ES: Sergio Salinas Porto, Harold Arcos, Mónica Trochez, Raitme Citteri, Adrian Carballo, Carlos Leal - Ni, Lilian Ivette de Luque, Antonio Medina Gomez, Maritza Aguero, Litto Ibara, Alberto Soto, Rodrigo Saucedo, Fernando Velazquez, Aida Noblia, Gilberto Lara, Humberto Carrasco, León Sanchez, Alexis Anteliz, Cristian Casas, Anahí Menéndez, Vrikson Acosta, Cala Hub Ozone, Rudi Daniel, Flavio Wagner, Salvador Camacho Hernandez, Sylvia Herlein Leite, Alejandro Pisanty, Alfredo Lopez

EN: Dev Anand Teelucksingh

FR: None

PT: None

Apologies: Maureen Hilyard, Ricardo Holmquist, Bartlett Morgan, Vanda Scartezini

Staff: Silvia Vivanco, Claudia Ruiz, Gisella Gruber, Rodrigo Saucedo, Daniel Fink, Marika Konings

Interpreters:

ES: Veronica and Sabrina

PT: Bettina and Esperanza

FR: Aruelie and Jacques

Call Management: Claudia RuizGisella Gruber

...

AGENDA

...

ES

...

Roll Call - Staff (2 minutos)

...

Bienvenida -

...

Sergio Salinas (1 minuto)

...

Aprobación de la Agenda - Harold Arcos (2 minutos)

...

Comentarios ALAC Member - Humberto Carrasco (10 minutos)

5.- Presentación NomCom ( (presentación)) Tracy Hackshaw (15 minutos)

6.- Reporte ALAC Member – (presentación) Barlett Morgan (20 minutos)

...

Reporte herramienta de Traducción + ICANN Stakeholder Tool - Dev Anand (10 minutos)
LACRALO Estrategia de Relacionamiento y Compromiso FY-19 (Harold 6 minutos)
Otros Temas de Interés - AOB (5 minutos)
WEBINAR: EPDP - Marika Konings VP, Policy Development Support – GNSO (45 minutos)
Webinar GSE - Encuesta de Evaluación Staff (5 minutos)

Por favor, consulte las actualizaciones de comentarios de políticas a continuación.

AGENDA EN

...

Roll Call - Staff (2 minutes)

...

Welcome -

...

Sergio Salinas (1 minute)

...

Agenda

...

Approval - Harold Arcos (2 minutes).

...

Comments ALAC Member - Humberto Carrasco (10 minutes)
Report TransBot + ICANN Stakeholder Tool - Dev Anand (10 minutes)
LACRALO Outreach and Engagement Strategy FY-19 (Harold 6 minutes)
Any Other Businnes - AOB (5 minutes)
WEBINAR: EPDP - Marika Konings VP, Policy Development Support – GNSO (45 minutes)
Webinar GSE Survey - Staff (5 mins)

...

6.- Reporte ALAC Member –(presentation) Barlett Morgan (20 minutos)

...

ACTUALIZACIONES DE COMENTARIOS SOBRE POLÍTICAS / POLICY COMMENT UPDATES

Asısta a la llamada del Grupo de Trabajo de At-Large de Politicas Consolidadas (CPWG), todos los miércoles con interpretación en ES.

At-Large Policy Resources

2019 See: 2019 ALAC Policy Comments & Advice (new)
See: 2018 ALAC Policy Comments & Advice
See: At-Large Policy Summary
See: At-Large Executive Summary page (new)
See: Multistakeholder Advice Development graphic

Recently Ratified by the ALAC

Application for New Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Dispute-Resolution Service Provider
The ALAC strongly supports the proposal for a new UDRP Dispute Resolution Provider, viewing it beneficial to the interests of all Internet end users, particularly to domain name registrants.

EPDP Resources

Web Page of EPDP
EPDP Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team
The ALAC submitted a Word Doc form mirroring the new Google Form requested by the EPDP Team for collection of this public comment. In its statement, the ALAC provided its answers on the questions posed by the EPDP Team. In particular, the ALAC made recommendations on additional purposes for processing registration data, including the Accuracy Reporting System (ARS) and research and threats analysis/prevention from the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO). Regarding data elements, the ALAC noted Registrant provided data must not be unilaterally removed without due consultation with the data provider, and the registrant must declare whether it is a natural or legal person. The ALAC noted the technical contact fields must be mandatory, and the Organization field should not be redacted. The ALAC also noted in its conclusion the SSAC revised version of SAC101, a paper previously supported by ALAC, drawing particular attention to the statement, "RDDS access must comply with the law, but access should not be less timely, more restricted and less public than law requires."

Supplemental Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
The ALAC put on record their responses, suggestions and in some cases, advocacy, to the preliminary recommendations, options and questions in the Report. In particular, the ALAC strongly opposes the retention of the regular highest-bid auction process which was used in the 2012 round (“regular auctions”) as the mechanism of last resort for resolution of contention sets within the Program, proposing instead that the ICANN Community explore the introduction of a multiplier-enhanced Vickrey auction, while supporting ways to increase avenues for voluntary resolutions of contention sets in order to avoid auctions. The ALAC also notably does not support a total ban of all forms of private resolutions, but are strongly in favor of disallowing forms of private resolutions which result in a ‘losing’ applicant gaining or being promised a financial benefit in return for withdrawing their application in a contention set, including and especially private auctions.

Proposed Consensus Policy on Protections for Certain Red Cross and Red Crescent Names in All Generic Top-Level Domains
The ALAC continues to take the position that as a humanitarian organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently attract donations, the Red Cross should be afforded the courtesy of having its various identifiers protected at the second level in gTLD domain names. The ALAC cited its June 2018 statement of support for the Initial Report on the Protections for Certain Red Cross Names in all gTLDs – Policy Amendment Process, and affirmed support for the Reconvened WG's recommendations on proposed amendments.

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.

In its follow up to the joint statement, the ALAC and GAC agreed in the context of the Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) that clear and up-to-date information (from ICANN) to facilitate quick understanding of relevant issues and high interest topics is key for inclusive, informed and meaningful participation by all stakeholders, including non-experts – as, in the context of the IANA transition process – ICANN was able to offer timely and comprehensible information by breaking down complex issues into understandable components, which allowed interaction within the entire community. The ALAC and the GAC ask from ICANN that the same level of effort be made and the same service be provided to the community concerning information on all other relevant issues.

Public Comment for Decision

Initial Report on CSC Effectiveness 25 Feb 2019

Current Statements (ALAC Advice, Comment or Correspondence)

Keep Up with EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
EPDP Background Documents

Recientemente Ratificados por el ALAC

ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021 – 2025
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.

2nd Comment: ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
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.

1st Comment: ICANN Draft FY20 Operating Plan and Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
Of principle concern to the ALAC/At-Large is their ability to achieve the objectives of the At-Large Review Implementation Plan. The comments in the statement relate to particular portfolio or project areas and incorporate specific At-Large concerns, namely: language services, raising stakeholder awareness of ICANN worldwide, engage stakeholders regionally, support policy development, policy related and advisory activities, reinforce stakeholder effectiveness, collaboration and communication capabilities, coordination of ICANN participation in Internet Governance, supporting organizational reviews, and supporting stakeholder participation.

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.