- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on the proposed "ALAC Statement on the Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34604059/ALAC+Statement+on…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34604059/ALAC+Statement+on…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? ***** Additional information on this Final Report can be found on the At-Large Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/GwQQAg>. Please note that the poll will be open from 30-July-2012 18:30 UTC to 03-August-2012 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=bae4382542ca489294ee2fc9c14ad9f8&URL…>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: ALAC Statement on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

Dear All, With 10 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the "ALAC Statement on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS<https://community.icann.org/x/BgQQAg>" we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS<https://community.icann.org/x/BgQQAg>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? On 24 July 2012, this Statement was discussed in the ALAC Monthly Teleconference<https://community.icann.org/x/JBEQAg>. During this meeting, this Statement was discussed by all present At-Large members, as well as those participating via Remote Participation. The Chair of the ALAC then requested that ratification be held on the Statement. Staff then confirmed that the vote resulted in the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions. The Chair then requested that the Statement be transmitted to the Public Comment process, copying the ICANN Staff member responsible for this Public Comment topic. ***** We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Titi Akinsanmi, Ganesh Kumar, Sergio Salinas Porto, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro You may review the results independently under: https://community.icann.org/x/KBEQAg All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097/ Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=244359801b584fbdab51dbe33f605d32&URL…>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the "Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report<https://community.icann.org/x/FQQQAg>" we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report<https://community.icann.org/x/FQQQAg>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? ALAC Statement on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report As at Poll close: Tuesday 24 July 2012 16:24 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Options Votes % Voters 1 Yes 14 100.00 Carlton Samuels, Eduardo Diaz, Natalia Enciso, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Sandra Hoferichter, Evan Leibovitch, Edmon Chung, Sergio Salinas Porto, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Yaovi Atohoun, Ganesh Kumar, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Titi Akinsanmi 2 No 0 0.00 2 Abstain 0 0.00 ***** We can confirm that the following member did not participate in this vote: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2528HncrndYzcUXxBXIkZNsz All closed ALAC votes may be reviewed under: https://www.bigpulse.com/m7097/ Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=244359801b584fbdab51dbe33f605d32&URL…>

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft "ALAC Statement on the Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34604059/DRAFT+ALAC+Statem…>" in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. The current draft can be found on the At-Large Request for Community Input on Formulation of 2013-2016 Strategic Plan Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/GwQQAg>. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 30-July-2012 12:00 UTC. A vote is to commence after comments have been collected. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on the proposed "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34607823/Draft+ALAC+Statem…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34607823/Draft+ALAC+Statem…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? ***** Additional information on this Statement can be found on the At-Large Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) Final Report Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/zxIQAg>. Please note that the poll will be open from 25-July-2012 23:59 UTC to 30-July-2012 18:00 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=bae4382542ca489294ee2fc9c14ad9f8&URL…>

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a vote be held by the ALAC on the proposed "ALAC Statement on the IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34607632/Document1.pdf?ver…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34607632/Document1.pdf?ver…>" for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? ***** Additional information on this Statement can be found on the At-Large IDN Prioritization in the New gTLD Program Targeted at the ICANN Board Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/EBIQAg>. Please note that the poll will be open from 25-July-2012 17:00 UTC to 30-July-2012 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<https://owa.icann.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=bae4382542ca489294ee2fc9c14ad9f8&URL…>

