- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: negotiation and consensus-finding styles
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 14, 2015

Dec. 14, 2015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello all, Jari has pointed to some interesting method of finding consensus. I forward them here just for interest, not for any action. Kindest regards, Olivier - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: negotiation and consensus-finding styles Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:04:10 +0200 From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko(a)piuha.net> To: IETF <ietf(a)ietf.org> This caught my eye (and some other people’s eye too, got some people asking about it): "This simple negotiation tactic brought 195 countries to consensus" http://tinyurl.com/qb4oyq9 It is about the climate change negotiations. Government negotiations are not my thing in general :-) but this article points to a specific negotiation style, Indaba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indaba "Instead of repeating stated positions, each party is encouraged to speak personally and state their “red lines,” which are thresholds that they don’t want to cross. But while telling others their hard limits, they are also asked to provide solutions to find a common ground.” I’ve never heard of this particular technique before, have other people run into it? Any experiences? Any more detailed information? The reason that I’m asking is that it kind of sounds like the way people should be voicing their opinions in an IETF discussion, when that discussion is run in an optimal way. Along with our rough consensus concepts, of course, and drive to understand other people's positions. Just wondering if this is essential what our rough consensus process already is, or if there are further details that we could consider learning from as well. (And: as always, any process can by misused if the participants do not care enough about the common good. I’m sure this never happens in government negotiations :-) but in the rest of the world… one example that I’ve seen in the IETF is overstating hard requirements, e.g., making particular solutions part of the requirements. Next time you discuss something in the IETF, please take a moment to reflect what your true needs are and what are just solution space options. Take also a moment to understand what the other people are saying, and try to build that into what you are suggesting, finding ways for other people’s needs to be also met.) Jari -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWbsBWAAoJEA22tlbHMiYdqw8P/Rox4Gnik+usuQs/glYGuQwW 0ubaTEODz0CjGcchtxMC0yxD4azKB7oMSGhdhWka1YxHICzMcHF1mZG6Q3s3tKaf c8t+BTJpRUEUyAi4NH8+p/aL2LVvohP10YmILNONi3MbJufxQjbtBTGN09yFdl8U ZGzHys5SHM80ptYsxpf/QHBHKsFmKU/NPLF4c7+bhV+S8rEgVSHSl7geCr3IvALm bX4RfefCuFJkzCRPATOVuNVGp2sMV5ZE25BhJaKo2WtDCfKmLmYtd5OaE5OkAe3q YxEDv/JyEZUVdvHiv1KuCjY05utivmrYmsU/+q4SRiKLdfyrve/4fKnTIAPupFiQ f6E3az+XTFr5+7JkPV1j43WCeHijgnM1kraLZKPjPB4HkG4dGyR0anotibXGqy8t TuJHsIqF01Mur8DeaClxUQ5HhlPXvM49233oftZo6sgHJRijc7+pY9q9tMgtMY8d gvIeewwBllPiCUTXpkVA84VVgLqAlNpzQ+zRqrIZKdEkaEFix76GDKR2f9ggOBu0 KGUQHRGJxU0uY+b7IL4EctCAZBOCtyvEs48+TnjySrlOvmNk6yeciBYRDGdG5esT WRCE48+Z5XYq71UWADzYHZDbvGrFUETNDf/iiupY+vVdP0ryFhyER2E/LhkCym4z lJJV640jtqtxuJuOTAFE =VA53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [At-Large] R: I: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation - Civil Society Engagement Approach: Call to discuss Implementation
by carlos dionisio aguirre Dec. 14, 2015

