- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations Report
by Eduardo Diaz June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

Forgot to copy the above email lists as this conversation has been shared with all of you from the beggining. -ed ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations Report To: ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa(a)unilorin.edu.ng> Abdulkarim: We are going around in circles so this is going to be my last communication regarding the issue of participation and the visa issues in the context of this report. (l) Noted (ll) The recommendation is to survey the regions for more subtle challenges that people may have that prevents them from participating in ICANN events. Be that as it may, I will reconvene the WG to consider this comment going forward. Thanks. -ed On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:33 AM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < oloyede.aa(a)unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: > Dear Eduardo, > Thank you for the explanation. If the call for such a group is publicised > I would gladly join as you suggested if am allowed. > > There are two areas that I strongly believe require changes I) is that > attendance= participation= engagement. However, as you didn't agree but > respect my opinion on that I leave that to you to decide what you want to > do on that. > > II) secondly is on the issue of Visa. Personally, I do not think it > is appropriate to exclude that because it is a challenge to all at > large members no matter the region and it would continue to be a > significant challenge if nothing is done. In this case, It affected about > 19% of ATLAS III participants that is approximately 1 out of every 5 > attendees. The number might likely be higher next time. In any case, I > think not having this in your recommendation is another missed opportunity > to deal with this issue especially after pointing it out but its not the > end of the world to me it only adds to my statistics of similar issues. > However, I consulted with all ALAC members from my region and almost all > the RALO leaders from my region on the way forward (all of whom are copied > in this mail) on this issue and they have unanimously asked me to formally > ask that this be included in this report this is because there is > absolutely no harm in doing this (please point out any if you know of > one)even if the report would end up in the bin. Adding a > recommendation along the line of picking a country for such an > event carefully also shows the fact that we need to be more sensitive and > accommodative to one another's challenge. This is because this is the only > challenge that is most glaring (from ATLAS III) and prevents participation > across all regions and if we do not emphasise it now, it would never be > reduced as we acknowledge that it would never go away completely but it > would affect all regions differently depending on the meeting venue. This > is a formal request and we hope to get a response. > Once again thank you very much. > AK > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 2:07 PM Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Abdulkarim: >> >> There may be or not recommendations on issues that were known to the >> community beforehand. It was out of the WG scope to identify >> recommendations as such. >> >> Regarding the Visa issue. Repeating myself: the recommendation was >> specifically to *"Survey all regions to better understand challenges >> At-Large members regularly face that prevent them from participating in >> ICANN events similar to ATLASIII." *The group excluded financial and >> Visa challenges because those challenges are readily known. The >> recommendation is for gathering data on other challenges that may be more >> subtle. What you are suggesting here applies to the group that will be >> conducting that survey. I encourage you to join such a group when it is >> created so can bring your views/suggestions onto that group discussions >> from the start. >> >> -ed >> >> --0--- >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:18 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < >> oloyede.aa(a)unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >> >>> Dear Eduardo, >>> Thanks for your response. Let me expand my second question and make it >>> very clear. >>> If you pick any of the recommendations in the report is there any of the >>> recommendations which is on an issue that we do not already know about in >>> this Community. >>> For example the issues arround individual membership is this the first >>> time it is comming up in our discussions.? Or let me pick another >>> recommendation >>> "Develop a process to proactively request suggestions and opinions from >>> ALSes on Policy issues". Is it not known or ever discussed that that we >>> need to be proactive before? >>> Based on above examples my question is can you tell me any of the >>> recommendations that is based on an unknown challenge that that Atlarge >>> faces. In other words if financial issues and visa issues are "readily >>> known", which of the other recommendations is not " readily know". >>> >>> Thanks >>> AK >>> >>> >>> The other side of my question you mentioned that the recommendations are >>> based on global issues. Visa issues are global. If an iCAnn meeting was to >>> be held in Nigeria for example. All non Africans would have to apply for a >>> visa in advance >>> >>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020, 13:50 Eduardo Diaz, <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Abdulkarim: >>>> >>>> Thank you for your email. >>>> >>>> See my answers below. >>>> >>>> -ed >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:16 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < >>>> oloyede.aa(a)unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Eduardo, >>>>> Thank you for your prompt response. You have clarified some of my >>>>> questions. I still have some concerns. I believe ATLAS III was a success in >>>>> a number of ways however I don't want us to over or underrate it. I have >>>>> numbered your comment and my responses are numbered correspondingly. >>>>> 1. Attendance cannot be same as participation my concern is if we take >>>>> attendance as participation we would be missing a lot of points and not >>>>> examine some of the real issues in the community. For example, I know >>>>> people who would turn up at meetings and not say a word because they fear >>>>> they would either be intimidated or not listened too for some reasons. If >>>>> we take attendance as participation those set of people would never listen >>>>> too and would continue to suffer in silence. And reports like this would >>>>> be used as a basis which in an actual sense should not have been. Therefore >>>>> it is better to define it correctly so that it won't be misleading. For me, >>>>> no one can intimidate me but I know of people in the community who are >>>>> easily intimidated and would only turn up just to mark the attendance and >>>>> never say a word. I hope you get what I mean. It would be better to >>>>> clearly use the word attendance rather than participation. >>>>> >>>> ed: Within the context of this report, attendance = participation = >>>> engagement. There is no more to say than that. I understand and respect >>>> your definition. >>>> >>>> 2. I still do not agree with the 30% magic number because but I can >>>>> live with it. My suggestion would be to amend the recommendation along the >>>>> line that 30% was recommended by the facilitator and it seems to be >>>>> reasonable and future events should consider the recommendation of the >>>>> facilitator if not for an event that requires 50% ratio someone can pick up >>>>> this recommendation and say it should be 30% therefore 30% must be used. If >>>>> the report can be amended that way that would be fine if not I can live >>>>> with it. >>>>> >>>> ed: Thanks for your suggestion but like I said 30% was a number set by >>>> the facilitator. The report will not be amended. >>>> >>>> 3. I totally disagree with you on the issue of the challenges. Visa >>>>> issue is a serious problem that requires a serious recommendation. I have >>>>> never really had visa problems except once that I was refused but later >>>>> granted and the stress one goes through with visa applications cannot be >>>>> explained talk less of when it is now rejected. Those who had visa issues >>>>> for ATLAS III seams now to be left on their own. I believe this should be >>>>> reflected in the recommendation. If possible a strong recommendation. Two >>>>> reasons for me feeling this way is that I). The board and others in >>>>> position to make a change should never fix a meeting like the AGM and ATLAS >>>>> III in a country like Canada where the visa process is cumbersome with very >>>>> high rejection ratio it shows like of sensitivity and requires a strong >>>>> recommendation to avoid such in future II) There is this tradition in our >>>>> immediate community of not wanting to push for things that are more >>>>> peculiar to some regions, for example, the African region except when it >>>>> involves some individuals. I can give numerous example of this. It portrays >>>>> a situation of non-equallity and lack of opens which is the hallmark of the >>>>> internet. This should not be so if something like individual membership is >>>>> being recommended when I do not see a direct correlation, I find it >>>>> insulting to push things like this to the background. I find it more >>>>> insulting that when suddenly when it comes to the issues of finance and >>>>> visa the recommendation now turned into "challenges that we do not >>>>> know about". Nowhere in the report did the recommendation specified >>>>> something like this except here. We need to be more sensitive on issues >>>>> like this. Please tell me what is new that we don't know about in all the >>>>> recommendations, individual members? 30% coach ratio or what. Am not trying >>>>> to ridicule the good work you have done but *Please Please and Please >>>>> every life matters and every challenge matters too.* >>>>> >>>> ed: Maybe I was not clear as to what we are recommending here. Let me >>>> try again. The recommendation is specifically to *"Survey all regions >>>> to better understand challenges At-Large members regularly face that >>>> prevent them from participating in ICANN events similar to ATLASIII." *The >>>> group excluded financial and Visa challenges because those challenges are >>>> readily known. The recommendation is for gathering data on other challenges >>>> that may be more subtle. What you are suggesting here applies to the group >>>> that will be conducting that survey. I encourage you to join such a group >>>> when it is created so can bring your views/suggestions onto that group >>>> discussions from the start. >>>> >>>> 4. Yes, I understand the experience we all have in our RALOs but this >>>>> report is based on the survey not other experience not directly related. I >>>>> can live with this but my suggestion is we take non-related experience out. >>>>> It takes personality out of the report, to me it seems to be there just to >>>>> push RALOs that don't have individual members to have but am sure other >>>>> reports can do that. >>>>> >>>> ed: Noted >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. I agree on with your point on this and I just advise that next time >>>>> the questions we use in surveys should be more specific. >>>>> >>>> ed: Noted >>>> >>>> 6. I don't understand what you mean by no comment on this occasion. Are >>>>> you saying the changes would be made? >>>>> >>>> ed: My apologies. I meant to say - Thank you for your suggestion but it >>>> will stay as stated in the report. >>>> >>>> 7. Am fine with the seventh point >>>>> 8. That is fine >>>>> 9. I want us to be more careful about this and in future, a report >>>>> where the survey used is not anonymous is usually associated with doubt and >>>>> scientifically they are treated as not too accurate. Anonymous surveys are >>>>> considered to be more open, honest and accurate. I was thinking that the >>>>> survey was anonymous. I know some people would be gutted feeling that >>>>> survey thining it was anonymous and finding out that it was not. for me, it >>>>> does not matter as I would still be honest when feeling such survey most >>>>> times but I will be more comfortable it is anonymous. >>>>> >>>> ed: Noted >>>> >>>> >>>>> AK >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Abdulkarim: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for taking the time to dissect the report. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have answered your questions in the hopes to clarify any >>>>>> misconceptions. I urge you to be aware that the analysis and >>>>>> recommendations that you read in this report were the product of a >>>>>> collective, global, and volunteer set of minds that for many hours >>>>>> discussed and anatomized the survey. It may not be 100% perfect but in the >>>>>> overall it provides an effective guide for those other volunteers that will >>>>>> be in charge of designing and implementing development plans to continue >>>>>> nurturing the ATLASIII Ambassadors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Make sure that the group values your and everyone else comments and >>>>>> suggestions. >>>>>> >>>>>> My answers are embedded in your email. >>>>>> >>>>>> -ed >>>>>> >>>>>> ---0--- >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 6:21 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE < >>>>>> oloyede.aa(a)unilorin.edu.ng> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Staff, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for sending this report. The authors have done some >>>>>>> fantastic job. However, I have critically peered review the report as I >>>>>>> usually do as an academic and the following observation and questions are >>>>>>> asked to strengthen the report as it is a critical report as been suggested >>>>>>> by the report itself in its recommendation that it should be used as the >>>>>>> basis for future metrics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. I noticed that what is meant by General recommendation was >>>>>>> briefly explained as that that does not fall within the four main scopes, >>>>>>> but my question is the basis for the general recommendation? Are they based >>>>>>> on the survey? Or are they based on the opinion on the writers/ this would >>>>>>> help in the understanding of the general recommendations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. ed: they are general and based on the opinion of group members. