[ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
Wed Feb 12 23:34:36 UTC 2014


Plus 1 - thanks Carlton! This was exactly my thinking when following these exchanges. They still  haven't got a clue what volunteers involvement is in fact, the time, continuous investment and dedication it means ... Come on guys, if you have nothing better to do -- your problem! Let's be frank: this is one of the key reasons why we are so few and haven't multiplied or exploded in numbers of volunteers over the years. Because non-profit or volunteer's work is still not accredited in this enterprise -- besides some occasional opening statements.

Best, Wolf


Carlton Samuels wrote Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:21:
>Oops!  Added on principle no doubt.....and fueled by nickels n dimes.
>
>You know something, what bothers me is how easy it is to overlook and
>devalue, even dismiss, the investments - the co-spends! - volunteers make
>in this enterprise.
>
>-Carlton
>
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>=============================
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> As a FYI, the Board Resolution "Bylaws Revisions Re TLG" on 28 September
>> 2013 that the resolutions of 7 Feb 2014 referred to can be viewed at
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#2.e
>>
>> This resolution was originally redacted at the time and published on
>> October 30 2013. That resolution stated "This action is not anticipated to
>> have a fiscal impact on ICANN."
>>
>> The staff analysis of the ALAC comment dated 3 Feb 2014
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-bylaws-amend-tlg-03feb14-en.pdf
>> contains the text included in the rationale, except for the "This
>> action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
>> removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a financial
>> savings to ICANN." part.
>>
>> Dev Anand
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Also of note, the Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions which the ALAC
>> > submitted a comment on (https://community.icann.org/x/_xmfAg) which was
>> > on the consent agenda.
>> >
>> > It noted the ALAC comments (referred to as the commenter): "The commenter
>> > expressed support for the intent to increase the availability of
>> technical
>> > advice to the Board and the effectiveness of the TLG. The commenter
>> > recommended that the elimination of the TLG Liaison not occur until, at
>> > least, a mechanism to seek regular advice from the TLG is in place. The
>> > commenter opposed the removal of the NomCom TLG delegate on the basis
>> that
>> > the removal is likely to hinder the NomCom's community outreach to
>> > technical communities."
>> >
>> > However, the outcome was the the Board approves the Bylaws revisions as
>> > they were posted for public comment at
>> >
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/bylaws-amend-tlg-30oct13-en.htm
>> ,
>> > subject to two non-substantive changes made solely for clarification.
>> >
>> > The rationale given was as follows:
>> >
>> > "With respect to the strengthening of TLG advisory mechanism, the Board
>> > notes that this issue has already been addressed by the Board on 28
>> > September 2013 in resolution 2013.09.28.15.
>> >
>> > With respect to the concern regarding outreach to the technical
>> > communities, the Board notes that each of the four organizations that
>> make
>> > up the TLG are already engaged in ongoing community outreach efforts. The
>> > removal of the NomCom TLG delegate does not prevent these organizations
>> > from continuing with their outreach efforts.
>> >
>> > This action is anticipated to have a positive fiscal impact on ICANN. The
>> > removal of the Liaison to the Board and the NomCom will provide a
>> financial
>> > savings to ICANN. Further, the anticipated evolution and enhancement of
>> how
>> > ICANN receives advice on technical matters could have a positive impact
>> on
>> > how ICANN addresses matters relating to the security, stability or
>> > resiliency of the DNS."
>> >
>> >
>> > Dev Anand
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <
>> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Of note:
>> >> - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the
>> NGPC.
>> >> - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on
>> >> IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they
>> could
>> >> simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be
>> done.
>> >> - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom.
>> >> - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was
>> not
>> >> on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and
>> >> whether there was any substantive discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/
>> >> resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
>> >>
>> >> Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
>> >> 7 February 2014
>> >>
>> >> 1.  Consent Agenda
>> >>         a.  Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
>> >>         b.  Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
>> Advisory
>> >> Committee
>> >>         c.  Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
>> >>         d.  New gTLD Program Committee Membership
>> >>
>> >> 2.  Main Agenda
>> >>         a.  Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
>> >>         b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
>> >> Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
>> >>         c.  GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
>> >>
>> >> 1.   Consent Agenda:
>> >>         a.   Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
>> >>         b.   Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability
>> >> Advisory Committee
>> >>         c.   Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
>> >>         d.   New gTLD Program Committee Membership
>> >>
>> >> 2.   Main Agenda:
>> >>
>> >>         a.  Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
>> >> Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in
>> All
>> >> gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group
>> Charter
>> >> at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf[PDF,
>> >> 189 KB].
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
>> ICANN
>> >> Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report
>> delivered to
>> >> the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working
>> >> Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in
>> >> relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of
>> >> the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a
>> >> unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see
>> >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
>> >>
>> >> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on
>> >> the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been
>> >> summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
>> >> public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm ).
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires Communiqué
>> >> that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on
>> >> finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at
>> the
>> >> second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
>> >>
>> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO
>> >> Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO
>> >> Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report
>> >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[PDF,
>> >> 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations
>> so
>> >> that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same
>> topic.
>> >>
>> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD
>> >> Program Committee to:
>> >>
>> >>         (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it
>> >> continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice
>> on
>> >> protections for IGOs; and
>> >>
>> >>         (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice
>> >> and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a
>> >> subsequent meeting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> b.   Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee
>> Recruitment
>> >> & Selection Process and Size & Composition
>> >>
>> >> Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom
>> >> Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (
>> >>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
>> >> , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the
>> >> composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee.
>> >>
>> >> Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it
>> is
>> >> time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and
>> >> that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
>> >>
>> >> Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a
>> >> Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance
>> with
>> >> the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be
>> >> addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
>> >>
>> >> Related materials:
>> >>
>> >> Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January
>> >> 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
>> >> review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf
>> >> Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in
>> >> March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-
>> >> improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
>> >>
>> >>         c.  GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
>> >>
>> >> Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy
>> Development
>> >> Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both
>> >> existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at
>> >> https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
>> >>
>> >>  Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP procedures as stated in the
>> >>> Bylaws and due process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21
>> October
>> >>> 2013.
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) reached full consensus
>> on
>> >>> the recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter.
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of
>> >>> the Thick Whois PDP WG, and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October
>> 2013
>> >>> by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/
>> >>> council/resolutions#20131031-1).
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the required voting threshold
>> set
>> >>> forth in the ICANN Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN
>> >>> contracted parties.
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a Thick Whois
>> >>> Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the
>> >>> implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the
>> >>> ICANN Board.
>> >>>
>> >>> Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held
>> on
>> >>> the approved recommendations, and the comments received strongly
>> supported
>> >>> the recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/news/
>> >>> public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm).
>> >>>
>> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy
>> >>> Recommendations for a new Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth
>> in
>> >>> section 7.1 of the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/
>> >>> issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf [PDF, 1.23 MB]).
>> >>>
>> >>> Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the President and CEO to
>> >>> develop and execute on an implementation plan for the Thick Whois
>> Policy
>> >>> consistent with the guidance provided by the GNSO Council. The
>> President
>> >>> and CEO is authorized and directed to work with the Implementation
>> Review
>> >>> Team in developing the implementation details for the policy, and to
>> >>> continue communication with the community on such work.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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)
>
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig



More information about the ALAC mailing list