Dec. 14, 2015

@Olivier clap clap clap. I personally fully agree with your comments. In my case I support the initiative but I agree there are many question made and not made unanswered.I also can see conflictives points between CSI & At Large community. My first negative point was: Why not a translation for the webinar wich try to be for all Civil Society members around the globe? At this moment and having many translations tools is almost discriminatory for who dont speak english. I like the initiative but I think it need time to solve this points in conflict with at large community or at least clarify the proposal, but no in a webinar managed only in english languaje. My two cents from far in the south. Carlos Dionisio AguirrePart of At Large Community and representative of Academia and Civil Society Enviado desde mi smartphone Samsung Galaxy.<div> </div><div> </div><div>-------- Mensaje original --------</div><div>De: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> </div><div>Fecha: 14/12/2015 7:49 (GMT-03:00) </div><div>Para: Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> </div><div>Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> </div><div>Asunto: Re: [At-Large] R: I: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation - Civil Society Engagement Approach: Call to discuss Implementation </div><div> </div> Hello all, as you know, I am a supporter of the Civil Society initiative. But reading the discussion here, I feel that there are indeed a lot of unanswered questions and I sense a real concern (even worry!) from many in At-Large that the initiative has the potential to weaken the At-Large community by dividing it, especially when it comes to policy issues. We all know that, as a group that incorporates non commercial, commercial, technical and academic communities, we often have different points of view than purely civil society organisations. Indeed, our priorities are sometimes different. I sense that in order to address all of the concerns that we have, our community needs a call with the leaders of this program, Adam Peake and Jean-Jacques Sahel. The currently proposed call on Wed 16 December is unsuitable for this concern as these are purely questions related to At-Large and interpretation will not be provided. (why?) My questions on any such conference call would be based on the imbalance caused within our community if the Civil Society Initiative went ahead without similar initiatives for our commercial, technical & academic At-Large Structures. 1. Are there going to be similar initiatives for Commercial, Technical & Academic communities? (reminder: I was told "yes" a few months ago - I'd like to know where we are on these) 2. Are At-Large Structures that are not classed as Civil Society going to be discriminated against? (in CROPP funding, in IGF workshops, etc.) 3. Is the ALAC itself going to be discriminated against as it is not 100% Civil Society? 4. Are any parts of the proposal aiming to have "Civil Society" come to consensus on policy related matters, irrespective of the current NCSG or At-Large boundaries? Kindest regards, Olivier On 13/12/2015 23:06, Glenn McKnight wrote: > Hi All > The problem with the document starts without a common definition of > What is Civil Society. I have added a document that addresses that > issue. I fear that if we lack a proper definition we will see > ATLARGE being outside the parameters of this measure > Attached > Glenn > > Glenn McKnight > mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com <mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> > skype gmcknight > twitter gmcknight > . > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Roberto Gaetano > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > Seun, > > In EURALO we have occasionally de-certified ALSes that were no > longer compliant. > > I would assume that this would be the case in all RALOs. > > There is an issue of credibility of ALAC at stake. > > R. > > > > > > *Da:*Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] > *Inviato:* domenica 13 dicembre 2015 22:43 > *A:* Roberto Gaetano > *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide > *Oggetto:* Re: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation - > Civil Society Engagement Approach: Call to discuss Implementation > > > > On Dec 13, 2015 22:14, "Roberto Gaetano" > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > . Therefore, the ALS, when certified, is guaranteed not to be > promoting for-profit or government agendas. > > > > Can we have this straightened up once and for good? > > > SO: +1 the wording of staff sure needs to be corrected. I would > have thought they are referring to the processes ALS members > participate in. For instance some ALS members participate in > regional technical meetings et all. Even if that is the intent, a > rewording is still required. > > > Alternatively, may I know which are the At-Large Structures that > allegedly “represent business interests”? > > > SO: Actually this should be looked into at At-Large level (aside > this particular subject), there may be need for occasional audit > to determine if certified ALS status has indeed changed to being > for-profit as I expect that due diligence is usually done during > initial application to ensure such is not the case. > > Regards > > > Cheers, > > > > Roberto > > > > > > > > > > > > Da: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] Per conto > di ICANN At-Large Staff > > Inviato: venerdì 11 dicembre 2015 15:12 > > A: ALAC Announce > > Oggetto: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation - Civil Society > Engagement Approach: Call to discuss Implementation > > > > > > > > On behalf of Jean-Jacques Sahel and Adam Peake > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Please find below participation details for Civil Society > Engagement Approach: Call to discuss Implementation on Wednesday > 16 Dec 2015 at 14:00 UTC > > > > > > > > This call is for ICANN Staff and the community to start planning > together joint activities and other deliverables such as new > content production for the coming months, under the new civil > society engagement approach. > > > > > > > > A draft agenda will be circulated for comments shortly. > > > > > > > > Please remember that you can comment on the draft Civil Society > engagement strategy by end of Friday 11 December here: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xC5pxWr4uzkU_Uoi3guGFEFrP9LHYk_KV11mRlB… > > > > > > > > The revised document will be circulated ahead of the call on > December 16. > > > > > > > > This call will be in English only. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jean-Jacques Sahel & Adam Peake > > > > > _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. USA
by Holly Raiche Dec. 13, 2015