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. In the explanation of figure 3 "The 50% increase in >>>>>>> participation" seams not correct because I do not think what was measured >>>>>>> is participation. What was measured is the attendance at CPWG and other >>>>>>> meetings, not participation. The data provided is not sufficient enough to >>>>>>> measure participation. I do not see an increase in participation based on >>>>>>> my observation (I might be wrong as thee might be a slight increase or >>>>>>> decreases but definitely not a 50% increase in participation). >>>>>>> Participation can be measured in a number of ways to include those >>>>>>> contributing to the various work of CPWG not just by attending by showing >>>>>>> up on zoom and going to do some other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ed: For the purpose of this report attendance = participation = >>>>>> engagement. The % could have been less (or more) and calculated >>>>>> mathematically. The bottom line is that there was an increase in CPWG >>>>>> meeting attendance after the event. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Recommendation on Q 0 says Maintain a 30% ratio of coaches. >>>>>>> Why 30% why not 40% or 50% ATLAS III has 30% coach ratio by chance and no >>>>>>> data showed that it was effective, how does it now translate into a magic >>>>>>> number? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ed: 30% was recommended by the event facilitator and the number was >>>>>> met. The fact that the meeting went smoothly supports the >>>>>> recommendation made by the facilitator. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Recommendation Q1. The challenges faced were already listed >>>>>>> as financial, challenges with visa challenges as participants can't take >>>>>>> time off work, among others. I believe these are genuine challenges that >>>>>>> need a solution, but to my surprise, the recommendation seems to downplay >>>>>>> these challenges for a reason best known to them (maybe because it mainly >>>>>>> affected some regions hence it's those regions problem). The recommendation >>>>>>> went further that the new survey should focus on other things without >>>>>>> recommending how to solve the problems clearly identified by the survey >>>>>>> based on the number who could not attend. The recommendation left issues >>>>>>> identified when future to recommend something else such best channel of >>>>>>> communication. There is no data in the entire survey that shows that the >>>>>>> current channel for communication is not effective. There is no much data >>>>>>> that can support that interpretation language was a problem however these >>>>>>> were seen to require recommendations. Therefore I can conclude to say there >>>>>>> is no correlation between the survey and the recommendations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. ed: The challenges listed are known as you say. The >>>>>> recommendation is to see if there are other challenges that we do not know >>>>>> about. Recommending solutions to the ones that we all know were out of >>>>>> scope for this group. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q2A in my opinion and as shown by the text presented in the >>>>>>> report, the low number of individual members is because most RALO are just >>>>>>> introducing individual members and these individual members have not done a >>>>>>> lot in the community, and they were not lucky to be selected. This is >>>>>>> clearly shown based on the fact that the report said there were some >>>>>>> selection criteria used, and this criteria was mainly based on the previous >>>>>>> contribution. The only way the recommendation can be true is if the survey >>>>>>> has compared the number of individual users with the number of individual >>>>>>> members who submitted an application. There is nowhere in the report that >>>>>>> this was mentioned. In fact, there is no way the issue of individual >>>>>>> members can be included as a recommendation in this report because no data >>>>>>> can definably show that individual members were disadvantaged at this >>>>>>> point. This can only be shown with more data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. ed: What you read is what we interpreted from the data and our >>>>>> collective experience with the inclusion of individual members in our >>>>>> respective RALOs. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q2b my interpretation of Q2b is that the outcome was due to >>>>>>> the selection criteria used. one of the criteria include what you have done >>>>>>> the past and what leadership position have you held hence naturally those >>>>>>> who could not show any of this were not selected as participants I do not >>>>>>> understand the 1st recommendation the syntax does not make sense due to >>>>>>> typos and recommendation II was talking about outside ICANN skills, and I >>>>>>> wonder where that was coming from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. ed: The group interpretation was different than yours. The two >>>>>> recommendations are basically indicating that we should focus in continue >>>>>> developing individuals that are already actively engaged with At-Large. >>>>>> Increased skills are part of that development. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> 2. Q4. I do not understand the result. e.g. is it that ten(10) >>>>>>> people from AFRALO scored the preATlAS II event four(4), one (1) person >>>>>>> scored it 1 and zero scored it 3. Are we saying no one scored it below 3? I >>>>>>> think the axis should be properly labelled for easy understanding. The >>>>>>> survey did not consider the level of the participant's knowledge of ICANN >>>>>>> before the survey. Therefore the conclusion that it was the pre-Atlas III >>>>>>> capacity that did the magic cannot be substantiated. The survey question >>>>>>> should be Based on the Pre Atlas III capacity building courses not After >>>>>>> taking the pre-Atlas III course. Or the question should be compared with >>>>>>> your knowledge before taking the course. I answered the survey at that >>>>>>> time, and my response was based on my entire knowledge and must just be >>>>>>> based on knowledge gained from Atlas III because i wouldn't have assumed >>>>>>> the questioner meant otherwise. I think others too might be in a similar >>>>>>> shoe. Again the recommendation was solely based on the pre-capacity >>>>>>> building used before ATLAS III however the survey question was based on >>>>>>> both the pre-ATLAS III and ATLAS III itself hence the recommendation can't >>>>>>> be based on the survey. However, I agree with the recommendation on O&E as >>>>>>> it seems consistent with the survey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. ed: Ranking levels were from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest >>>>>> number. No one selected a ranking level below 3. Numbers inside the columns >>>>>> indicated the number of people that selected that specific ranking value. >>>>>> Agree that labels will help in better understanding the graph. The group >>>>>> interpreted the data as it was asked with no preconceptions of individual >>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q7a and b can help build a better understanding of Q4; >>>>>>> therefore, some of the recommendations in Q4 are better off in Q7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. ed: No comments >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q8 I do not understand the y-axis. For example, NARALO has 3 >>>>>>> participants (coach and non-coach) in all. The question is a yes or no >>>>>>> answer but the response for NARALO stands at about 6 on the y-axis. Am >>>>>>> quite confused about this. Then the recommendation seams coming from the >>>>>>> moon as it cannot be deduced from the response. For example, the >>>>>>> communications/operations recommendation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 7. ed: The chart included the coaches responses which is incorrect. >>>>>> Thanks for the catch. Both the comm & ops recommendations are promoting the >>>>>> use of different channels of communication to engage people into their >>>>>> RALOs meetings. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q8B. I wonder the basis for all the recommendations as it >>>>>>> does not seems to have any correlation with the response. Maybe they can be >>>>>>> classified as a general recommendation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8. ed: All recommendations are geared to promote participation in >>>>>> RALO meetings. The category classification is just to indicate the >>>>>> development areas that need to focus on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Q10A to implement the recommendation on policy the identity >>>>>>> of each respondent would have to be revealed, and I do not think it was >>>>>>> said it in the survey their identities would be revealed surveys are kind >>>>>>> off expected to be anonymous except otherwise explicitly stated. If the >>>>>>> identities are not revealed, the recommendation cannot be implemented. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9. ed: None of the identities would be disclosed except to those >>>>>> responsible for developing programs to support / facilitate the development >>>>>> of the ATLASIII Ambassadors. If this is not possible, ALAC will be >>>>>> forced to go back to each ATLASIII Ambassador and ask this question again. The >>>>>> idea is to ensure that the resources allocated to this effort are used >>>>>> effectively. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. >>>>>>> 2. There is no correlation between Q10 B and most of the >>>>>>> recommendations on this question. They seem to be the opinion of the >>>>>>> writer(s) not based on the survey. For example, noting about the timing of >>>>>>> CPWG, final slide recommendation to transform FBSC to OFB-WG on the survey. >>>>>>> Furthermore, I do not see a direct correlation between figure 21 and 22. >>>>>>> The correlation can only be drawn by asking CPWG participants if they >>>>>>> participated in ATLAS III. Then again based on my own observation if more >>>>>>> ATLAS III participants are attending ATLAS II it might be because a weekly >>>>>>> reminder is being sent to all ATLAS III participants to attend CPWG; >>>>>>> therefore, the survey question should have covered things like this as It >>>>>>> seems like a condition for successful participants in ATLAS III was >>>>>>> attending CPWG hence the increase in the number of attendance. If figure 22 >>>>>>> which is not part of the survey question is used I see no reason why things >>>>>>> like who are the new penholders after ATLAS III and things like that be >>>>>>> used to also allow for the recommendation to be more robust and scientific. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10. ed: Figure 21: 40% of the participants that answered the >>>>>> survey did not regularly attend CPWG meetings. CPWG participation was >>>>>> constantly reinforced during ATLASIII. Figure 22 is post survey data >>>>>> (May 19 to April 20) and used to emphasize the fact that there was >>>>>> an increase in participation (= attendance=engagement) right after >>>>>> ATLASIII. The correlation is in the attendance variable. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AK >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM ICANN At-Large Staff < >>>>>>> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On behalf of Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, and Eduardo Diaz, >>>>>>>> ATLASIII Report Group Chair, please find attached the Post-ATLASIII Survey >>>>>>>> Analysis and Recommendations report. This report includes the results and >>>>>>>> recommendations of the post-ATLASIII survey and reports that were completed >>>>>>>> by ATLASIII participants. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This note serves as a preview of the official launch of the report >>>>>>>> during ICANN68. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please inform staff if you see any glaring omissions or errors by >>>>>>>> Friday, 19 June 2020. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community >>>>>>>> Website: atlarge.icann.org >>>>>>>> Facebook: facebook.com/icann >>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge >>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> >>>>>>>> Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge >>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>>>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the >>>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin >>>>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >>>>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >>>>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> ALAC mailing list >>>>>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>>>> ALAC Working Wiki: >>>>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >>>>>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >>>>>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( >>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of >>>>>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the >>>>>>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, >>>>>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling >>>>>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential >>>>>> and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >>>>>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >>>>>> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >>>>>> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin >>>>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >>>>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >>>>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential >>>> and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >>>> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >>>> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >>>> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >>>> >>> >>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin >>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal >>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal >>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential >> and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >> > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> > > -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] 18 June 2020
by Maureen Hilyard June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

