Hi, Draft agenda for the next ALAC teleconference has been posted <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009> Current text of the agenda below. Does anyone have items they wish to add (or we can try to have added) to the agenda? Or comments on any item on the agenda? There is a section for any RALO report should we have anything to report. Please note one item we should be considering: * What are the most useful issues to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics (see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes) Is there anything we wish to raise? One issue Danny Younger requests action on is the composition of the new GNSO noncommercial stakeholder group. The GNSO NCUC has developed a proposal, I think the most current version attached (I will make sure and repost of not.) Is EU RALO satisfied with this NCUC proposal? Other RALOs seem not to be and the board has asked that interested parties ensure the interests of individual Internet users are represented. If we do not support the NCUC proposal, what do we suggest in its place, or what amendments should be made. As part of the GNSO reform there is also an effort underway by NA RALO on "new constituencies" that people might like to follow. Archives here <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/new-constituencies_atlarge-lists.ic...> (I think the archive open.) I think Danny also makes good points about problems with registrars and rather than discussing as something that leads to a motion or a action immediately, I would like this as an issue for discussion when ALAC meets with the Board on Mexico. Does this sound reasonable? And does anyone have anything to add about Danny's concerns. See his comments about OnlineNic in particular. Thanks, Adam A G E N D A Standing Agenda Items 1. Adoption of the Agenda 1 min 2. Roll Call Apologies from Members (if any) - 1 min 3. Adoption of the 09 December 2008 Summary Minutes 4. Review of the 09 December 2008 Action Items - 8 mins 5. Review of current status of ALS applications (Google Docs account needed to access) - 5 mins 6. Reports 7. ExCom Activities 8. Liaison reports Note: There will be no discussion of liaison reports during the meeting; these links are by way of information only. Any Liaison who wishes a discussion to take place on an item related to their brief, or has an item for which a decision is required, is to use this wiki to edit the sections under Items for Decision, or Items for Discussion, as relevant. o IDN Report - at https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?liaison_monthly_report o Board Liaison Report - (please place a link to your report page here) o ccNSO Report - (please place a link to your report page here) o NCUC - (please place a link to your report page here) o SSAC - (please place a link to your report page here) o GNSO - (please place a link to your report page here) o dotMOBI Liaison Report 9. Working Group Reports: (Please insert below) 10. RALO Reports: (may be inserted below) 11. Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting 12. Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements (see Decision Items below) 13. Update on recent summit activities - Summit WG participants Items for Decision at This Meeting: * Proposal to move the monthly ALAC Meeting from the second Tuesday of the month at 1230 UTC to the 4th Tuesday. If accepted, please use the meeting planer to help find the most suitable time. * ALAC Statement on the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (see resource_page_for_alac_statement_on_new_gtld_guidebook ) * What are the most useful issues to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics (see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes) Items for Discussion Only * Draft ALAC comment on the PSC Any Other Business Reference Materials for Review What is the process for adding additional items to the Agenda? Thanks, Danny Younger contributed by Guest User on Dec 28 7:18am I suggest Danny, that you write here your items and all the ALAC members will be able to see them. Thanks. Sebastien Bachollet contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:03am Sebastien, please endeavor to get this item on the agenda. Thanks, Danny Younger Topic: Proposed Letter to the Board Dear members of the Board, An ICANN-accredited registrar, OnlineNic, has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of cybersquatting (violations of the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act); the court has awarded a $33.15 million judgment. OnlineNic currently has almost 1.2 million domain names under management and the registrant community must be protected from the inevitable impending demise of this registrar (who still faces additional lawsuits from Yahoo! and Microsoft). We are of the view that ICANN should send a strong message that (1) cybersquatting will never be tolerated and that (2) registrants will always be protected, by immediately invoking section 5.3.2.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and terminating OnlineNic¹s accreditation. We ask you to commence bulk transfer arrangements in order to shift all registrations away from OnlineNic to a more suitable registrar. contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:30pm Topic: Continued Violations of Consensus Policy by GoDaddy There is nothing more disgusting than watching ICANN doing nothing in the face of continued ongoing violations of Consensus Policy by a major registrar. On the Radio GoDaddy show CEO Bob Parsons and his General Counsel Christine Williams discuss their firm's deliberate violations of the Consensus Policy on Inter-Registrar Tranfers -- see http://bp.bobparsons.com/gdshop/bp/show.asp?ci=9963# (the 12-17 segment featuring Andrew Alleman of Domain Name Wire -- the discussion starts at 15 minutes and 30 seconds into the segment). Registrants expect the rules to be enforced (no matter who is breaking the rules). Will the ALAC ever speak out about this abuse and defend the registrant community? ...or will it continue to bury its head in the sand? contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 7:54am Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting: Transparency The bylaws state: "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." The BC never had a transparent publicly-archived list. The registries have never had a transparent list. We have seen the registrars move their discussions to a private non-transparent forum. The IPC no longer has a transparent discussion list. This situation does not exemplify operating "to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner"; instead it demonstrates a willingness on the part of ICANN constituencies to flagrantly disregard the bylaws. We expect ICANN to get its house in order. It would be appropriate to ask the Board to show its resolve not to re-certify any ICANN constituency that has failed to demonstrate a maximum effort to ensure transparency. Danny contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 8:32am Topic: URGENT -- ALAC action required "Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board." As of the ALAC's meeting date, the ALAC will have only 11 days to come up with a plan for a NCSG Charter, and this plan must be the result of collaboration with GNSO community members and constituency-in-formation representatives. When do you plan to get started? ...or will the ALAC just ignore yet another deadline? You know, for a group that promised to act as a "facilitator" on GNSO improvement matters, you sure haven't done much facilitation. Please let us know what you plan to do and by when so that the members of the NARALO's WG on New Constituencies may be kept informed. Danny contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 9:10am Topic: PSC comments To engender discussion, you may wish to review the GAC Comments on the PSC Report 2 November 2008 -- see http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report/show_file.jsp?sysId=C09702989&fileNo... Danny contributed by Guest User on Jan 5 1:16pm (END)