Dec. 13, 2015

And Seth If you read the ALAC statement/response to the Whois Conflicts WG, you will see that we said just that - as did Christopher wilkinson and Stephanie Perrin. It all goes way back to the original Whois protocol, - that served a very different purpose, but was adopted by ICANN - and should not have been. It is why the ICANN board set up the EWG, (and why ALAC wrote to the Chair about the RDAP) Holly On 14 Dec 2015, at 8:12 am, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > No, you have lots of company. > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto > Gaetano > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:52 AM > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of > Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request > for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. > USA > > I am just wondering how much this overhead does cost. > Instead of complying with European law, ICANN has chosen to disregard it, > and now is obliged to grant waivers one by one to European registrars. > Am I the only one who thinks that this is plain silly? > Cheers, > R. > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-announce- bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di >> ICANN At-Large Staff >> Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 04:03 >> A: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Oggetto: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of Preliminary >> Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request for >> Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. >> USA >> >> >> [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> >> News Alert >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-09-en >> >> ________________________________ >> Notice of Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention >> Waiver Request for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio >> Technologies, Inc. USA >> >> 9 December 2015 >> >> ICANN has made a preliminary determination that it is prepared to >> grant a data retention waiver request submitted by Registrar Ascio >> Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. USA >> ("Ascio") under the > 2013 >> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the "2013 RAA"). Section 2 of the >> Data Retention Specification (the "Specification") of the 2013 RAA >> provides > that >> prior to granting any exemption under the Specification, ICANN will >> post > its >> determination on the ICANN website for a period of thirty (30) >> calendar > days. >> >> Pursuant to Section 2 of the Specification, Ascio has submitted to >> ICANN a Registrar data retention waiver request ("Waiver Request") on >> the basis of Ascio's contention that compliance with the data >> collection and/or > retention >> requirements of the Specification violates applicable law in Denmark. >> >> The Waiver Request was accompanied by a written legal opinion from a >> nationally recognized law firm citing section 5 (5) of the Danish Act >> on Processing of Personal Data of 31 May 2000 (the "DPPD"). That >> section provides as follows (the following is an unofficial English >> translation > from >> Danish): >> >> Section 5 (5). >> >> The data collected may not be kept in a form which makes it possible >> to identify the data subject for a longer period than is necessary for >> the purposes for which the data are processed. >> >> Following receipt of the Waiver Request, and in accordance with the >> 2013 RAA, ICANN through its legal counsel and Ascio discussed the >> matter in > good >> faith in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the > matter. >> >> The outcome of those discussions is that Ascio is seeking a waiver >> with respect to Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.8 of the Specification that >> seeks to reduce from two years to one year the period for which these >> specified > data >> elements must be retained after the Registrar's sponsorship of the >> Registration ends. >> >> ICANN has determined on a preliminary basis that it is prepared to >> grant > the >> Waiver Request. ICANN is posting this preliminary determination for a > period >> of thirty (30) calendar days to seek feedback and input from the >> community on the proposed data retention waiver. After the thirty (30) >> calendar day period following this posting has expired, ICANN will >> consider all > feedback >> and input received before making a final determination on whether to >> grant the Waiver Request. >> >> The scope of the proposed waiver would be to permit Ascio to maintain >> the information specified in Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.8 of the >> Specification > for >> the duration of its sponsorship of the Registration and for a period >> of > one (1) >> additional year thereafter rather than two (2) additional years > thereafter. In >> all other respects the terms of the Specification would remain AS-IS. >> >> The specific change to the Specification would be that, for the >> duration > of the >> Waiver, the retention requirement of Section 1.1 of the Data Retention >> Specification be changed from "two additional years" to "one >> additional year." >> >> If ICANN does make a final determination to grant the Waiver Request >> sought by Ascio, the provisions of Section 3 of the Specification >> would > apply >> to similar waivers requested by other registrars located in Denmark >> and subject to Danish law. Section 3 of the Specification provides as > follows: >> >> If (i) ICANN has previously waived compliance with the requirements of >> any requirement of this Data Retention Specification in response to a >> Waiver Request from a registrar that is located in the same >> jurisdiction as > Registrar >> and (ii) Registrar is subject to the same applicable law that gave >> rise to ICANN's agreement to grant such waiver, Registrar may request >> that ICANN to grant a similar waiver, which request shall be approved >> by ICANN, > unless >> ICANN provides Registrar with a reasonable justification for not >> approving such request, in which case Registrar may thereafter make an >> Wavier Request pursuant to Section 2 of this Data Retention Specification. >> >> The Registrar's Waiver Request and supporting documents are available >> here: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/waiver-request-ascio- >> technologies-09dec15-en.pdf [PDF, 6.39 MB] >> >> A public comment period will remain open until 23:59 UTC, 11 January 2016. >> Public comments will be available for consideration by ICANN staff and >> the ICANN Board. >> >> * Comments can be posted to: comments-ascio-technologies- >> 09dec15(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-ascio-technologies- >> 09dec15(a)icann.org> >> * Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments- >> ascio-technologies-09dec15/ > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. USA
by Christian de Larrinaga Dec. 13, 2015