Thursday, 18 June 2020 ICANN Community Leadership Digest The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates. Please Note: The ICANN Community Leadership Digest will not be published during ICANN68 (Monday, 22 June and Thursday, 25 June) but will return on Monday, 29 June. Table of Contents Prepare for ICANN68 - Registration - Schedule - Remote Participation Guides - Virtual Backgrounds - Policy Report - GNSO Policy Briefing - Prep Sessions Information Sharing - NEW: ATRT3 Final Report Now Available for Public Comment - REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for ICANN’s Independent Review Process Public Comment - ccNSO PDP3: Initial Proposals for Process to Retire ccTLDs - Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Regional Strategic Plan for FY2021-2025 - Enhancing the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model - NEW: Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Final Report Prepare for ICANN68 Registration <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Schedule <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Remote Participation Guides <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Virtual Backgrounds <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Policy Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> GNSO Policy Briefing <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Prep Sessions <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Information Sharing NEW: ATRT3 Final Report Published for Public Comment From: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives The ATRT3 Final Report has now been published for Public Comment to inform ICANN Board action on final recommendations. Please add your input here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> . REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for the ICANN Independent Review Process Announcement <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> On 31 March 2020, ICANN opened a call for Expressions of Interest for panelists to serve on the omnibus Standing Panel for the ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP). Candidates for the IRP omnibus Standing Panel should review the Expressions of Interest document <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…>before submission. The document includes the following information: - Panel Position Description - Required or Highly Preferred Skills - Required or Highly Preferred Experience - Time Commitment - Compensation and Selection Expressions of Interest should be submitted to irp-standingpanel-eoi2020(a)icann.org <IRP-Standingpanel-EOI2020(a)icann.org> by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 31 July 2020. Public Comment ccNSO PDP3: Initial Proposals for Process to Retire ccTLDs <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Close Date: Friday, 10 July 2020 Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Regional Strategic Plan for FY2021-2025 <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Close Date: Tuesday, 14 July 2020 Enhancing the Effectiveness of ICANN's Multistakeholder Model <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Close Date: Sunday, 2 August 2020 NEW: Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Final Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> Close Date: Sunday, 2 August 2020 Volume 2, Issue 50 | Archive <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001toLTnhDXBI7PhZIu0x0U9MzOC_Yg9yzMa3t4M8XbA63k…> | Next Issue: Monday, 29 June 2020 ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> | About Constant Contact <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/about-constant-contact> Sent by david.olive(a)icann.org in collaboration with [image: Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.] <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&rmc=VF19_3GE> Try email marketing for free today! <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&rmc=VF19_3GE> _______________________________________________ SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list SO-AC-SG-CLeaders(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

