Page History

The ALAC noted that the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets are aligned with the ICANN Strategic Plan, and are also very similar to previous years' budgets. An adjustment in the PTI budget is noticeable, including adjustments in salaries, services and other administrative cross-charges from ICANN to PTI or IANA.

However, the ALAC pointed out that a change is in process in the Governance of the Root Server System, these changes are not reflected in the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets. The ALAC asked several exploratory questions in their response.

The ALAC summarized its comments as follows:

I. Strengthen ICANN’s bottom-up multistakeholder decision-making process and ensure that work gets done and policies are developed in an effective and timely manner.

Issue 1: Prioritization of work. ALAC feels this must be addressed (Category A). Some suggestions include: spreading the workload, increased outreach (ATLAS III, further incentives to keep contributing volunteers, adequate knowledge and resources (specified in II) The entire community,as well as ICANN.org must contribute to the resolution of this problem.

Issue 2: Precision in scoping the work. This issue may fall into Category A - must be addressed - or Category B -- might be partially addressed in current processes. We foresee scoping that is tight and smart and relevant to the process. It is impossible to say who should be responsible when so much activity around it is unresolved.

Issue 3: Efficient use of resources. This is a category A issue which must be addressed. We recognize that it might be partially addressed by current processes but cannot assess the situation until these processes are completed. We are concerned that PDP 3.0 may offer efficiency at the cost of inclusiveness which we feel would be a backwards step in the evolution of ICANN’s MSM.

Issue 4: Roles and responsibilities and a holistic view of ICANN. This is a category A issue although it will require further processes to resolve. ALAC seeks a bottom-up review of roles and responsibilities as an independent process. 

II. Support and grow active, informed and effective stakeholder participation.

Strategies to expand the concept of participation are offered as well as various resources and support needed to ensure informed participation. We consider this to be a Category A issue -- the model cannot evolve if it is not addressed. This is a major concern for At Large and other volunteer-based constituencies and all will need to be involved in addressing it. Support from ICANN,org and the Board will be necessary.

Issue 5: Representativeness and inclusiveness. Mentorship programs are a key part of ensuring that the MSM system remains representative and inclusive. Relevant constituencies as well as staff need to make sure these programs are working as they are intended and that they are reaching the right demographics. Inclusiveness at the leadership level needs to be improved through a bottom up process with staff assistance.

III. Sustain and improve openness, inclusivity, accountability and transparency.

Issue 6: Culture, trust and silos. This is a category A issue that needs to be addressed in this process. All constituencies need to reach across their boundaries, respect for other viewpoints must be reinforced. This is a problem in many large organizations and there are professional services available to help build trust and cooperation. By engaging some of these services, ICANN.org could help constituencies build a better working environment. 

Issue 7: Complexity. This is an inherent feature of ICANN work, but where it can be alleviated, ICANN.org should take the lead. Make sure information such as the website is well organized and understandable and closely monitor the internet governance environment for issues that will impact ICANN directly.

Issue 8: Consensus. Creating conditions that would facilitate consensus is the goal of the issues already listed. Preserving the voice of end users in the decision-making processes is crucial to ICANN’s MSM model -- a Category A issue in which all parties play a role but the role of the Board will be particularly important. 

The ALAC considers the issue of Name Collision in the DNS an area of importance for the minimization of unintended consequences for Internet end users. The ALAC appreciates the need to have a Name Collision definition for purposes of scoping the inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP), in order for the NCAP Study One to be manageable and on point, and therefore supports the Proposed Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project of 1 July 2019. Of particular importance to us are:

(1) The recognition and inclusion of Type B situations (ie. B. In scope but not intended to be the subject of data studies) which provides built-in peripheral consideration of such situations with decision for examination through data analysis at a later stage if a compelling case were to arise within Study One; and

(2) The possibility of amending the Definition of Name Collision and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collision Analysis Project should further pertinent information come to light at a later stage either through the ongoing work of the NCAP DG, NCAP Working Party and/or input obtained from the party/ies eventually contracted to undertake NCAP Study One.  

The ALAC strongly supports the overall proposal and appreciates the opportunity to comment. The RSS, according to RRSAC37, needs to evolve so it remains a reliable, resilient, and sustainable service in the face of increasing traffic and cyberattacks. However, the ALAC finds it difficult to accept that ICANN is not considered a primary stakeholder with regard to the RSS, given that the Domain Name System and its reliable and trusted operation is a prime reason for ICANN’s existence. The ALAC also encourages that Internet users, the ultimate user and beneficiary of the DNS, should be listed as having a stake in the existence and evolution of the RSS.

