY state that an individual or entity can participate in more than one GNSO constituency. I can see no reason that the same cannot be true for GNSO Constituencies and At-Large ALSs. I note that most ALSs existed before they joined At-Large - they have lives and interests of their own which may or may not coincide with multiple ICANN outreach directions. Once can easily imagine a community-owned wireless network becoming an ALS and a member of the ISP or Registrar Constituencies. If the question being asked is should the ALAC help develop guidelines that would explain to outsiders why they might want to join ALAC, the answer is "Definitely". Just as presumably the NCUC will do for their prospective members. And in the presence of both documents, perhaps a "participation flowchart" could be developed. >2) Voting Thresholds for New Working Group Model -- An additional >issue raised is whether voting thresholds were needed for electing >the chair of a PDP WG and approving the charter for a PDP WG. If >so, what should the thresholds be? (see previous email below for >other thresholds recommended by the WG-GCR). I have no problem with these votes falling under the "all other" category requiring 50% of both houses, but could probably be happy with some other threshold if there were a compelling reason. >3) Electing Council Leadership -- There seems to be agreement with >the WG-GCR proposal to elect the chair by 60% vote of both houses, >and the discussion is focused on whether a back-up provision is >needed. If you have not provided comments, input would be >appreciated on whether an alternate provision is needed in case no >candidate achieves such supermajority and, if so, what that >provision should be. Ideas discussed include: the full Council >voting with a simple majority with weighted voting in the contracted >party house to make the total house votes equal, and the NCAs would >each have a single vote; and elect a chair by more than 50% of the >vote of both houses. I would prefer to have a simple mechanism which does not have the potential for deadlock, and in the previous set of answers supported the weighted voting mechanism. I can live with is as the fall-back method as well. >4) Implementation Plan -- The Board has directed that an >implementation plan be submitted for Board approval that creates a >transition to the new Council structure. Further input would be >appreciated on this point, including on transition timing and >whether additional guidance or requirements are needed on the >implementation plan. Also, views would be appreciated on what >provision should be made to fill seats on the new Council if a >Stakeholder Plan is not approved by the Board. Regarding timing, the recently announced revised timing of April 2009 or later makes a lot more sense than the previous deadline of Jan. 1, 2009. Regarding the allocation of Council seats, I have no easy solution in the cases where the N constituencies must divide 3 or 6 seats. Even in a "simple" case of 2 constituencies and 6 seats, it is not intuitively obvious that the division should be 3 and 3. The size and import of the two constituencies should play a factor, and both of those measures are going to be VERY subjective. This is an implicit problem with the Constituency:Stakeholder Group model proposed by the BGC. Although not a full solution to the problem, allowing fractional votes per council member may be required (that is, a given member may vote .6 of a vote Yes, and .4 No. VERY ugly, but unclear what better way we will have of representing constituencies if we are successful and have MANY in an SQ. >Thank you for your continued involvement and input. > >Regards, >Denise > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [liaison6c] Input Requested on Council Restructuring
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 19, 2008