ISOC@ICANN68
by Maureen Hilyard June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

*ISOC@ICANN68* The Internet Society is excited to invite you to a special ISOC@ICANN68 social event! While travel is on hold, why not see the wonders of Kuala Lumpur after a packed day of meetings? Let us take you on a virtual trip to the city, have some fun, and connect with the Internet Society Community. Join us on Tuesday, 23 June from 12:00 to 13:00 UTC! Get your passport for the event right here! <https://isoc.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYtcu6rrDwiG9YPo5-AC5n81XMVCAjn1MHw>

1 0

Fwd: ccNSO Newsletter | June 2020
by Maureen Hilyard June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

Find out the latest about the ccNSO. ccNSO Newsletter | June 2020 The June 2020 edition of the ccNSO Newsletter focuses entirely on updates regarding Working Groups and Committees, relevant to ccTLD Managers. Stay informed about their recent and upcoming activities, their contributions to the ICANN68 Virtual Policy Forum, and more. Welcome to ICANN68! ccNSO Council Chair Katrina Sataki Looks Ahead to the ICANN68 ccNSO Sessions Dear All, The Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) program begins on Monday, 22 June with <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>Tech Day <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, a workshop open to all community members with an interest in technical, operational, and security topics. The <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>ccNSO Members Meeting <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> consists of three sessions and starts on Tuesday, 23 June with a session focusing on governance models of ccTLD managers. The program continues on Wednesday, 24 June with presentations and discussions about ccTLD experience with the COVID-19 pandemic. The final session of the ccNSO Members Meeting will be held on Thursday, 25 June when ccNSO members and the broader ccTLD community will be able to participate in a question and answer session with the ccNSO-appointed ICANN Board members. The <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>ccNSO Council <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> will meet on Wednesday, 24 June 2020, followed by a meeting by the Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> ). The Strategic and Operational Planning Committee (SOPC <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>) will meet on Thursday, 25 June. The main strength of the ccNSO is its ability to listen to the community and its willingness to respond to the challenges and changes of the DNS environment. ICANN68 provides another opportunity for discussion and engagement. Katrina Sataki (.lv), ccNSO Chair TLD-OPS TLD-OPS at ICANN68 On Wednesday, 24 June, the TLD-OPS standing committee leadership team will contribute to a session entitled “The DNS in times of COVID-19: the ccTLD experience”, held as part of the ICANN68 ccNSO Members Meeting. Join us <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . Recent activities The TLD-OPS Standing Committee continues to meet on a regular basis, and addresses work items ranging from process improvements to content development. At the end of June, the standing committee plans for a half day work session. The group previously created a Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Playbook <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, which serves as a basic business continuity strategy and implementation guide for small country code top-level domain (ccTLD) operators. The playbook was a success and its publication was timely. The recent developments provide an excellent opportunity to ccTLD managers to reflect on their recent DR/BCP plan activation and to compare it with the playbook, to see if the activation could have been handled differently. To that end, the TLD-OPS Standing Committee has recently distributed a survey among all subscribers of the TLD-OPS mailing list, with questions related to the playbook, and plans for an ICANN69 workshop in October 2020. From an operations point of view, the TLD-OPS Standing Committee has not seen any uptake in COVID-19 related security incidents on the TLD-OPS mailing list. About TLD-OPS TLD-OPS <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> is the incident response community for and by ccTLDs and brings together folks who are responsible for the overall security and stability of their ccTLD. The goal of the TLD-OPS community is to enable ccTLD operators worldwide to collaboratively strengthen their incident response capabilities. Strategic & Operational Planning Committee SOPC at ICANN68 The SOPC will meet as part of ICANN68, on Thursday, 25 June (08:30-09:30 UTC). Join us here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . Recent activities The SOPC submitted its comments <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> on the ICANN FY21-25 Operating and Financial Plan, and recently on the draft PTI Strategic Plan for 2021-2024. At the end of March 2020, the SOPC held a conference call with ICANN Org Finance to discuss the SOPC comments and possible adjustments to the ICANN FY21-25 Operating and Financial Plan in light of the covid-19 pandemic. Under the guidance of Chair Giovanni Seppia (.eu), the SOPC is working to review their Charter <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>. The updated version of the Charter will be posted after adoption by the ccNSO Council. About the SOPC The purpose of the SOPC <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> is to coordinate and organise participation of ccTLD managers in ICANN's Strategic and Operational planning processes. Guidelines Review Committee Recent and upcoming activities The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee is currently discussing the following topics: - The need to change the Rules of the ccNSO, and how to consult and engage the ccTLD community with respect to changes of the internal 2004 Rules of the ccNSO. - The need to simplify the many guidelines developed and adopted by the ccNSO, eg. by introducing generic procedures or wordings, available in a central location. Moreover, the GRC is creating a new ccNSO guideline regarding the removal of Board members nominated by the ccNSO Council, and is reviewing and updating where needed existing ccNSO guidelines, such as the one regarding the appointment of ccNSO delegates to the Nominating Committee. About the GRC The purpose of the ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>) is to review the current guidelines and to ascertain whether they reflect current practices and working methods, identify potential gaps, and based on this analysis propose changes to the current guidelines to the Council. Internet Governance Liaison Committee Which ICANN68 sessions address Internet Governance topics? . . . Consult the IGLC ICANN68 repository here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . . . . About the IGLC For many years, country code top-level domain managers have been engaged in conversations and contributing to the work on Internet Governance related matters. To bring this engagement to a next level, the ccNSO created the Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC). As per its - recently updated - Terms of Reference, the Committee takes an active role in coordinating and facilitating the participation and input of ccTLD managers in IG-related discussions and processes. The focus lies on eight IG-related topics, selected by the IGLC as being relevant to ccTLDs, namely: - Cybersecurity, - Capacity building & inclusion, - Digital divide, - Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs), - Local content, - Regulations, - Role of the ccTLDs as promoters of the IGF dialogues, - Technical. Continue to check the IGLC workspace <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> for further information and updates on the activities of the ccNSO IGLC. The IGLC at ICANN68 - On Wednesday, 24 June, IGLC Chair Pierre Bonis (.fr) will contribute to a session entitled “The DNS in times of COVID-19: the ccTLD experience”, held as part of the ccNSO Members Meeting <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>. He will focus on capacity building efforts by ccTLD managers. Join us here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . - The IGLC will meet as part of ICANN68, on Wednesday, 24 June (08:30-09:30 UTC). Will the pandemic revive the concept of digital sovereignty? Join the discussion <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>and consult the agenda <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> here. Meetings Programme Committee Recent and upcoming activities Following a call for volunteers in Q1 2020, the MPC welcomed several new members. The MPC membership kicked off the planning for a Virtual ICANN68 Policy Forum in March 2020. Preparations included: - updating the tips and tricks <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> for presenters and sessions chairs, by adjusting them to the virtual meeting format - launching a survey <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> and a brainstorming session on how to organize a successful virtual ccNSO Members meeting. Following the input by the ccNSO Council and the broader ccTLD community, the MPC decided to hold 2 Virtual ccTLD News Sessions <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, prior to ICANN68, and to focus the ICANN68 ccNSO Members Meeting <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> on 3 sessions, spread over 3 days. The MPC contributed to the session planning, together with those involved. The MPC will meet next on Friday, 26 June 2020. Topics on their agenda will include looking back at ICANN68, and lessons learned for ICANN69 in October 2020. MPC Chair Barbara Povše (.si): "I am pleased to confirm that the MPC organized 2 successful Virtual ccTLD News sessions, with eight interesting presentations and a lively debate." Consult a copy of the presentation slides and a recording of the sessions here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . About the MPC The objective of the ccNSO Meetings Programme Committee (MPC <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>) is to coordinate and manage the high-level schedule of the ccNSO-related sessions, including the ccNSO Members Meeting agenda at ICANN public meetings, and related matters. Membership of the Committee is open to all ccTLD managers, regardless of the fact whether they