- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report
by At-Large Staff March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm> Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Initial Report Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 26 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 27 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 17 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization Working Group tasked with addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Proceedings has published its Initial Report for public comment. Current Status: The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published its Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the preliminary recommendations contained in the report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email Staff Contact <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locki ng%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20%E2%80%93% 20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: In its Initial Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 883 KB], the PDP Working Group presents eleven preliminary recommendations, which are expected to usefully clarify and standardize how a domain name is locked and unlocked during the course of a UDRP Proceeding for all parties involved. Amongst others, these recommendations include: * A definition of 'locking' in the context of a UDRP Proceeding - the term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and registrant [without impairing the resolution of the domain name]1 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en .htm#foot1> (Preliminary recommendation #1) * Proposed modification of the UDRP rules to no longer require that the complainant sends a copy of the complaint to the respondent to avoid cyberflight2 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en .htm#foot2> (Preliminary recommendation #2) * Requirement for the registrar to 'lock' the domain name registration within 2 business days following a request for verification from the UDRP Provider (Preliminary recommendation #3) * Clarifying how to deal with changes to contact information and/or lifting of proxy / privacy services (Preliminary recommendation #7 and #8) * Clarifying the process for the unlocking of a domain name registration following the conclusion of a UDRP proceeding (Preliminary recommendation #9) In addition to these recommendations, the WG has put forward two possible options in its report to clarify the process in case a settlement is reached and is requesting community input on these two options or possible alternatives. It is important to emphasize that most of these preliminary recommendations codify existing practices in line with the UDRP and are not expected to require any changes to the existing policy. However, should these recommendations be adopted in their current form, minor changes may need to be made to the UDRP rules and/or UDRP Provider supplemental rules. Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 and 6 of the Initial Report in order to obtain a further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations as well as further details with respect to the preliminary recommendations. In addition to input on the preliminary recommendations, the WG is also interested to receive further feedback on the expected impact should these recommendations be adopted. The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. 1 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en .htm#text1> The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would welcome community input on the proposed addition. 2 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en .htm#text2> Cyberflight in this context means changing the registrant information with the intent to escape from the dispute. Section II: Background: The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. To address this issue, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, 883 KB] * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules> * Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ <https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ> Section IV: Additional Information: N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. ********** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services
by At-Large Staff March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13- en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13 -en.htm> Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 20 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This Public Forum invites comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the gTLD registration data services <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p df> [PDF, 946 KB]. The Report forms part of a ICANN Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP) that aims to review the purpose and accuracy of domain name registration data and directory services, as well as its underlying technical protocol currently also known as 'Whois'. Current Status: The Preliminary Issue Report explores the issue of gTLD registration data services, which includes the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on this topic as well as the contents of the Preliminary Issue Report. In parallel to this Preliminary Issue Report, the ICANN Board has convened an Expert Working Group (EWG) whose findings will feed into the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comment forum and once the Expert Working Group has concluded its work, a Final Issue Report will be published and the PDP will be initiated. Staff Contact: Lars Hoffmann Email Staff Contact <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preli minary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20gTLD%20Registration%20Data%20Services%20publi c%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Comprehensive 'Whois' policy reform remains the source of long-running discussions within the ICANN as well as wider Internet community. Any discussion of 'Whois' hereafter called gTLD registration data and directory services typically includes topics such as purpose, accuracy, availability, privacy, anonymity, cost, policing, intellectual property protection, security and malicious use and abuse. The Board specifically called out two of these topics in its request; purpose and accuracy. With regard to purpose, at a minimum the most basic purpose, which is commonly accepted, is that gTLD registration data allows domain name holders to be contacted. However, who would be granted the right to access the data under what circumstances and contact the holder and by which means, is a set of difficult follow-up questions that need to be answered. In relation to accuracy, There are many data elements in the Whois database required under the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements; if only one of these data fields is incorrect, does that mean the Whois information is inaccurate? And how can the accuracy of data be verified and/or measured, especially considering that if data is not accurate the purpose of gathering the data might be questionable in the first place. This Preliminary Issue report lays out in detail many of the issues mentioned above and how they relate to the gTLD registration data and directory services. In addition, it also provides an overview of many of the affected Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and other relevant parties. Furthermore, the Report explains in details the continuous issues with regard to accuracy and purpose of gTLD registration data services and elaborates on the need for changes to the technical aspects. In addition to requesting the Issue Report, the Board has directed the formation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) that is currently working on a comprehensive proposal how to solve the issues surrounding the purpose and accuracy of domain registration data services. The EWG is tasked with providing concrete solutions to many (if not all) of the issues raised in this Report. In accordance with the Board's direction, the outcome of the EWG will feed into the Final Issue Report which will form the basis for the next steps in the Policy Development Process. Section II: Background: After the submission of a Report drafted by the Whois Policy Review Team in 2012, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November 2012 <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> that led to the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) and, in parallel, also launched a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries have undergone some important changes; yet after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies the policy is still in need of comprehensive reforms that address the significant number of issues related to gTLD registration data services. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate and submit a summary of the comments received together with the Final Issue Report. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.pd f <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p df> [PDF, 946 KB] * Board resolution from 8 November 2012 - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> * Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189> * Closed and archived GNSO Whois Policy Work - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive> Section IV: Additional Information: N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. ************ Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services
