I don't even know whether I should still be subscribed here, but since I am...

I think it is a valid topic for the Board -- that, at a high level, would include the PICs issue as well as dot-sucks, etc -- to ask if the Board is satisfied in the level of public trust in the DNS, and whether any strategies need to be consisdered to enhance that trust.

Now that ICANN has referred .SUCKS to the US and Canadian governments and has now heard from the registry's lawyers, the trust issue is out in the open and cannot be hidden or brushed off. What role does ICANN -- and its At-Large community -- have as public authority now debates whether sufficient trust exists. I note that the speakers from at a US House Judiciary Committee hearing include many familiar faces from the business community, but none from the end-user PoV.

On 12 May 2015 at 22:56, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:

I agree with Olivier - what about policy? I realise everyone has had their time taken up (and more) with the transition (and all of the various WG meetings) and that there will be yet more discussion in BA so not sure we should be raising it again. One outstanding issue must be PICs or maybe something to do with new gTLDs. Not sure there is any debate left in policy vs implementation. And the main Whois/Privacy issue is on hold while the comment period is on. Maybe go through any outstanding issues from ALTAS?

Jus some thoughts

Holly

On 12 May 2015, at 8:02 pm, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Alan,
>
> my answers inline:
>
> On 11/05/2015 19:24, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> Please see https://community.icann.org/x/jAsnAw and provide comments on:
>>
>> - what you think of these topics?
>>
>> - whether there is anything else we could add?
>>
>> - how many should we set (set two topics, or one main one and a
>> fall-back if we have extra time?)
>
> OK with the topics although both are process rather than policy. I
> wonder whether we should have one process and one policy topic.
> I am happy with having a main topic & a fallback.
> Has the Board indicated whether there are any topics they would like to
> discuss? I gather most groups will speak to them at some point about
> ICANN Accountability?
>
>>
>> - who should be representing the ALAC/At-Large? We will have about 6
>> seats at the table?
>
> ALT + ALAC Selected Board member is the usual line-up, unless we've got
> a topic lead which we'd like to sit at the head table?
>
>>
>> The last question can be deferred, but we have a nominal deadline of
>> the April 15th to set topics.
>
> Probably May?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
> _______________________________________________
> 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+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________
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+(ALAC)

Evan Leibovitch

Geneva, CH

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56