Dec. 13, 2015

This is priceless "ICANN has determined on a preliminary basis that it is prepared to grant the Waiver Request." oh really! Christian Seth M Reiss wrote: > No, you have lots of company. > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto > Gaetano > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 10:52 AM > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of > Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request > for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. > USA > > I am just wondering how much this overhead does cost. > Instead of complying with European law, ICANN has chosen to disregard it, > and now is obliged to grant waivers one by one to European registrars. > Am I the only one who thinks that this is plain silly? > Cheers, > R. > > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-announce- bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di >> ICANN At-Large Staff >> Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 04:03 >> A: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Oggetto: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- Notice of Preliminary >> Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention Waiver Request for >> Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. >> USA >> >> >> [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> >> News Alert >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-09-en >> >> ________________________________ >> Notice of Preliminary Determination To Grant Registrar Data Retention >> Waiver Request for Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio >> Technologies, Inc. USA >> >> 9 December 2015 >> >> ICANN has made a preliminary determination that it is prepared to >> grant a data retention waiver request submitted by Registrar Ascio >> Technologies, Inc. Danmark - filial af Ascio Technologies, Inc. USA >> ("Ascio") under the > 2013 >> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (the "2013 RAA"). Section 2 of the >> Data Retention Specification (the "Specification") of the 2013 RAA >> provides > that >> prior to granting any exemption under the Specification, ICANN will >> post > its >> determination on the ICANN website for a period of thirty (30) >> calendar > days. >> Pursuant to Section 2 of the Specification, Ascio has submitted to >> ICANN a Registrar data retention waiver request ("Waiver Request") on >> the basis of Ascio's contention that compliance with the data >> collection and/or > retention >> requirements of the Specification violates applicable law in Denmark. >> >> The Waiver Request was accompanied by a written legal opinion from a >> nationally recognized law firm citing section 5 (5) of the Danish Act >> on Processing of Personal Data of 31 May 2000 (the "DPPD"). That >> section provides as follows (the following is an unofficial English >> translation > from >> Danish): >> >> Section 5 (5). >> >> The data collected may not be kept in a form which makes it possible >> to identify the data subject for a longer period than is necessary for >> the purposes for which the data are processed. >> >> Following receipt of the Waiver Request, and in accordance with the >> 2013 RAA, ICANN through its legal counsel and Ascio discussed the >> matter in > good >> faith in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the > matter. >> The outcome of those discussions is that Ascio is seeking a waiver >> with respect to Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.8 of the Specification that >> seeks to reduce from two years to one year the period for which these >> specified > data >> elements must be retained after the Registrar's sponsorship of the >> Registration ends. >> >> ICANN has determined on a preliminary basis that it is prepared to >> grant > the >> Waiver Request. ICANN is posting this preliminary determination for a > period >> of thirty (30) calendar days to seek feedback and input from the >> community on the proposed data retention waiver. After the thirty (30) >> calendar day period following this posting has expired, ICANN will >> consider all > feedback >> and input received before making a final determination on whether to >> grant the Waiver Request. >> >> The scope of the proposed waiver would be to permit Ascio to maintain >> the information specified in Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.8 of the >> Specification > for >> the duration of its sponsorship of the Registration and for a period >> of > one (1) >> additional year thereafter rather than two (2) additional years > thereafter. In >> all other respects the terms of the Specification would remain AS-IS. >> >> The specific change to the Specification would be that, for the >> duration > of the >> Waiver, the retention requirement of Section 1.1 of the Data Retention >> Specification be changed from "two additional years" to "one >> additional year." >> >> If ICANN does make a final determination to grant the Waiver Request >> sought by Ascio, the provisions of Section 3 of the Specification >> would > apply >> to similar waivers requested by other registrars located in Denmark >> and subject to Danish law. Section 3 of the Specification provides as > follows: >> If (i) ICANN has previously waived compliance with the requirements of >> any requirement of this Data Retention Specification in response to a >> Waiver Request from a registrar that is located in the same >> jurisdiction as > Registrar >> and (ii) Registrar is subject to the same applicable law that gave >> rise to ICANN's agreement to grant such waiver, Registrar may request >> that ICANN to grant a similar waiver, which request shall be approved >> by ICANN, > unless >> ICANN provides Registrar with a reasonable justification for not >> approving such request, in which case Registrar may thereafter make an >> Wavier Request pursuant to Section 2 of this Data Retention Specification. >> >> The Registrar's Waiver Request and supporting documents are available >> here: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/waiver-request-ascio- >> technologies-09dec15-en.pdf [PDF, 6.39 MB] >> >> A public comment period will remain open until 23:59 UTC, 11 January 2016. >> Public comments will be available for consideration by ICANN staff and >> the ICANN Board. >> >> * Comments can be posted to: comments-ascio-technologies- >> 09dec15(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-ascio-technologies- >> 09dec15(a)icann.org> >> * Comments can be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments- >> ascio-technologies-09dec15/ > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel(a)firsthand.net -------------------------