by At-Large Staff March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13- en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13 -en.htm> Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 20 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This Public Forum invites comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the gTLD registration data services <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p df> [PDF, 946 KB]. The Report forms part of a ICANN Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP) that aims to review the purpose and accuracy of domain name registration data and directory services, as well as its underlying technical protocol currently also known as 'Whois'. Current Status: The Preliminary Issue Report explores the issue of gTLD registration data services, which includes the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on this topic as well as the contents of the Preliminary Issue Report. In parallel to this Preliminary Issue Report, the ICANN Board has convened an Expert Working Group (EWG) whose findings will feed into the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comment forum and once the Expert Working Group has concluded its work, a Final Issue Report will be published and the PDP will be initiated. Staff Contact: Lars Hoffmann Email Staff Contact <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preli minary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20gTLD%20Registration%20Data%20Services%20publi c%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Comprehensive 'Whois' policy reform remains the source of long-running discussions within the ICANN as well as wider Internet community. Any discussion of 'Whois' hereafter called gTLD registration data and directory services typically includes topics such as purpose, accuracy, availability, privacy, anonymity, cost, policing, intellectual property protection, security and malicious use and abuse. The Board specifically called out two of these topics in its request; purpose and accuracy. With regard to purpose, at a minimum the most basic purpose, which is commonly accepted, is that gTLD registration data allows domain name holders to be contacted. However, who would be granted the right to access the data under what circumstances and contact the holder and by which means, is a set of difficult follow-up questions that need to be answered. In relation to accuracy, There are many data elements in the Whois database required under the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements; if only one of these data fields is incorrect, does that mean the Whois information is inaccurate? And how can the accuracy of data be verified and/or measured, especially considering that if data is not accurate the purpose of gathering the data might be questionable in the first place. This Preliminary Issue report lays out in detail many of the issues mentioned above and how they relate to the gTLD registration data and directory services. In addition, it also provides an overview of many of the affected Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and other relevant parties. Furthermore, the Report explains in details the continuous issues with regard to accuracy and purpose of gTLD registration data services and elaborates on the need for changes to the technical aspects. In addition to requesting the Issue Report, the Board has directed the formation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) that is currently working on a comprehensive proposal how to solve the issues surrounding the purpose and accuracy of domain registration data services. The EWG is tasked with providing concrete solutions to many (if not all) of the issues raised in this Report. In accordance with the Board's direction, the outcome of the EWG will feed into the Final Issue Report which will form the basis for the next steps in the Policy Development Process. Section II: Background: After the submission of a Report drafted by the Whois Policy Review Team in 2012, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November 2012 <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> that led to the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) and, in parallel, also launched a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries have undergone some important changes; yet after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies the policy is still in need of comprehensive reforms that address the significant number of issues related to gTLD registration data services. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate and submit a summary of the comments received together with the Final Issue Report. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.pd f <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p df> [PDF, 946 KB] * Board resolution from 8 November 2012 - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> * Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189> * Closed and archived GNSO Whois Policy Work - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive> Section IV: Additional Information: N/A (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. ************** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: gTLD Objection: Applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the gTLD Objection: Applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg> we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the filing of an objection by the ALAC for the Applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg>? ? gTLD Objection: Applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string As at Poll close: Tuesday 12 March 2013 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % 1 Yes 10 71.43 2 Abstain 3 21.43 3 No 1 7.14 ***** You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=29653hTA3dWjzFzqyAMk6w7p All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: gTLD Objection: Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the gTLD Objection: <https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg> <https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg> Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg> we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the filing of an objection by the ALAC for the Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg>? gTLD Objection: Applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string As at Poll close: Tuesday 12 March 2013 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % 1 Yes 10 71.43 2 Abstain 3 21.43 3 No 1 7.14 ***** You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2964IezYSWT6wsXi5X3RzbVv All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: gTLD Objection: Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the gTLD Objection: Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg> we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the filing of an objection by the ALAC for the Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg>? gTLD Objection: Applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string As at Poll close: Tuesday 12 March 2013 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % 1 Yes 7 50.00 2 No 4 28.57 3 Abstain 3 21.43 ***** You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2967b6TVGCAKpHnyGELsbzv7 All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: gTLD Objection: Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the gTLD Objection: Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg> we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the filing of an objection by the ALAC for the Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40930487>? gTLD Objection: Applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string? As at Poll close: Tuesday 12 March 2013 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % 1 Yes 8 57.14 2 No 3 21.43 2 Abstain 3 21.43 You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2966bba6wrqzF9hjVtrmi2Jy All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097 Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