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by At-Large Staff July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Comment/Reply Periods (*)Important Information Links Comment Open:25 July 2012 Comment Close:15 August 2012 Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCPublic Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25jul12-en.htm> Reply Open:16 August 2012To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:uoc-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> Reply Close:5 September 2012View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/uoc-prelim-issue-report/> Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCReport of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization:GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief):At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. The Preliminary Issue Report has now been published for public comment. Current Status:This Report is designated as "preliminary" to allow for community input and dialogue prior to the publication of the Final Issue Report. Next Steps:The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Staff Contact:Rob HoggarthEmail:policy-staff@icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preli minary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Uniformity%20of%20Contracts%20to%20Address%20 Registration%20Abuse%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose This Preliminary Issue Report is published in response to a request by the GNSO Council for an Issue Report on the topic of Uniformity of Contracts, as a required preliminary step before a Policy Development Process (PDP) may be initiated. The objective of a possible PDP would be 'to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse'.Earlier reports on this topic (see October 2008 Issues Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registra tion-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf> [PDF, 297 KB] and the RAPWG Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.73 MB]), describe the lack of uniformity of abuse provisions among the currently delegated gTLD registry agreements, as well as the absence of specific abuse provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Across the spectrum of existing registry agreements, there are elements of similarity but each contract (currently) is customized to the uniqueness of the respective registry's business model and operating conditions.In an attempt to develop a complete picture of the existing abuse provisions for this Issue Report, ICANN Staff reviewed 17 different gTLD registry and registry-registrar agreements, and several other publicly available documents on registry websites that relate to contractual rights and obligations associated with abuse (e.g., Acceptable Use Policies and Terms of Agreement). In general, Staff discovered: 1. Existing Registry Agreements generally do not include specific provisions to address abuse 2. To the extent existing agreements address activities that might be defined as abuse, there is little in the way of common language across agreements to identify those activities 3. Where registries include specific provisions for dealing with various types of abuse, there is evidence that the provisions can be effective 4. Regardless of whether the agreements contain registration abuse provisions, registration abuse still exists in the domain name industry Staff has confirmed that a PDP regarding the potential development of uniform baseline Registration Abuse policies for use in ICANN contracts is within the scope of the ICANN Policy Process and the GNSO. Consequently, Staff recommends that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic. Should the PDP proceed, Staff suggests that the working group conduct further research, as follows: * Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established; * Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific provisions or policies to address abuse; and * Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing registration abuse. If the results of this research reveals that there is value in having uniform provisions to address registration abuse, the PDP WG should also consider a set of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or framework of provisions to battle registration abuse, and define potential reporting requirements to track progress toward those goals. ICANN Staff is of the view that there may be benefits to establishing a consistent framework of registration abuse prevention that is applicable across gTLD registries and ICANN-accredited Registrars.ICANN Staff would welcome community input on the findings as well as conclusions of this Preliminary Issue Report. Section II: Background The request for an Issue Report on this topic follows the work of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG). The RAPWG was tasked by the GNSO Council with defining abuse, making a determination between registration abuse versus use abuse, defining the most common forms of abuse, and understanding the effectiveness of abuse provisions within agreements in order to identify and recommend specific policy issues and processes for further consideration by the GNSO Council. The RAPWG identified a total of 14 recommended actions that could address various forms of registration abuse. Some recommendations addressed WHOIS access issues, fake renewal notices, UDRP Review, malicious use of domain names and several others. The specific recommendation ultimately prompting this Issue Report stated: "Evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse." Section III: Document and Resource Links Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contacts to Address Registration Abuse <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/prelim-issue-report-uoc- 25jul12-en.pdf> [PDF, 683 KB] Section IV: Additional Information (*) 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for comments:Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings
by At-Large Staff July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear All, Please find a Call for Comments sent through by the GNSO Secretariat. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org **************************** http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Comment/Reply Periods (*)Important Information Links Comment Open:25 July 2012 Comment Close:15 August 2012 Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCPublic Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jul12-en.htm> Reply Open:16 August 2012To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:udrp-locking@icann.org> Reply Close:5 September 2012View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/udrp-locking/> Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCReport of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization:GNSO Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Categories/Tags: * Top Level Domains * Policy Processes * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief):The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group is looking for public input in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. Current Status:The GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on this topic in December 2011. A Working Group has now been formed and is looking for public input to help inform its deliberations. Next Steps:The Working Group will review the public input received and consider it as part of its deliberations on the topic and charter questions. Staff Contact:Marika KoningsEmail:policy-staff@icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locki ng%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20public%20c omment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose As noted in the Issue Report on the state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, there currently is no requirement to lock a domain name in the period between the filing of a complaint and the commencement of proceedings. In addition, it is unclear what is meant with 'status quo' as used in the UDRP (see http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy <http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> ). As a result, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings. The WG Charter recommends that the Working Group as a first step, request public input on this issue in order to have a clear understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. This public comment forum is one of the mechanisms that the Working Group is using to obtain such input. The Working Group would welcome any information, comments and/or suggestions that are deemed helpful to get a better understanding of the exact nature and scope of issues encountered with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. In addition, input may be provided on the following charter questions that the WG is expected to address: * 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. [Note from the WG: only the UDRP Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on the request by the UDRP Provider] * 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. * Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. * Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. * Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. * Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. In order to obtain further information on the current practices of registrars and experiences of UDRP Providers, the WG conducted a survey and developed a summary of findings which interested parties may want to review as you prepare your comments (see https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ <https://community.icann.org/x/l6-bAQ> ). Section II: Background At its 15 December meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112> on the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings.A discussion on the requirements of locking a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings was initially conducted as part of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Part B PDP. As a result of that process, it was noted that "locking a domain name registration subject to a UDRP dispute should be a best practice." However, the WG "noted that any changes to making this a requirement should be considered in the context of any potential UDRP review." Subsequently, several community members called out this issue in their comments on the state of the UDRP Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] published in October 2011, and as a result, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific issue only. A sample of the community comments is below: * "No requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings." * "Need clarification of domain locking." * "Unclear what is meant by "Status Quo." * "No explanation of 'Legal Lock' mechanisms and when they go into effect or when they should be removed." Section III: Document and Resource Links * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Charter <https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/3.+WG+Charter> * Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * The state of the UDRP Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] * Working Group Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Home> Section IV: Additional Information (*) 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Request for Comments: Consumer Outreach document
by Heidi Ullrich July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Improvements Taskforce, please find attached a draft Consumer Outreach document that was prepared as part of the At-Large Improvements Implementation Project. This document, which has been reviewed by the At-Large Improvements Taskforce, has also been posted on the Consumer Outreach wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/x/nYD_AQ. Could you please send your comments and suggestions to At-Large staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) or post them on the wiki page above by Tuesday, 31 July? Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

REMINDER / ALAC Teleconference - Tuesday 24 July 2012 at 14:00 UTC
by At-Large Staff July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012

Dear All, The next ALAC teleconference is scheduled on Tuesday, 24th July 2012 at 14:00 UTC. For other times:http://tinyurl.com/d6r7e2s The draft agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/JBEQAg Adobe Connect Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac If you are unable to attend the call, please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out, please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> >

1 0