are a member of the ccNSO or not. Consult here a report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> which aims to provide an overview of the satisfaction tracking via the online surveys over time, starting with ICANN58 in March 2017 and ending with ICANN66 in November 2019. Customer Standing Committee Recent and upcoming activities Recently – at the request of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils adopted a change to the IANA Function SLA creation and transfer of ccTLDs. The CSC was informed that PTI will report against this updated SLA starting 1 July 2020. As a result of the update, only the time it takes PTI to execute on the process steps under their control are monitored and separated from the ccTLD process steps (for example providing relevant documentation). The CSC was informed the new metrics will be introduced and reported on in the PTI performance Reports <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> as per 1 July 2020. The ccNSO Council recently launched a call for volunteers to serve as member on the Customer Standing Committee, which closes on Friday, 19 June 2020. The newly appointed member will serve for a two-years term and take the seat on 1 October 2020. Read more here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . About the CSC The Customer Standing Committee provides operational oversight on the IANA naming function as performed by Public Technical Identifiers (PTI <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>) since the transition of the IANA Stewardship. Background on the CSC, along with transcripts of its meetings and the monthly reports on the PTI performance can be found here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . Public Technical Identifiers Stay informed about the IANA services for ccTLD Managers . . . Consult the ICANN68 PTI update to the ccNSO here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>. . . . Kim Davies (President of PTI, and Vice President of IANA Services for ICANN), on behalf of the IANA team: "At ICANN meetings we typically engage with many customers on a one-on-one basis to discuss topics that are of interest to them. With ICANN68 being another virtual meeting, we regret that we cannot do that and would like to remind everyone that we are still available online, and we can host video or phone conferences to have a conversation. Please email us at root-mgmt(a)iana.org if you have questions or would like to set up a meeting." About PTI Public Technical Identifiers (PTI <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>) is responsible for the operational aspects of coordinating the Internet’s unique identifiers and maintaining the trust of the community to provide these services in an unbiased, responsible and effective manner. Mainly, PTI is responsible for the operation of the IANA functions: - Domain Names <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> - Number Resources <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> - Protocol Parameter Assignments <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> PTI was incorporated in August 2016 as an affiliate of ICANN, and, through contracts and subcontracts with ICANN, began performing the IANA functions on behalf of ICANN in October 2016. Learn more about the delivery of the IANA services at iana.org <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . ccPDP3: Retirement of ccTLDs and Review Mechanisms Phase 1 ccPDP3 Initial Proposals for Process to Retire ccTLDs The third ccNSO Policy Development Process (ccPDP3-RET) Working Group, tasked with developing and proposing policy for the retirement of country code Top-Level Domains, is seeking input and feedback from the broader community on its proposed process to retire ccTLDs, when the country code is removed from the list of country codes in the ISO3166 standard. After closure of the public comment period, the working group will review the comments received and take into account while developing a final set of policy recommendations. Close date for public comments is 10 July 2020 (23:59 UTC). Read more here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . Phase 2 ccPDP3 Review Mechanisms Working Group kicked off its work The ccPDP3-RM Working Group focuses on the development of a review mechanisms pertaining to decisions regarding the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. The group decided on a 3-step approach to identify decisions that should be subject to review: - Decision points As part of the development of the retirement process, the ccPDP3-RET WG compiled a list of 6 decisions taken by the IANA Function Operator (IFO) and the ICANN Board of Directors. PTI staff presented an overview of the delegation and transfer process <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, to identify decision points. - Scope As a next step, the WG needs to determine whether the decisions are within scope of the policy on the proposed review mechanism. - Questions Lastly, the group is advised to discuss a set of questions, on who takes the identified decision, who and how is oversight provided and which decisions are to be made subject to a review mechanism. For more information, go to the ccPDP3-RM workspace <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . ccPDP4: on the (de)selection of IDN ccTLD strings This fourth-ever ccNSO Policy Development Process aims to develop policy recommendations for the ICANN Board. In time, the results of this ccPDP will replace the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process, which currently guides the selection process of IDN ccTLD strings. During its meeting on 21 May, the ccNSO Council adopted the Issue Report on Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) country code top-level domain strings. With the adoption of this report, the fourth policy development process (ccPDP) for the ccNSO is initiated. Join the ccPDP4 webinar, and subscribe to the Working Group Mid-July 2020, the ccNSO Secretariat will send out a call for volunteers for members, participants and observers to serve on the Working Group. Prior to this call for volunteers, join the ccNSO Secretariat and participate in a webinar, where you will learn more about the topics to be addressed by and the working methods of the ccPDP4 Working Group. Continue to check the announcement section on the ccNSO Home Page <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> for further updates. The CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds The New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) submitted its Final Report <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> to the Chartering Organizations - including the ccNSO - for their consideration. The Council will discuss the final report at its August 2020 ccNSO Council meeting, following a webinar by the CCWG AP leadership team. The Final Report sets out the core issues that the CCWG addressed in carrying out its charter <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> since its inception in January 2017. It includes responses to questions posed in the CCWG’s charter, a series of recommendations, as well as guidance to be considered in the implementation phase. The final recommendations - include proposals for consideration by the Chartering Organizations on the mechanism for allocating the new gTLD Auction Proceeds. - address the entity that should be responsible for considering and selecting projects to receive funding, due diligence requirements that preserve ICANN’s tax status, directly related matters such as handling potential or actual conflicts of interest, and other topics. Out of scope for the CCWG: Any recommendations or determinations with regards to specific funding decisions, including specific organizations or projects to fund or not. Following approval by the Chartering Organizations, the recommendations will be submitted to the ICANN Board for approval. Read more: Consult the New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG Workspace <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>, including its Charter, background documents, recent newsletters and additional information. The virtual ICANN68 Policy Forum Tech Day | Mo, 22 June Consult the agenda here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . ccNSO Members Meeting | Agenda <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> The ccNSO Members Meeting as part of the ICANN68 Virtual Policy Forum focuses on 3 sessions: - Governance models ccTLD managers | Tuesday, 23 June. 07:00-09:30 UTC (incl. 15 min break) - DNS in times of COVID-19: The ccTLD experience | Wednesday, 24 June. 00:30-03:00 UTC (incl. 15 min break) - Q&A ccNSO appointed ICANN Board members | Thursday, 25 June. 08:30-09:30 UTC Consult the ICANN68 ccNSO Members Meeting Session Brief here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . The detailed ccNSO schedule, including a summary of the topics covered and remote participation details for ICANN68, is available on the ccNSO ICANN68 workspace <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> . ICANN68: Links to bookmark now - ccNSO Members Meeting agenda <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> - Consult the ICANN68 ccNSO Members Meeting Session Brief here <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> - Tech Day agenda <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> - ccNSO Remote Participation Hub <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…>: overview of all relevant ccNSO sessions, and how to participate remotely. - ICANN68 meeting website <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> : Please make sure to register for the meeting. - Comprehensive ICANN68 meeting schedule <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> [image: Facebook] ‌ <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> [image: Twitter] ‌ <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001pSv5wGCX4R_bhxibPVMHqOJkDl7wKuZF_c6rSrXVxaL0…> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Unsubscribe maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> | About Constant Contact <http://www.constantcontact.com/legal/about-constant-contact> Sent by ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org in collaboration with [image: Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.] <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&rmc=VF19_3GE> Try email marketing for free today! <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=nge&rmc=VF19_3GE>

