[ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] Meeting with other groups in Kobe

[Maureen Hilyard]

I certainly agree with the direction that Holly is going with regards to
helping our end-users understand what is rising in importance in the GNSO,
and how we might be able  to collaborate with them to enhance our own
capacity building and information resources, that is going to improve
understanding about the issues and increase participation in our
discussions.

I particularly like their earlier recommendation for webinars / briefings
that would introduce issue up for consultation. But it would have to be in
basic English, and with as few technical terms as possible.

I have been talking to Marita and others about a separate session involving
Keith Drazeck where we could discuss these particular issues, and look at
how we can work on a collaborative effort that could also involve the GAC
because we all seem to be on the same wavelength here.

However there are definitely areas for policy discussion that Holly
mentions as well, and no doubt Jonathan is capturing these for the policy
sessions.

Maureen

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 3:02 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> I definitely think all this should be a policy topic in Kobe!
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* ALT-Plus <alt-plus-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <
> h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 5, 2019 7:41:40 PM
> *To:* Maureen Hilyard
> *Cc:* ALAC-members at icann.org; alt-plus at icann.org; Marita Moll
> *Subject:* Re: [ALT-Plus] [ALAC-Members] Meeting with other groups in Kobe
>
> Just catching up -
>
> One thing that has been at the back of my mind for some time is what steps
> the GNSO can take to assist end user participation.  If you go back to
> recommendation from the GNSO (held before the ALAC Review) one of the
> recommendations was for something like webinars or briefings from them on
> issues up for consultation.  It could be in consultation with our own
> webinar series, or a process that allows all stakeholders to participate -
> including TWO webinars so that at least one of the times suits the rest of
> the globe!
>
> And, of course, all of the issues of whether there should be ‘rounds’ -
> which we have already discussed a lot - as well as what steps need to
> precede the opening of release of more gTLDs
>
> Holly
>
> On Dec 28, 2018, at 1:17 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Maureen. Here's a possible topic for a session with GNSO. I was reading
> the International Center for Dispute Resolution case re: Afilias and ICANN
> and the following information was provided re: GNSO policy recommendations
> re: the a new gTLD program:
>
> "The New gTLD Program has produced ICANN’s most ambitious expansion of the
> Internet’s naming system. Under the Program, any interested party could
> apply for the opportunity to operate new gTLDs that were not already in use
> in the DNS, meaning that there was no cap on the number of new gTLDs that
> could be added to the Internet. The Program was designed to enhance
> diversity, creativity and consumer choice in gTLDs, and to provide the
> benefits of innovation to consumers.
> * The Program arose from policy recommendations by ICANN’s Generic Names
> Supporting Organization (“GNSO”), which were based on community input
> during the period 2005-2007. On 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the
> GNSO’s policy recommendations and directed the ICANN organization to
> develop an implementation plan for the Program, to be provided to the Board
> for approval" (italics added) *
>
> Given the fact that At-large is asking if there really is a need/demand
> for another round, where that demand is coming from and what is the benefit
> to end users of more gTLDs -- maybe this might be a topic that could be
> explored.
>
> Marita
> On 12/23/2018 9:18 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Hope your plans for Xmas Day are coming along well.. 🎄🎄🎄
>
> But just before you start celebrating.. can I please ask you to give some
> thought after Xmas, if you can remember to do so, as to what you would like
> to ask the following groups, if we were to ask them to come to an ALAC
> working session.
>
> *GAC *- Yrjo and Ana have been working diligently on their topics based
> on our feedback so we can then work on the how we present these together.
> We have a session planned with them already.
>
> *ccNSO *- Barrack and Wafa are asking the ccNSO If they want to see us,
> or is there anything that the ALAC wants to know about or of the ccNSO - I
> know that they have their Review coming up soon. I hope they are preparing
> better than we did so that there are no surprises 😡 Session still TBC
>
> *SSAC*? Andrei has been sending us some interesting reports.. any
> questions?
>
> *RSSAC*?  - did anyone read their Review Report (July 2018
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-review-final-02jul18-en.pdf>)
> - interesting..
>
> *ASO*? have we met with the ASO before? should we? We would have to bring
> in the 5 RIRs - would need a lot of coordinating.
>
> *GNSO* -  we haven't had a meeting with the GNSO since Heather was
> appointed. They now have a new leader Keith Drasek.. anyone want to ask
> Keith anything?
>
>  - and if we do ask anything of anyone, what kind of response are we
> after? (so its not just a lecture)..
>
> Just asking....
>
> Merry Xmas 😊
> Maureen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-Members mailing listALAC-Members at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-members
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALT-Plus mailing list
> ALT-Plus at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-plus
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/private/alt-plus/attachments/20190105/355314d7/attachment.html>