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Total of 26 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 11 00:53:02 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 3.85% | 1 | 76.72% | 7840890 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 7.69% | 2 | 19.78% | 2021485 | ocl at gih.com 19.23% | 5 | 0.72% | 73527 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 15.38% | 4 | 1.01% | 103610 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 7.69% | 2 | 0.36% | 36728 | kankaili at gmail.com 7.69% | 2 | 0.15% | 15758 | avri at acm.org 3.85% | 1 | 0.17% | 17428 | vanda at scartezini.org 3.85% | 1 | 0.17% | 17261 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.17% | 16873 | joly at punkcast.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.15% | 14840 | jjs at dyalog.net 3.85% | 1 | 0.13% | 13782 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.12% | 12361 | karl at cavebear.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.11% | 10999 | evanleibovitch at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.10% | 10114 | apisan at unam.mx 3.85% | 1 | 0.08% | 8106 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.85% | 1 | 0.07% | 6874 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 26 |100.00% | 10220636 | Total

1 0

New Public Comment: Launch of Supplementary Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM LLC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 11, 2015

Dec. 11, 2015

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the Launch of Supplementary Registration Proxy Service for gTLDs Operated by XYZ.COM LLC has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/supplemental-registration-proxy-2015-…. The dates of the Public Comment will be 10 December 2015 - 19 January 2016 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-registration-proxy-10dec15(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZIplAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.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

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Translated CCWG Webinar Slides
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Dec. 9, 2015

Dec. 9, 2015

Dear all, I am forwarding the slides used in the CCWG accountability webinar. Slides have been translated into Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, French and Russian. I hope you find this information useful. Saludos, León Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 8 de diciembre de 2015, 10:39:43 a.m. GMT-6 > Para: CCWG-Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Translated CCWG Webinar Slides > > Hello everyone, > > Please find attached the translated slides from the 2 December 2015 CCWG-Accountability webinars. The slides are also located on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/woJlAw <https://community.icann.org/x/woJlAw> > > Thank you, > Hillary > > -- > Hillary Jett > Communications Coordinator > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 > Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org <mailto:hillary.jett@icann.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

LAST DAY - CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

Dear All, On behalf of the ALAC, Olivier Crepin-Leblond has developed the first draft ALAC Statement on the gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal<https://newatlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/9745>. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/7L5YAw. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 08 December 2015. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don't have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.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

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Translated CCWG Webinar Slides
by Seun Ojedeji Dec. 8, 2015

Dec. 8, 2015

This could be of interest to those who like to follow the work of the ccwg in other languages aside English. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hillary Jett" <hillary.jett(a)icann.org> Date: Dec 8, 2015 17:40 Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Translated CCWG Webinar Slides To: "CCWG-Accountability" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: Hello everyone, Please find attached the translated slides from the 2 December 2015 CCWG-Accountability webinars. The slides are also located on the wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/woJlAw Thank you, Hillary -- *Hillary Jett* Communications Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (202) 674-3403 Email: hillary.jett(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

New Public Comment: Label Generation Ruleset for the Root Zone Version 1 (LGR-1)
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 7, 2015

Dec. 7, 2015

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the Label Generation Ruleset for the Root Zone Version 1 (LGR-1) has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lgr-1-2015-12-04-en. The dates of the Public Comment will be 04 December 2015 - 27 February 2016 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-lgr-1-04dec15(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/GIdlAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.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