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Global Cyber Alliance
by Maureen Hilyard June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

[image: ICANN Announcement Alerts] *ICANN Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Global Cyber Alliance <https://newsalerts.icann.org/K0020CR00PHM2Sd8g01N0E0>* 17 June 2020 LOS ANGELES – 16 June 2020 – Today, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Global Cyber Alliance (GCA). The MoU aims to bolster the relationship between ICANN and the GCA and enhance their collaboration in support of an efficient and resilient Domain Name System (DNS). These efforts are of interest to both parties and target important issues, such as security threats to the DNS. *"For ICANN org and GCA to work together on research and increasing awareness of the different forms of DNS abuse is something that makes complete sense. As we join forces, we will leverage each other's strengths to support and protect our unique communities which, in the end, make up one single, global community" – Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO.* *"GCA shares ICANN's vision of secure Internet infrastructure, and we are proud to partner with ICANN to achieve that. We all depend on the DNS, therefore improving the security and privacy DNS provides can extend across the Internet to protect everyone, especially including vulnerable communities." – Philip Reitinger, GCA President and CEO.* Security threats to the DNS affect millions of Internet users and are a primary concern for both organizations. The MoU is intended to advance the organizations' shared objective of supporting activities aimed at reducing abuse of the DNS. ICANN and GCA have agreed to collaborate on activities aimed at reducing risk in the DNS. These activities may include research projects; projects to increase capabilities to address threats to and abuse of the DNS; coordination of efforts to bring stakeholders together; and exchange of information. Read the full Memorandum of Understanding here <https://newsalerts.icann.org/G1R0EH208T0NC0dP0000gN2>. To learn more about GCA's efforts to make the Internet more secure visit https://globalcyberalliance.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/gO080NP02201RE0dC000UHg>. About GCA GCA is an international, cross-sector effort dedicated to eradicating cyber risk and improving our connected world. The GCA was formed in September 2015 by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, the City of London Police, and the Center for Internet Security to unite global communities, implementing solutions to address systemic cyber risk and measuring the efforts of those solutions. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. [image: shadow] *[image: Twitter] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/r0080E2G0RdP8NC1g0020d0>* [image: Facebook] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/n0Cg0wz022NP0ER08100dE0> [image: Instagram] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/a0200P012C0800eE9RNG0gd> [image: Linkedin] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/r00x0E2E0RAP8NC1g0020d0> [image: YouTube] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/WC01VNR0P0P2Edg00208H00> [image: shadow1] Unsubscribe <https://newsalerts.icann.org/F18RP00af0C0g2G2000EdN0> | https://www.icann.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/p0000C01WE020QNRdP0g8H2> <https://newsalerts.icann.org/o02bN00gG001gC008ERd2P0>