Sept. 19, 2008

At 05/09/2008 07:01 PM, Denise Michel wrote: >Any group intending to contribute comments >should submit them to me via email to ><mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>policy-staff(a)icann.org >by COB on 18 September (PDT). That will give >Board members adequate time before their meeting >to review your submissions. A copy of the Final >Report of the WG-GCR is attached for your >reference. The remaining issues also are >summarized below, but please reference the >report directly for the precise WG-GCR language. Dear Denise, The ALAC submits the following comments on the 5 issues raise in your e-mail of Sept. 5, 2008. They have not been the subject of a formal vote, but have been submitted for committee comments for 4 days and adjusted per those comments. No comments were received indicating anything other than general support and we expect the comments to be ratified at a later vote. Alan ---------------- Issue 1 Role of the Third NomCom Appointee (NCA) Having a non-voting NCA sets a bad precedent within ICANN. Assuming the voting proposed (similar) thresholds are accepted, it is unclear how the carefully crafted voting thresholds can accommodate having the NCA vote at on the Council only. Essentially, that NCA is playing the role of a Liaison from nowhere. Since the Board has set the House numbers as 12:6 before NCA, it makes some sense to allocate the third NCA to the User House. That gives all NCA's the same ability to influence outcomes, and returns to the normal state of NCA's being full voting members of the bodies to which they are appointed. Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair The proposed (minority) alternative (assuming the NCA is still on the main Council), the NCA option having that person be the Chair *MAYBE*, makes no sense at all. If the person will definitely be the Chair, the NomCom can attempt to find a person with the correct qualifications. To tell the NomCom that the person has to have a specific balance of criteria to be a good Councilor AND also needs to have organizational and group management skills to potentially be the chair is pushing it a bit. And will likely make it hard to recruit candidates who want to deal with that level of uncertainty. We favor the weighted voting option with one vice-chair (perhaps not from the same house as the Chair). Another alternative suggested is that each house elect a chair and they alternate, but that seems to be an administrative and logistical nightmare. Two vice chairs seems like overkill, but does have the merit of having one from each house. Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats As already stated, ALAC would prefer a resolution where all Board members are elected by the entire Council. Essentially, we shared the same concern as those raised and stated more eloquently by the Board. Among the alternatives, we favor the weighted voting method. The WG discussed but did not ultimately put forward the idea that each two house might be responsible for nominating one of the positions, but it would be voted on by both - this may address the perceived inequality. It is important to also ensure that there is a viable transition process to get to the new methodology (there were some perceptions that the proposed WG methodology had a problem in that area). Another suggestion was that there be bi-cameral voting (perhaps 60% of one house and 40% of the other required). But that, as discussed in the section on Chair elections, could lead to deadlocks. Issue 4 Voting Thresholds The ALAC did not previously take a position other than to say there was a LOT of give and take by all parties to get to the proposed thresholds. With the exception of removal of an NCA, although some of the thresholds may end up being unworkable, it is not clear that a better set can be crafted at this point. With regard to the removal of an NCA, the ALAC had reservations, particularly with the removal on a house-level NCA by a vote of only that house. The term "for cause" made the threshold barely acceptable, in that the House would have to justify to the Board why the NCA was being removed. Nevertheless, if some activity is severe enough to warrant removal, it would likely be apparent to both houses, and requiring some level of support in both houses would be far more transparent. Issue 5 Implementation Implementation by January 2009 is very aggressive. Hopefully Draft Bylaws will be available quickly for comment and review. Stakeholder Group issues are indeed likely to require focus. As noted in the ALAC's statement to the Board submitted on August 13 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attac…) the ALAC feels that the new structure is sufficiently cumbersome that attracting new constituencies, and ensuring that the additional hierarchy of Stakeholder Groups does not add an onerous administrative burden is going to be difficult. In particular we noted: ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to make it as easy as possible to create and operate new constituencies. The requirements they must meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency. These new entities must feel comfortable that they will be able to participate in the Policy Development Process as discretely identifiable bodies, at a level comparable to (and not subservient to) the long-established players (of course factoring in size). Without that guarantee, there is little reason for them to make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes. The new addition level of hierarchy moving from GNSO->Constituency to GNSO->Stakeholder Group->Constituency (or as per the consensus proposal GNSO->House->Stakeholder Group->Constituency) must be managed to minimize the need for additional complexity and additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory. As noted in an ALAC statement to be sent to the Board prior to its September meeting, the ALAC feels that openness and transparency at the Stakeholder Group level will also be crucial.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Motion: Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 15, 2008

Sept. 15, 2008

We will start up a vote on the Monday On 13/09/2008 14:56, "Sébastien Bachollet" <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr> wrote: I second. All the best Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : samedi 13 septembre 2008 01:41 À : ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Objet : [ALAC] Motion: Statement on Stakeholder Group Openness Importance : Haute Having seen no negative comments or suggestions for rewording, I move that the ALAC send the statement below to the Board. Can I please quickly have a second, so that staff can start a 7 day vote? Alan (I will be travelling and out of contact for most of a day, and perhaps more.) >=============================== > >The ALAC notes with pleasure that at its meeting of August 28, 2008, >the Board clarified and reaffirmed the requirement that >Constituencies within the restructured GNSO meet and continue to >meet principles of representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness. > >Given that within the restructured GNSO, a principal entity will be >the Stakeholders Group, and that it is at this level that Council >seats will be allocated amongst its Constituencies, it is critical >that the mechanism for such allocation be completely transparent. > >Accordingly, the ALAC recommends that when the Bylaws are amended to >include references to Stakeholder Groups, that they too are obliged >to adhere to similar principles of representativeness, openness, >transparency and fairness. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 4

