- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

board SOP
by David Conrad Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/draft-procedure-manual-09oct…

2 1

Updated Multilingual quality template
by Fiona Asonga Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

Hallo All Kindly update your documents accordingly. kind regards Fiona

1 0

Implementation of ATRT1 recommendations
by Brian Cute Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

The attachment is provided for the purpose of discussion and clarification on the state of implementation for 3 ATRT1 recommendations.

1 0

The Recommendations that I have not done...is
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

I had hoped to have two more recommendations for your consideration, but that will not happen in time for our meeting. Nevertheless, I would like to bring them p with the hope that we can discuss their merits. 1. Recommend that in responding to AoC RTs, the Board must respond with clarity and precision. Despite some Board and Staff embers believing that this was done in all cases, the response to the Whois RT was viewed as cryptic and opaque b many on the RT as well as others in the community. The investment made by RTs is significant and some on the Whois RT feel that there efforts were close to wasted. This should not happen again. 2. Volunteers make up a substantial part of the ICANN multi-stakeholder community. Although many are paid by their companies to participate, many do so without any compensation. The latter group are at a significant disadvantage endangering the concept of a multi EQUAL stakeholder model that has been recently advanced by our CEO. ICANN needs to take actions to ensure that all stakeholders can participate equally. Alan

2 1

答复: Tomorrow morning
by zhang xinsheng Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

Dear all, Attached is the draft template of Further improvement of GAC interactions with Board, AC/SOs and GAC’own mechanism which is a new recommendation proposal. I hope it is not so late. I hope you will be alright, Brian. Best regards, Xinsheng -----邮件原件----- 发件人: atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Brian Cute 发送时间: 2013年8月14日 12:51 收件人: atrt2(a)icann.org 主题: [atrt2] Tomorrow morning All, I just arrived and am not feeling well. Hopefully a night sleep will do the trick. I will let you know in the morning if I am able to join in person. If not, I will call in from my room for the meeting. Apologies. Brian _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

1 0

Tomorrow morning
by Brian Cute Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

All, I just arrived and am not feeling well. Hopefully a night sleep will do the trick. I will let you know in the morning if I am able to join in person. If not, I will call in from my room for the meeting. Apologies. Brian

1 0

Draft Prel Report - Call 09
by Alice Jansen Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Dear Review Team Members, Welcome to Los Angeles! Attached you will find the draft preliminary report of your call 09 held on 1 August 2013. This is a draft for your consideration. Please send any edits you may have. Thanks Best regards Alice ---- Alice Jansen Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, Bt.1 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Office: +32 289 474 03 Mobile: +32 4 73 31 76 56 Skype: alice_jansen_icann Email: alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>

1 0

Face to face meeting in Durban
by Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Alice, I´m a little bit lost here. I'm looking for transcripts/recordings of the Durban Face to Face meetings but they are not in good order. For example, on the Face to Face meeting with GNSO I found this, http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-atrt-prep-14jul13-… which is obviously no the right transcript. I also have a hard time opening the recordings. Carlos Raúl Gutierrez Miembro del Consejo Presidente pro tempore REGULATEL www.sutel.go.cr +506 4000 0010 (Ofi) +506 8335 2487 (Cel) +506 2215 6821 (Fax)

2 1

Fwd: and now, for something completely different -- SSR
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

