Date: Monday, 21 January 2019

Time: 23:00 UTC (for the time in various timezones click here)

Meeting Number: AL.LAC/MT.0121/1

 How can I participate in this meeting? 

¿Cómo se puede participar en la teleconferencia?

English Conference ID = 1638

Spanish Conference ID = 1738

French Conference ID = 1838

Portuguese Conference ID = 5393

Adobe Connect Room:

Action Items:   EN & ES          

Recording: EN, ES, PTFR

AC Chat Transcript:   EN/ES

Transcription: EN, ESPTFR


ES: Alexis Anteliz, Harold Arcos, Javier Chandia, Olga Cavalli, Aida Noblia, Alberto Soto, Jose Francisco Arce, Adrian Carballo, Carlos Leal, Vanda Scartizini, Jose Arce, Lilian Ivette De Luque, Leon Sanchez, Rodrigo Saucedo, Humberto Carrasco, Antonio Medina Gomez, Alejandro Pisanty, Gilberto Lara,

EN: Bartlett Morgan,  Rodrigo De La Parra, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Tracy Hackshaw, Carlton Samuels,  Lance Hinds

FR: None

PT: None

Apologies: Sergio Salinas Porto , Ricardo Holmquist, Maureen Hilyard, Maritza Aguero, 

Staff: Silvia Vivanco, Claudia Ruiz


ES: Marina and Paula

PT: Camila and Claire

FR: Bettina and Esperanza

Call Management: Claudia Ruiz


1.  Roll Call - Staff (2 minutos)

2. Bienvenida -  Harold Arcos (1 minuto)

3. Aprobación de la Agenda -  Harold Arcos (2 minutos)

4. ALAC Work Structure – Organization Group - Alberto Soto-Chair, Harold Arcos-CoChair LAC (10 minutos)

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

6.- Reporte ALAC Member (presentaciónBarlett Morgan (20 minutos)

7.- Otros Temas de Interés - AOB Harold Arcos (5 minutos).

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


1. Roll Call - Staff (2 minutes)

2. Welcome - Harold Arcos (1 minute)

3. Agenda Aproval - Harold Arcos (2 minutes).

4. ALAC Work Structure – Organization Group - Alberto Soto-Chair, Harold Arcos-CoChair LAC (10 minutos)

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

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

7. AOB Harold Arcos (5 minutos).


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.

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  

Current Statements (ALAC Advice, Comment or Correspondence)

  • No labels