- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Interim Report IDN ccNSO Policy Development Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05feb13-en.htm ________________________________ Interim Report IDN ccNSO Policy Development Process 5 February 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 5 February 2013 Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): In the framework of the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLD's the purpose of the Interim Report<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-ccpdp-interim-04feb13-en.pdf> [PDF, 556 KB] is to report on and seek feed-back on feasible recommendations for overall policy for the selection of IDN country code Top Level Domains strings (IDN ccTLD's) and the inclusion of IDN ccTLD managers in the ccNSO. The Interim Report builds on the Final Paper's of IDN ccPDP Working Groups 1 and 2, which have been open for public comment. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-ccpdp-05feb13-en.htm 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

Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open
by At-Large Staff Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Policy vs. Implementation Comment/Reply Periods (*)Important Information Links Comment Open:31 January 2013 Comment Close:21 February 2013 Close Time (UTC):23:59Public Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm> Reply Open:22 February 2013To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13@icann.org> Reply Close:14 March 2013View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/> Close Time (UTC):23:59Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization:ICANN Staff Categories/Tags:Policy Processes Purpose (Brief):In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. Implementation Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> [PDF, 195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened. Current Status:ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. implementation in the future. Next Steps:The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Staff Contact:Marika KoningsEmail:Policy-staff@icann.org <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Polic y%20vs.%20Implementation%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. The paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> [PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the community may want to consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to identify next steps. Section II: Background There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There are formal policies developed through the policy development processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p" policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again there are a variety of considerations. There could be established practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that policy might impact or require change to established practice(s) (resulting in "Policy").One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community is identifying the proper process to follow when there are changes to policy recommendations that have already been adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose, for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry model.Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community.In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed framework which can be found in the annex to the paper. Section III: Document and Resource Links Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> [PDF, 195 KB] 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.

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 3, 2013

Feb. 3, 2013

From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org>> Date: Friday, February 1, 2013 5:18 PM To: Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-01feb13-en.htm ________________________________ Webinar: Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant: Examining the User Experience Implication of the Active Variant TLDs 1 February 2013 Date: 13 February 2013 Time: 13:00 – 14:50 UTC (5:00am – 6:30am PST) Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/idnvarianttld/ Dial In: 1-800-550-6865 or 1-213-233-3193 International numbers available here<http://adigo.com/icann/> Meeting ID: 46389 Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) serve as powerful tools for broadening the Internet's capacity and accessibility; however, they also raise novel issues. One important issue concerns "variants" which occur when a single character can be identified with two or more different Unicode Code Points with graphic representations that may or may not be visually similar. IDN variants contain one or more such characters and therefore, if not handled correctly, might result in user confusion or a poor user experience. In an effort to develop potential solutions for the delegation of IDN variant Top-Level Domains (TLDs), IDN Variant Project Teams, consisting of volunteers, subject matter expert consultants and ICANN staff, have conducted case studies in six scripts, produced an integrated report, and are currently underway to completing three projects investigating potential solutions for IDN Variant TLDs delegation. One of these projects is called the Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs Project (P6). The purpose of the project is to gain an understanding of issues that could arise from activating IDN Variant TLDs and offer recommendations to users to avoid such issues. Examples of user roles that have been identified include registrants, registrars, registry operators, system administrators, network operators, application developers, and end users. Project team has published for public comment the Draft Final Report for Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/variant-ux-18jan13-en.htm> and is seeking to establish a dialog with the community to refine proposed principles, impacts and recommendations of the study. This webinar is offered to complement that process both by presenting the key concepts and gathering user input. The IDN Variant TLDs Program team is looking forward to your participation. 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

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Policy vs. Implementation
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org<mailto:communications@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:57 PM To: Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Policy vs. Implementation [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm ________________________________ Policy vs. Implementation 31 January 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 31 January 2013 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…> [PDF, 195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened. The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-e… 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

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: (172) University of Library Studies and Information Technologies (UniBIT)
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

Dear All, The regional advice from EURALO regarding ALS Applicant (172) University of Library Studies and Information Technologies (UniBIT) has been received. The ALAC has decided to conduct a vote on whether to accept the regional advice. The following question has been posed to the ALAC: ***** Question: Should the regional advice from EURALO for ALS Applicant (172) University of Library Studies and Information Technologies (UniBIT) be accepted? The regional advice was to accept the application. ***** Please note that this vote will be open from 30-Jan-2012 23:59 UTC until 07-Feb-2013 23:59 UTC. 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 ANNOUNCEMENT: (174) Armenian Association for the Disabled 'Pyunic'
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

