[PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: A way forward for highly-sensitive strings - ALAC Resolution

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi everyone,

as a follow-up of the discussion regarding PICs, there is push to have a
"working party" on the topic. the topic of PICs was raised during NCPH
meeting and BC definitely discussed that with Fadi in that time.
while we have some differences regarding the freeze and we acknowledge the
need of reviewing the process, I guess we should get involved and
expressing clearly our concerns.
@Amr please follow-up with this.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
Date: 2015-01-14 7:03 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: A way forward for highly-sensitive strings - ALAC Resolution
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>


Dear Rafik,



As we discussed, please see below.  We welcome the NCSG joining in support
of the Working Party, recognizing that there are some differences regarding
the concept of the freeze itself.



I look forward to hearing from you soon and wish you safe travels home.



Kind regards,



RA



*Ron Andruff*

*ONR Consulting, Inc.*

*www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com>  *



*From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2015 16:56
*To:* 'Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch'
*Cc:* 'Alan Greenberg'
*Subject:* A way forward for highly-sensitive strings - ALAC Resolution
*Importance:* High



Dear Thomas,



I send you best wishes for 2015!

Yesterday at our Non-Contracted Parties House Intercessional here in
Washington, I made an intervention with Fadi on the issue of trust.  I used
the GAC call for PICS and ALAC?s resolution as an example.  Fadi asked to
discuss this further with me today, and we did.  He fully agrees with us
that we have to get this right ? and that if some registries have to wait a
few months while we do this then so be it.  He asked me to send him the
recommendations that we discussed, vis-?-vis how to implement the ALAC
resolution.  As I understand that there is a call scheduled with the GAC
for tomorrow (14 January) and another with the ALAC on 22 January, the
email I sent to Fadi today is noted below for your information.



In summary, I believe that if you, as the GAC Chair, support this
recommendation then we have a real opportunity to finally get the issues
around PICS sorted.



Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarification.  Happy
to discuss.



Kind regards,



RA





Dear Fadi,

Further to our discussion at the NCPH Intercessional today, the purpose of
this mail is to provide you with a recommendation on how to address ALAC?s
(GAC?s and BC?s) concerns around the *PICS requested by the GAC at Beijing
ICANN 46*.

The ALAC resolution (
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-public-interest-comments-16oct14-en.pdf
) calls for:

1.    The ALAC advises the Board of ICANN to immediately "freeze" (that is,
cease contracting of or delegating) the 28 [RA note: this number has since
been revised to include all Cat. 1 strings, which is 42 in total] TLD
strings identified by the GAC as requiring enhanced safeguards ("Category
1, Safeguards 1-8"), pending further community review and subsequent
changes to the Public Interest provisions of the TLD agreements;

2.    The ALAC forms a sub-committee, comprised of At-Large and other ICANN
community members, to examine the current PIC mechanism, as well as any
other Public Interest safeguards that may be deployed for relevant TLDs,
and to recommend enhancements that better protect consumers and end-users
in an expedited manner;
3.    The ALAC assigns a liaison to the newly-formed ICANN Contract
Compliance and Safeguards group (subject to its approval), in order to
ensure that the At-Large Community is aware of the initiatives and progress
of the Department on an on-going basis.

Our recommended way forward (recognizing that there is currently a
meeting/call scheduled for 22 January 2015 between sub-groups from the NGPC
and ALAC) would be as follows:

A.      In the interest of accountability, building trust and demonstrating
ICANN?s desire to meet the GAC/BC/ALAC concerns, put a hold (freeze) on the
highly-regulated strings that are incorporated in Category 1, as noted
above, subject to the specific concerns being addressed.  This action alone
would greatly serve in restoring the Community?s and the GAC?s faith in the
Board, simply because it would clearly demonstrate that the Board will stop
? for the first time in ICANN history ? and allow the Community the
essential time to look again at how to get this critical issue right.

B.      Gather a Working Party (described as a ALAC sub-committee above)
that includes NGPC, ALAC, GAC, BC and other interested community members to
begin working on resolving this matter to do exactly what has been noted in
#2 above, with the first meeting scheduled for Singapore.  This *Working
Party?s goal would be to submit recommendations to the NGPC/Board prior to
the Dublin ICANN 54 meeting*.  To be clear, that target is two meetings
following Singapore (and notably 8 meetings since the GAC?s initial PICS
request). Recommendations could possibly come before that target date,
which could serve to free some applications sooner than that target.



Please let me know if you need any clarification or amplification of this
recommendation.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter at your soonest
convenience.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA






*Ron Andruff*

*ONR Consulting, Inc.*

*www.ICANNSherpa.com <http://www.ICANNSherpa.com>  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150118/cf5faded/attachment.html>