Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread. I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process. Alan At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking
- Evan
On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> ).
Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> ).
The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly.
I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience.
I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)