Dear All, The regional advice from APRALO regarding ALS Applicant (174) Armenian Association for the Disabled 'Pyunic' has been received. The ALAC has decided to conduct a vote on whether to accept the regional advice. The following question has been posed to the ALAC: ***** Question: Should the regional advice from APRALO for ALS Applicant (174) Armenian Association for the Disabled 'Pyunic' be accepted? The regional advice was to accept the application. ***** Please note that this vote will be open from 30-Jan-2012 23:59 UTC until 07-Feb-2013 23:59 UTC. 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: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

Dear All, With 15 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement, we can confirm that the result is quorate. *** QUESTION: Should the advice from ATRT 2 Endorsement Committee be accepted? The advice is as follows: Factoring both the ALAC discussion in November 2012 regarding Olivier Crépin-Leblond as the ALAC's first preferred representative to the ATRT 2 (via alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>) and the Sub-Committee’s assessment of candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse all of the following individuals as ALAC Representatives to the ATRT 2 via immediate vote: [in alphabetical order] - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (first preferred representative) - Alan Greenberg - Jean-Jacques Subrenat The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the candidates are qualified to assess ICANN's mechanisms for accountability and transparency and can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC and the global At-Large Community. ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement As at Poll close: Sunday 27 January 2013 12:00 UTC Number of voters: 15 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 100.00 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes % 1 Yes 14 93.33 2 Abstain 1 6.67 3 No 0 0.00 *** Additional information on the candidates can be found on the At-Large ATRT 2 ALAC Endorsement Process Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=290222VpPVIKLqqREdQ9PHWS 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

Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by At-Large Staff Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

Ob Behalf of the GNSO Secretariat: http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jan13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address issues related to the transfer of domain names between registrars. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to recommend how to handle these issues, which could include proposals for changes to the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy <http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm> (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). What This Group Will Do The initial tasks of the group will be to consider the following six questions[1] <#_ftn1> and make relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented aspart of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf); d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines <../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.ican n.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf> . How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Participants in the Working Group that addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged to apply. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20 Part%20C%20Working%20Group> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. Background The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm> (IRTP) is a consensus policy adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars. An overall review of this policy identified areas that require clarification or improvement. At its meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a resolution chartering a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies (IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review identified a wide range of issues related to transferring domain names, the issues have been categorized into subsets. This Working Group will tackle the issues referred to as ³Part D². Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ATRT 2 Candidate Endorsement
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear All, A vote is to be held by the ALAC regarding the endorsement of ALAC Representatives to the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2). *** QUESTION: Should the advice from ATRT 2 Endorsement Committee be accepted? The advice is as follows: Factoring both the ALAC discussion in November 2012 regarding Olivier Crépin-Leblond as the ALAC's first preferred representative to the ATRT 2 (via alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) and the Sub-Committee’s assessment of candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse all of the following individuals as ALAC Representatives to the ATRT 2 via immediate vote: [in alphabetical order] - Olivier Crépin-Leblond (first preferred representative) - Alan Greenberg - Jean-Jacques Subrenat The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the candidates are qualified to assess ICANN's mechanisms for accountability and transparency and can do so from the perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC and the global At-Large Community. *** Additional information on the candidates can be found on the At-Large ATRT 2 ALAC Endorsement Process Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. Please note that the poll will be open from 23-January-2013 23:59 UTC to 27-January-2013 12:00 UTC. 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: ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels Second Public Comment Draft
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear All, With 13 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the "ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels – Second Public Comment Draft<https://community.icann.org/x/7YxEAg>" we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels – Second Public Comment Draft<https://community.icann.org/x/7YxEAg>" for communication to the relevant parties? ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels – Second Public Comment Draft As at Poll close: Tuesday 22 January 2013 12:00 UTC Number of voters: 13 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 86.67 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % Voters 1 Yes 13 100.00 Holly Raiche, Carlton Samuels, Eduardo Diaz, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Natalia Enciso, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Sandra Hoferichter, Evan Leibovitch, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, Yaovi Atohoun, Rinalia Abdul Rahim 2 No 0 0.00 2 Abstain 0 0.00 ***** We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: Titi Akinsanmi and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro We can confirm that the following members abstained in this vote. For those that have abstained, would you like to provide an explanation of why you abstained? n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2892wTQTb6BAMQQRHbYqqHq8 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