A message from Mikey O'Connor. It was sent to the threat that was preparing for the PDP Chairs discussion on Wednesday, but it goes WAY over an above the original subject and into all sorts of compelling issues, many of which can readily fit into "accountability and transparency". Alan >From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> >Subject: and now, for something completely different -- SSR >Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:06:15 -0500 >CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" > <larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org>, Charla Shambley > <charla.shambley(a)icann.org>, > Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org> >To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com>, Roberto Gaetano > <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen(a)icann.org>, > "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, > "rickert(a)anwaelte.de > Rickert" <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, James Bladel > <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz > <pdiaz(a)pir.org>, "jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz" > <jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com>, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >hi all, > >one last picture from Mikey before our call on Wednesday. > >Olivier will know this picture -- it's one we developed in the DSSA >together. so there's perhaps less need for us to discuss this one >on our call (where *is* that agenda Alan?). > >i bring this forward because i think ICANN is getting really close >to splitting the root with all this late maneuvering around the SSR >issues (dotless domains, name collision, internal certs, >etc.). i'm levering these questions to the ATRT into this >conversation because i was the GNSO co-chair of the recently-dead >DSSA working group. here goes... > >-- where is the connection between the SSAC and action? why are >reports that point to serious SSR issues not finding their way into >policy discussions in a timely way? as a test case please consider >tracing the path that SAC045 took, and determine why we didn't have >Lyman Chapin's report on namespace collision commissioned and >completed 3 years ago. why didn't the GNSO pick up on this and >launch a discussion/investigation/PDP? > >-- does ICANN (the corporation) have a conflict of interest, now >that so much of its budget is dependent on the revenue anticipated >from new gTLDs? is it losing its place as trusted steward for the >root because of that? > >-- has ICANN gotten so big and so layered with complexity and >privilege that it has forgotten how easy it is to stand up a >separate root? to a person, my corporate and ISP uber-network-geek >pals are saying that the easiest way to take care of all the >problems caused by new gTLDs may be to simply edit those domains out >of a privately operated root zone. it used to be hard to stand up >a robust root -- now it's easy, cheap and may well be a lot less >work that chasing down all the troubles that could be caused by new gTLDs. > >-- in olden times, alternate root providers were viewed with nothing >but distain. but suppose that the largest corporate and >connectivity-provider DNS operators decided to collaborate on a >"clean" DNS root zone that simply pointed to the the legacy >registries and treated the ICANN new-gTLDs the way that all >alternate TLD/zone providers have been treated? > >-- here's another investigation the ATRT may want to pursue. why >does the staff suggest a tiered risk-management approach to >name-collision, and try to make it sound like InterIsles' report is >the source of that approach, when that's not the case? InterIsle >describes 5 approaches to managing the risk in their report, none of >which include the option that the staff constructed. yet through >tricky wording, the two 5-August staff reports attempt to make it >sound as though they're carrying out the recommendations made in the >report when in fact they're cherry-picking their way to the >speediest rollout schedule. > >-- by the way, what happened to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder >process in any of these late-breaking SSR issues? sure, we're out >for comments right now. but then what? this is TMCH on steroids >and this time we may see ICANN lose its credibility with the >technical community that underpins this hallucination we all agree >to share. what if the trust relationship is broken and we geeks >just stick our hands in our pockets and walk on down the road? > >-- why did ICANN take so long to react to the constant barrage of >communication (from Verisign and others) about risks related to new >gTLDs, and why is that reaction still so muted? what on earth is >going on with the communications between Verisign and the NTIA? > >-- in short -- what is becoming of the "grand bargain" that was >struck back in the late '90's? are "gaps in policy, management, or >leadership threatening to split the root"? the DSSA drew this >picture a couple years ago -- now our predictions (and those of the >Internet Society on which they're based) seem to be coming true. > >there. that ought to provide some entertainment for the last couple >days before our call. :-) > >discuss away, > >mikey > > > > > > > >[] > > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: ><http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for >Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > >

2 1

My contributions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

I was charged with drafting the starting point for recommendations on the GNSO PDP and Cross-constituency work. For a bunch of reasons, I have not been able to put nearly sufficient effort into this. The PDP recommendation is likely to change as our external expert works, but based on the discussions that we had with groups at Durban, greatly augmented by the PDP Chairs thread that I forwarded, some of the themes of our recommendation are already pretty solid. I have not addressed early GAC involvement, as this is partially covered by Fiona's contributions and I thought it better to work from one document. I will, however give an early view of how I am thinking about things now. We have usually used words like "the GAC must participate in GNSO PDPs". I now think that wording it like this is setting an operational methodology instead of first setting the setting the goal. It makes little sense (to me) to have a PDP deliver its recommendations to the Board and then have the GAC re-open issues that concern its members at the Board level. I think that the goal is ensuring that issues of interest to governments and the GAC are known to the PDP WG, and are fairly considered, and that as recommendations are formulated, there is a feedback loop involving the GAC. Exactly HOW to do that is not clear, but unless we set it as a target, we will never achieve it. There has been a lot of rhetoric about GAC members not being able to sustain the presumed level of effort that goes into GNSO PDP. Before we try to figure out mechanisms for achieving the above goal, we need to recognize that: - the efforts described above have occurred (in my recollections) for only one or two PDPs, and then only for a few weeks (and due to Board deadlines/ultimatums) - most PDPs are about operational issues that have proven of no interest to the GAC - the new gTLD PDP, which has received so much after0the0fact focus, is never likely to be repeat for a whole bunch of reasons (including having learned a bunch of lessons in the ensuing years). - there WILL be PDPs of interest to the GAC coming up soon (RAA, son-of-Whois) and we really need to fix this problem quickly. On the Cross-constituency issue, I re-wrote this document several times and am almost as unhappy with the final one as the earlier versions. One of the reasons was that although we often talk about the need for more cross-const work, other than the specific GAC-GNSO and some targeted GNSO-ALAC issues, iI found it hard to come up with concrete examples. Mikey's note that I just forwarded covers one I missed. Alan

1 0