IMPORTANT FY14 AC Budget Request Information and Deadlines
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

Dear All, As requested on the Finance and Budget Sub-Committee (FBSC)/RALO Leaders Call of Thursday, 28 February, please find the links to the key documents for the FY14 AC/SO budget request process: · At Large - FY14 Special Budget Request<https://community.icann.org/display/projfinadhocws/At+Large+-+FY14+Special+…> - Finance Department's Workspace for At-Large (includes FY14 AC budget request template) · At-Large FY14 Budget Development Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+FY14+Budget+Developmen…> · FY14 SO-AC-SG Budget Processv1.xlsx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40174679/FY14+SO-AC-SG+Bud…> · FY14 Budget Process - Community Call - 17 Jan.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40174679/FY14+Budget+Proce…> · FY14 Special Budget Request Guidelines.docx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40174679/FY14+Special+Budg…> · Template - SO-AC-SG FY14 Budget Request.docx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40174679/Template+-+SO-AC-…> · Community Additional Budget Request Criteria Matrix.xlsx<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40174679/Community+Additio…> Instructions for submitting AC FY14 requests: 1. Send your completed At-Large FY14 AC budget request template to Olivier Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>) and At-Large staff ( staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) by 18 March 2013. 2. At-Large staff will post the completed At-Large FY14 AC budget request templates to the At-Large FY14 Budget Development Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+FY14+Budget+Developmen…> 3. The FBSC will review the completed At-Large FY14 AC budget request templates during a call on 20 March 2013. 4. The FBSC will direct staff to submit the At-Large FY14 AC budget requests for review by the ICANN Controller. 5. ICANN finance staff will confirm and validate your submission by reviewing and posting your request in the dedicated wiki workspace within 48 hours of its submission Deadlines for the of FY14 budget request templates: * Deadline for RALOs to submit all FY14 AC requests to Olivier and At-Large staff => 18 March 2013 * Early vote/decision by April => At-Large to submit to ICANN Controller by 22 March 2013 (please note that the early vote/decision process is for budget requests with activities in the first month of FY 14 (i.e., July 2013) * Vote/decision by June => At-Large submit to ICANN Controller by 29 April 2013 Please let At-Large staff know if you have any questions related to the FY14 AC Budget Request process. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

2 1

Objections filed by the ALAC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

Dear all, today, I have filed three objections regarding applications for .HEALTH in my capacity as ALAC Chair. Following an ALAC vote, the results of which will be soon officially announced by At-Large Support Staff, objections have been filed to applications from: - DotHealth, LLC - dot Health Limited - Goose Fest, LLC I would like to thank the members of the New gTLD Review Group for the incredible amount of work that they have done to create a process to vet objections and draft the objection statements. In particular, I would like to applaud the work of Dev Anand Teelucksingh who has excelled at driving this Review Group forward. The objections are the result of the design and implementation of a process which has sought input from our community, both at RALO level and ALAC Level, pioneering the ALAC's first ever implication into "operations", as asked from the ALAC by the Board. The objections process does not end here. A new chapter opens with a follow-up both with the applicants named above, but also with the Dispute Resolution Provider. A call for members of the task force to follow things up will soon be sent out. Regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Pre-Beijing New gTLD Update Webinar
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 13, 2013

March 13, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12mar13-en.htm ________________________________ Pre-Beijing New gTLD Update Webinar 12 March 2013 Join ICANN staff for a Pre-Beijing New gTLD Program Update webinar. Webinar Details Date: 26 March 2013 Time: 22:00 – 23:30 UTC (2:00pm – 3:30pm PDT) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldwebinar Dial In: Will be posted to the Webinar<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars> page once available. The New gTLD Program is moving ahead on several tracks at once. Make sure you have the most up-to-date information by participating in this webinar. We will have the latest on Initial Evaluation and the schedule for releasing results, an update on pre-delegation testing and the pre-delegation testing pilot that was held earlier this month. We also will provide updates on contracting, rights protection (TMCH, URS, Objections) and closed generics. This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=90…>

1 0