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Final Report
by Maureen Hilyard June 18, 2020

June 18, 2020

[image: ICANN Announcement Alerts] *Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Final Report <https://newsalerts.icann.org/q1EC0d08P90N0G02R0g4002>* 17 June 2020 *Open Date:* 16 June 2020 *Close Date:* 31 July 2020 *Originating Organization:* ICANN Organization – Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) *Categories/Tags:* Reviews/Improvements, Accountability/Transparency *Brief Overview:* On 1 June 2020, the third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) submitted its final report <https://newsalerts.icann.org/F18RP00sv0C0g2E2000EdN0> to the ICANN Board. The report is now issued for Public Comment to inform Board action on the ATRT3's final recommendations. Per the Bylaws (Section 4.6(a)(vii)(C)) <https://newsalerts.icann.org/a0200P012C0800wEtRNE0gd> the Board shall consider the final report <https://newsalerts.icann.org/F18RP00sv0C0g2E2000EdN0> within six months of receipt, i.e. by 1 December 2020. The Board will consider a feasibility analysis and impact assessment of the implementation of recommendations, which will take into account initial cost and resource estimates and dependencies with other ongoing efforts within the community, and the report of the Public Comment submissions received. The Board will then direct implementation of the recommendations that were approved and provide written rationale for the decision if any recommendations are not approved. The ATRT3 Final Report <https://newsalerts.icann.org/F18RP00sv0C0g2E2000EdN0> contains five recommendations with regard to ICANN accountability and transparency in the following areas: - Prioritization of review and Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Work Stream 2 (WS2) recommendations - Amending Specific and Organizational Reviews - Accountability and transparency relating to Strategic and Operational Plans, including accountability indicators - Public input - Assessment of the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations The ATRT3 makes a further suggestion in its 1 June 2020 letter <https://newsalerts.icann.org/DCu000x0ER800E01PN2g0d2> to the ICANN Board, on which the Board welcomes community feedback during this Public Comment proceeding: *"Given the recommendation in Section 8 of its report ATRT3 is proposing significant changes to Organizational Reviews and Specific Reviews. ATRT3 strongly suggests that the ICANN Board implement a moratorium on launching any new Organizational and Specific Reviews until it has made a decision on this recommendation."* The Accountability and Transparency Review is mandated by ICANN's Bylaws (Article 4, Section 4.6 <https://newsalerts.icann.org/a0200P012C0800wEtRNE0gd>), which require the review of *"ICANN's execution of its commitment to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making reflect the public interest and are accountable to the Internet community."* *Link:* https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atrt3-final-report-2020-06-16-en <https://newsalerts.icann.org/v0080NHH0dPECgN1R022000> *About ICANN* ICANN’s mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. [image: shadow] *[image: Twitter] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/NR005C2d0001gGE0aN0082P>* [image: Facebook] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/SR0E2d08P000NCg0100G2b6> [image: Instagram] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/eN087E02000RCG0201cPg0d> [image: Linkedin] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/L202ER0010vE0Cy8g0P0d0N> [image: YouTube] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/r00I0E2H0ROP8NC1g0020d0> [image: shadow1] Unsubscribe <https://newsalerts.icann.org/eN08JE02000RCH0201PPg0d> | https://www.icann.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/SR0E2d08P000NCg0100H2QK> <https://newsalerts.icann.org/Q0HE08R0CL2P20N1d00R0g0>

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- APIGA 2020 Cancelled Due to COVID-19
by Maureen Hilyard June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

[image: ICANN Announcement Alerts] *APIGA 2020 Cancelled Due to COVID-19 <https://newsalerts.icann.org/b0000dRPHCD0Eg1J020280N>* 16 June 2020 SINGAPORE – 16 June 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Korea Internet and Security Agency (KISA) today announced that the fifth edition of the Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy (APIGA) will not be held in 2020. The joint decision to cancel this year's APIGA was made due to the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. The primary concern for ICANN and KISA is the health and safety of the Asia Pacific (APAC) community and that of their staff. ICANN and KISA will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely, and hope to resume APIGA next year. APIGA is an annual five-day capacity-development program for APAC youth leaders interested in Internet governance issues and its related activities. It is co-hosted by ICANN and KISA, with support from regional partners such as the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), DotAsia, and the Internet Society (ISOC) Asia Pacific Bureau. For more about APIGA, please visit its Community Wiki page <https://newsalerts.icann.org/HC002020NgK8HE00P1R00Ed>. ------------------------------ About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. [image: shadow] *[image: Twitter] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/R00P081R2d0020g0CpEEsN0>* [image: Facebook] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/JR2PC20q1E0NtE80dg00000> [image: Instagram] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/y1GC82gN0d0PER100600020> [image: Linkedin] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/y1GC82gN0d0PER200700020> [image: YouTube] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/eN08FE02000RCH0201LPg0d> [image: shadow1] Unsubscribe <https://newsalerts.icann.org/O0G0g02E0200NCP3080d18R> | https://www.icann.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/gr080NP02201RE0dC000uEg> <https://newsalerts.icann.org/wR8EN0dCP0000g1M0022G0H>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations Report
by Vanda Scartezini June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020

Thank you for this report! A excellent tool for Ralo’s work and to explain to the community At Large work. Reading Eduardo’s suggestions, there are some good ones that could be included into the report and I, personally, to not have these suggestions be lost, I included into my own copy. ATLAS III was a really good experience and to see the evolution and participation of the community is encouraging. Kisses to all and stay safe ! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Friday, June 12, 2020 at 21:16 To: 'ALAC List' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations Report Dear All, On behalf of Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, and Eduardo Diaz, ATLASIII Report Group Chair, please find attached the Post-ATLASIII Survey Analysis and Recommendations report. This report includes the results and recommendations of the post-ATLASIII survey and reports that were completed by ATLASIII participants. This note serves as a preview of the official launch of the report during ICANN68. Please inform staff if you see any glaring omissions or errors by Friday, 19 June 2020. Kind regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN69 to be Held as Virtual Public Meeting
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi June 13, 2020