The financial model is also of some concern to the ALAC. No figures are provided to allow even order-of-magnitude estimates. It is surely time that we begin to understand exactly what level of funding will be required and hypothesize on where such funding will come from.

Comment: Draft Financial Assumptions & Projections and Operating Initiatives for the development of Fiscal Years 2021-2025 Operating & Financial Plan

The ALAC considered the Draft Financial Assumptions, Projections and Operating Initiatives, and offered comments on the following topics among others: 

• The ALAC is not optimistic that Financial Assumptions A (Roll-out of New gTLDs) and B (New Business Models – Geographic gTLDs and Brand gTLDs) will be highly successful vehicles to new revenue. Although the first round of new gTLDs did bring in considerable revenue, the ALAC notes that these earlier rounds represented the “low hanging fruit” in the new gTLD market.
• The ALAC agrees that ICANN continue to put money towards the an urgent need to resolve current challenges around Universal Acceptance, as well as the primary strategic goal of security, stability and trust.
• The ALAC agrees that work which needs to be done on evolving the multistakeholder system is substantial and complex and that it must be ongoing with adequate resources directed towards its completion. The objectives related to diverse and inclusive participation in policy making in an efficient and effective way are essential to improving the system, underlining that face-to-face meetings are essential to the functioning of the multistakeholder model.
• The ALAC/At-Large community propose some clarity via a listing of priorities and statements on the impact of each project on ICANN org and on each of the unique ACs and SOs. The community believes that while policy development and implementation activities are integral to the planning process, so are other activities, such as those that enable communication, collaboration, and outreach, between RALOS, At-Large members and other constituencies.

Comment: Proposed IANA SLAs for Publishing LGRs/IDN Tables

The ALAC supports the recommendations of the CSC and PTI for the proposed IANA SLAs for publishing the LGRs/IDN Tables.

Comment: Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Proposal – IANA Naming Function Review 

The ALAC supported the current version of the ICANN Bylaws Section 18.7(a) and 18.7(b), but understands that it has now proven to be difficult to implement. The ALAC agrees that the proposed change preserves the intent of the original Fundamental Bylaw and supports the change. Subject to any new information being brought to the ALAC’s attention, the current intention is that the ALAC will support this Fundamental Bylaw change when it is presented to the Empowered Community.

The ALAC contribution to the evolving multistakeholder model condensed the 21 issues developed through community consultations into 4 general categories: (1) structural, (2) process, (3) participation and (4) intergroup relations. Regarding structure and process, the ALAC recommends more specific scoping, the use of external influences and project management tools, easily retrievable records of discussions and decisions and joint community/staff priority setting. Regarding participation, the ALAC noted the multistakeholder system depends on wide participation in the process and wide participation from all regions remains a challenge, including language barriers and volunteer burnout. Finally regarding intergroup relations, the ALAC noted there will always be disagreements,  but a culture of positive relations between and among groups must be actively encouraged.

The ALAC supports the proposed changes to the .asia (DotAsia) renewal agreement, with (3) comments related to universal acceptance (UA), public interest commitments and fees to be paid to ICANN org.

The ALAC generally refrained from commenting on these prior proposed Registry Agreement renewals, with the exception of the proposed renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement in 2017. The ALAC in general favors standardizing Registry Agreements as this allows for transparency and predictability, as well as ease of review and compliance monitoring of one standard contract (with necessary but controlled variations through Addendums) instead of managing many disparate/varying contracts. Being supportive of this approach, the ALAC has not objected to the base Registry Agreement, or to its use in prior renewals.

In respect of the intent to standardize the said 3 proposed Registry Agreement renewals (.org, .biz, .info), the ALAC welcomes the following proposals:

(i) inclusion of Public Interest Commitments (per Specification 11),
(ii) inclusion of Minimum requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms (per Specification 7), 
(iii) adoption of the Registry Code of Conduct (per Specification 9), and
(iv) amendment of the relevant section in Specification 5 to govern the allocation of two-character labels at the second level to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes.

The ALAC also noted there are differences in opinion within At-Large regarding the omission and quantum of price caps.

