[ALAC] RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation

Wed Mar 20 18:53:24 UTC 2013

We can talk about the need to do this all we want. But, based on the one
concrete example to date, informed ALS input can be (and is) ignored
without consequence. And when the RALO threatens to get involved, just send
in some lawyers to intimidate and shut them up.

This is not theory. This actually happened with .pr. I was personally in a
F2F NARALO meeting that had more lawyers in the room than ALSs reps.

So unless we have something to say beyond wishful thinking, that accounts
for and learns from real lessons of the past and has the actual promise to
change policy and prevent intimidation of At-Large members, we are wasting
our time and ought not to lend respectability to a process done only for
show.

- Evan

On 20 March 2013 14:30, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
> > > > Toronto Canada
> > > >
> > > > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > > > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > > > Tw: el56
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ALAC mailing list
> > > > ALAC at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
Toronto Canada

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