June 13, 2020

?Thanks Maureen. Wise decision. Hadia ________________________________ From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> Sent: 12 June 2020 03:11 To: ALAC Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [ICANN Community Leaders] ICANN69 to be Held as Virtual Public Meeting ?https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-06-11-en LOS ANGELES - 11 June 2020 - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that the ICANN Board of Directors has made the decision<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-06-11-en> that the ICANN69 Annual General Meeting (AGM), which was to be held in Hamburg, Germany, will not proceed as an in-person meeting. Instead, the Board has directed the ICANN org to coordinate with the ICANN community on the best way forward for ICANN69 to meet the expected outcomes of an ICANN AGM and support the community's ongoing policy advice and development work, despite being unable to meet in person. The meeting, scheduled for 17-22 October, will be the third time ICANN will hold a Virtual Public Meeting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ICANN67, originally scheduled for Cancún, Mexico, was held as a virtual meeting, as will the upcoming ICANN68, originally scheduled for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The health and safety of the ICANN community is always a top priority, and as such, convening ICANN69 as an in-person meeting is not expected to be feasible by its scheduled date. While progress has been made to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, there are still several barriers remaining that prevent holding large international meetings, such as ICANN's Public Meetings. These include ongoing restrictions on international travel, diminished flight availability, challenges in obtaining visas, physical distancing requirements, the risks posed to the local host community, and the possibility of a resurgence resulting in further lockdowns. "Above all, the health and safety of the global ICANN community, Board, and staff is the most important consideration for any Public Meeting," said Maarten Botterman, ICANNBoard Chair. "As of right now, there are still too many uncertainties involved with hosting a face-to-face meeting. The Board believes that this is the right decision, and it gives us ample time to plan a successful Annual General Meeting. There's a great deal of work to be done, so let's continue to focus on getting it done, together." ICANN thanks the Hamburg host committee and our regional partners in Europe, who have provided their support and input during the planning process for ICANN69. The Board fully appreciates the importance of face-to-face interactions, and looks forward to a return to in-person ICANN Public Meetings. ICANN is currently scheduled to convene ICANN70 in Cancun, Mexico, and ICANN71 in The Hague, The Netherlands. ICANN org, in consultation with the ICANNcommunity, will build on the lessons learned during ICANN67 and ICANN68 to improve upon the meeting format. In its decision, the Board directed the ICANN org to work with the community leaders to determine how to ensure that the virtual meeting fulfills the community's agreed-upon priorities. Those interested in attending ICANN69 will still be required to register. An announcement will be posted to https://icann.org<https://www.icann.org/> once registration is open. To learn more about remote participation, visit ICANN Public Meetings<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation>. More information, including details about the meeting's time zone, language interpretation options, and final schedule will be provided at a later date. Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) _______________________________________________ SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list SO-AC-SG-CLeaders(a)icann.org<mailto:SO-AC-SG-CLeaders@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN69 to be Held as Virtual Public Meeting
by Maureen Hilyard June 12, 2020

June 12, 2020

[image: ICANN Announcement Alerts] *ICANN69 to be Held as Virtual Public Meeting <https://newsalerts.icann.org/c00022gC0PNR01dEl08iE00>* 12 June 2020 LOS ANGELES – 11 June 2020 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that the ICANN Board of Directors has made the decision <https://newsalerts.icann.org/n0Cg0UY022NP0ER08100dF0> that the ICANN69 Annual General Meeting (AGM), which was to be held in Hamburg, Germany, will not proceed as an in-person meeting. Instead, the Board has directed the ICANN org to coordinate with the ICANN community on the best way forward for ICANN69 to meet the expected outcomes of an ICANN AGM and support the community's ongoing policy advice and development work, despite being unable to meet in person. The meeting, scheduled for 17-22 October, will be the third time ICANN will hold a Virtual Public Meeting as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ICANN67, originally scheduled for Cancún, Mexico, was held as a virtual meeting, as will the upcoming ICANN68, originally scheduled for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The health and safety of the ICANN community is always a top priority, and as such, convening ICANN69 as an in-person meeting is not expected to be feasible by its scheduled date. While progress has been made to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, there are still several barriers remaining that prevent holding large international meetings, such as ICANN's Public Meetings. These include ongoing restrictions on international travel, diminished flight availability, challenges in obtaining visas, physical distancing requirements, the risks posed to the local host community, and the possibility of a resurgence resulting in further lockdowns. "Above all, the health and safety of the global ICANN community, Board, and staff is the most important consideration for any Public Meeting," said Maarten Botterman, ICANN Board Chair. "As of right now, there are still too many uncertainties involved with hosting a face-to-face meeting. The Board believes that this is the right decision, and it gives us ample time to plan a successful Annual General Meeting. There's a great deal of work to be done, so let's continue to focus on getting it done, together." ICANN thanks the Hamburg host committee and our regional partners in Europe, who have provided their support and input during the planning process for ICANN69. The Board fully appreciates the importance of face-to-face interactions, and looks forward to a return to in-person ICANN Public Meetings. ICANN is currently scheduled to convene ICANN70 in Cancun, Mexico, and ICANN71 in The Hague, The Netherlands. ICANN org, in consultation with the ICANN community, will build on the lessons learned during ICANN67 and ICANN68 to improve upon the meeting format. In its decision, the Board directed the ICANN org to work with the community leaders to determine how to ensure that the virtual meeting fulfills the community's agreed-upon priorities. Those interested in attending ICANN69 will still be required to register. An announcement will be posted to https://icann.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/DCV000Z0ER800F01PN2g0d2> once registration is open. To learn more about remote participation, visit ICANN Public Meetings <https://newsalerts.icann.org/NR00jC2d0001gEE0mN0082P>. More information, including details about the meeting's time zone, language interpretation options, and final schedule will be provided at a later date. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. [image: shadow] *[image: Twitter] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/i0FC0NR1gWP00d000822E00>* [image: Facebook] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/Q0HE08R0Cw2P20N1d00C0g0> [image: Instagram] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/b0000dRPFCX0Eg11020280N> [image: Linkedin] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/MN0E0208CH01d00DP0gR0x2> [image: YouTube] <https://newsalerts.icann.org/I010yC80P0gENd220H0RE00> [image: shadow1] Unsubscribe <https://newsalerts.icann.org/o02kN00nE001gC008ERd2P0> | https://www.icann.org <https://newsalerts.icann.org/kC0FP0N00Hg02Rd2810z00E> <https://newsalerts.icann.org/v0080NEl0dPECgo1R022000>

1 0