The ALAC provided advice to the ICANN Board, noting significant concern related to three aspects of the EPDP Report. Specifically, the ALAC is concerned not only with the outcomes, but with the process that was followed to address the issues. All three impact the ability to access registration data and the completeness of that data, specifically: “to identify the appropriate balance for a path forward to ensure compliance with the GDPR while maintaining the existing WHOIS system to the greatest extent possible”. The ALAC advises the ICANN Board to:

• Request that the issue of Thick WHOIS be discussed during the EPDP Phase 2 in light of the new legal opinion;
• Request that the issue of geographic differentiation be re-opened during the EPDP Phase 2 in light of the new legal opinion and the lack of considering the competing needs of privacy vs the benefits of non-redaction on cyber-security activities and that the ensuing discussion factor in the needs of those using the data for cyber-security and other legitimate purposes;
• Request that the issue of legal/natural differentiation be discussed during the EPDP Phase 2 explicitly considering the competing needs of those using the data for cybersecurity and other legitimate purposes;
• Initiate independent studies related to the implementation of geographic and legal/natural differentiation as well as the impact of the Temporary Specification implementation on cyber-security, or request that the EPDP Phase 2 commission such studies. If the latter, the Board should ensure adequate funding for such work.

During ICANN64, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) drafted and approved a Joint GAC-ALAC Statement on the EPDP. The GAC and ALAC are aligned overall with the EPDP Phase I Report, as it pertains to outstanding concerns as articulated in their respective statements to the report. The two advisory committees are in agreement on the need to distinguish between natural and legal persons. In addition, the GAC and ALAC highlighted the importance of data accuracy, the technical contact field, and protecting the public interest. The statement was drafted jointly with the GAC with input from the ALAC Liaison to the GAC, Yrjö Lansipuro, and GAC representative, Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, as well as the At-Large representatives to the EPDP, Hadia Elminiawi and Alan Greenberg.

Comment: Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews

The ALAC stressed the importance of ICANN’s role in the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance (including 6 recommendations to improve its effectiveness), suggested a rebalancing of representation on the ICANN Board to enhance the Internet end user perspective, and noted that more fulsome cost/benefit analyses of programs like the gTLD expansion should be available in order predict the future impact on total resources. The ALAC also commented on strengthening the security of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the DNS Root Server System, evolving the unique identifier systems to continue to serve the needs of the global Internet user base, addressing geopolitical issues impacting ICANN’s mission to ensure a single and globally interoperable Internet, and ensuring ICANN’s long-term financial sustainability.

The ALAC Chair determined to submit an additional ALAC statement on this public comment, in accordance with new rules regarding FY20 Additional Budget Requests (ABRs). As ABRs are no longer intended to request travel support to ICANN meetings, the ALAC decided to submit an additional comment to the FY20 Budget public comment, requesting two travel slots to support the attendance of active At-Large policy/outreach leaders in At-Large work session activities at ICANN meetings.

Comment: Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process

The ALAC notes that there has yet to be a discussion about whether any new  gTLDs are needed. In case of an expansion, first and foremost, (1) strings with geographic connotations should not present harm (eg. risk for confusion) to end-users and (2) end-users, as residents of a given geographic entity, should have a say, through their governments or public authorities, in how its name is used. The ALAC prefers preventative protection mechanisms for country, territory, sub-national place and capital names. In the case of non-capital city names, there is a balanced support within the ALAC  for either (1) requiring support or a non-objection letter from the relevant authority only if the applicant intends to use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city or (2) requiring support or a non-objection letter in any case. As to the 2012 AGB, ALAC thinks that its final version generally worked well and supports, in general, its treatment of geographic names.

Advice: Follow-Up to the Joint Statement by ALAC and GAC: Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation at ICANN  

Note: submitted to ICANN Board as ALAC Advice; ratified during ICANN63.

Comment: IPC/BC Accreditation & Access Model for Non-Public Data v1.7 

Note: Not a formal ICANN Public Comment.

Comment: Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach

The ALAC provided extensive community comment on (4) issues related to the Draft Proposal of the New Fellowship Program Approach, including application and selection criteria of the Fellowship Program, as well as on-site recommendations and post-meeting requirements.

Comment: ICANN Reserve Fund – Public Comment on Rationale and Target Level 

The ALAC supports having the Reserve Fund at the level of 12 months expenses, and higher if there is a practical way of achieving that without unduly impacting ICANN’s ability to provide necessary services. At whatever level the Reserve Fund target is set, the ALAC suggests ICANN must publish a plan on how and when this will be achieved.

Advice: Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation at ICANN - A Joint Statement by ALAC and GAC

Note: submitted to ICANN Board as ALAC Advice; ratified during ICANN60.

The ALAC echoes the rationale provided by the GAC. Specifically: One of ICANN’s core values is to seek and support “broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent” (Bylaws Section 1.2.c.ii). In the view of the GAC and the ALAC it is not only among ICANN’s core values but also critical to ICANN’s legitimacy to act in the global public interest to allow non-expert stakeholders to meaningfully participate in ICANN’s processes and make their voices, their needs and interests heard, and duly take them into account in order to act and take decisions that are in fact, in the global public interest. These proposed measures will go some way to address this.