Fwd: [dns-operations] Announcement: Test Report on DNSSEC impact on SOHO CPE
by Patrick Vande Walle Sept. 15, 2008

Sept. 15, 2008

DNSSEC being a hot topic currently in the ICANN community, you may find this report useful, because it addresses CPE issues for individual users. This earlier report from the Swedish ccTLD is also an useful piece of information :http://www.iis.se/about/press?id=135 Patrick -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [dns-operations] Announcement: Test Report on DNSSEC impact on SOHO CPE Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:16:22 +0100 From: Ray.Bellis(a)nominet.org.uk To: OARC DNS Operations <dns-operations(a)lists.dns-oarc.net> Dear Colleagues, We would like to announce the publication of a joint study entitled "DNSSEC Impact on Broadband Routers and Firewalls", available for download at: http://download.nominet.org.uk/dnssec-cpe/DNSSEC-CPE-Report.pdf In summary (based on 24 tested units): "... we conclude that just 6 units (25%) operate with full DNSSEC compatibility "out of the box." 9 units (37%) can be reconfigured to bypass DNS proxy incompatibilities. Unfortunately, the rest (38%) lack reconfigurable DHCP DNS parameters, making it harder for LAN clients to bypass their interference with DNSSEC use. These findings, their potential impact on DNSSEC use by broadband consumers, and implications for router/firewall manufacturers, are presented and analyzed in this report. " Ray Bellis Senior Researcher in Advanced Projects Nominet UK Lisa A. Phifer President, Core Competence, Inc. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations(a)lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations

1 0

GNSO Restructuring Issues - Sept 5th questions
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2008

Sept. 15, 2008

At the ALAC meeting today last Tuesday, I said I would take the lead in drafting a response to the questions on GNSO restructuring raised by the Board through Denise. You can find a copy of Denise's original e-mail right at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05441.html. Some of the questions already had partial answers in ALAC's formal prior submissions. In this draft, these have been augmented with the support of the ExCom and others. PLEASE NOTE: The deadline for formal submission is close-of-business Sept 18, so there is clearly not sufficient time for a formal vote, but all thoughts are welcome. Alan ---------------- Issue 1 Role of the Third NomCom Appointee (NCA) Having a non-voting NCA sets a bad precedent within ICANN. Assuming the voting proposed (similar) threshholds are accepted, it is unclear how the carefully crafted voting thresholds can accommodate having the NCA vote at on the Council only. Essentially, that NCA is playing the role of a Liaison from nowhere. Since the Board has set the House numbers as 12:6 before NCA, it makes some sense to allocate the third NCA to the User House. That gives all NCA's the same ability to influence outcomes, and returns to the normal state of NCA's being full voting members of the bodies to which they are appointed. Issue 2 Council Leadership; Election of GNSO Council Chair The proposal calls for a 60% vote from both houses, leading to the potential of deadlock. The proposed (minority) alternative (assuming the NCA is still on the main Council), the NCA option having that person be the Chair *MAYBE*, makes no sense at all. If the person will definitely be the Chair, the NomCom can attempt to find a person with the correct qualifications. [A quick poll of several NomCom delegates indicates they may not be too happy to be given that role, but perhaps that is moot.] To tell the NomCom that the person has to have a specific balance of criteria to be a good Councilor AND also needs to have organizational and group management skills to potentially be the chair is pushing it a bit. And will likely make it hard to recruit candidates who want to deal with that level of uncertainty. We favor the weighted voting option with one vice-chair (perhaps not from the same house as the Chair). Another alternative suggested is that each house elect a chair and they alternate, but that seems to be an administrative and logistical nightmare. Two vice chairs seems like overkill. Issue 3 - Election of Board Seats As already stated, ALAC would prefer a resolution where all Board members are elected by the entire Council. Essentially, we shared the same concern as those raised and stated more eloquently by the Board. Among the alternatives, we favor the weighted voting method. The WG discussed but did not ultimately put forward the idea that each two house might be responsible for nominating one of the positions, but it would be voted on by both - this may address the perceived inequality. It is important to also ensure that there is a viable transition process to get to the new methodology (there were some perceptions that the proposed WG methodology had a problem in that area). Another suggestion was that there be bi-cameral voting (perhaps 60% of one house and 40% of the other required). But that, as discussed in the section on Chair elections, could lead to deadlocks. Issue 4 Voting Thresholds The ALAC did not take a position other than to say there was a LOT of give and take by all parties to get to the proposed thresholds. With the exception of removal of an NCA, although some of the thresholds may end up being unworkable, it is not clear that a better set can be crafted at this point. With regard to the removal of an NCA, the ALAC had reservations, particularly with the removal on a house-level NCA by a vote of only that house. The term "for cause" made the threshold barely acceptable, in that the House would have to justify to the Board why the NCA was being removed. Nevertheless, if some activity is severe enough to warrant removal, it would likely be apparent to both houses, and requiring some level of support in both houses would be far more transparent. Issue 5 Implementation Implementation by January 2009 is very aggressive. Hopefully Draft Bylaws will be available quickly for comment and review. Stakeholder Group issues are indeed likely to require focus. As noted in the ALAC's statement to the Board submitted on August 13 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attac…) the ALAC feels that the new structure is sufficiently cumbersome that attracting new constituencies, and ensuring that the additional hierarchy of Stakeholder Groups does not add an onerous administrative burden is going to be difficult. In particular we noted: ICANN (and the stakeholder groups) will have to make it as easy as possible to create and operate new constituencies. The requirements they must meet must be reasonable and applied with consistency. These new entities must feel comfortable that they will be able to participate in the Policy Development Process as discretely identifiable bodies, at a level comparable to (and not subservient to) the long-established players (of course factoring in size). Without that guarantee, there is little reason for them to make the considerable effort needed to enter into GNSO processes. The new addition level of hierarchy moving from GNSO->Constituency to GNSO->Stakeholder Group->Constituency (or as per the consensus proposal GNSO->House->Stakeholder Group->Constituency) must be managed to minimize the need for additional complexity and additional volunteer effort. Thin layers will be, in our opinion, absolutely mandatory. As noted in an ALAC statement to be sent to the Board prior to its September meeting, the ALAC feels that openness and transparency at the Stakeholder Group level will also be crucial.

2 1

Comments on the ALAC Review
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 14, 2008

Sept. 14, 2008

For those who may be interested, the comments period on the ALAC review is now closed and the comments can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-final-2008/. Note that for some reason, some comments submitted to ICANN have their attachment names destroyed, and this time it chose to do it to my comment. As shown in the text of my message, the attachment to my comment is an Adobe PDF. The filetype in the URL is BIN, so your browser may not open it properly. If you download it and open it with Adobe Acrobat, or rename it to ".pdf", it will work fine. It is not a virus or trojan! Promise. Alan

1 0

ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review.pdf
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 14, 2008

Sept. 14, 2008

Please find attached a format revised copy of the ALAC Overview Report on the ALAC Review that I submitted to the public comments list on the 12th. This format change and correction of several typos and grammar errors along with a change to minimum margin size has changed toe length of the submitted document from 17 pages to 13 but has not changed any context or meaning. This is the copy that should now be posted on our web and Wiki sites and I have forwarded it as a replacement copy for the file and public record as well as for the use of the ALAC Review WG be separate message to Denise Michel, Tricia Drakes and Patrick Sharry. I do apologise for the need to make these changes but it was just as important that the original was received in due time as that this corrected copy be used for the public record. CLO

4 3