November 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLD
by Vanda UOL Dec. 4, 2009

Dec. 4, 2009

I have a question related to the number of ccTLDs: For a country with more than one script, shouldn't it be allowed at least one country name for each script? The issue here is the international recognition of those scripts (I don't know if there is any), but I could see in India and China different kind of script in advertizes, traffic orientation , stores etc. nay idea how to deal with this in a formal way? I agree that country which have sold its cc for any reason, can not be allowed to have a IDN cc for such name. Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Bachollet Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 7:37 AM To: 'James Seng'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLD Hello James, Thanks for starting this discussion with your draft paper. I would like to comment on one issue: 2) Additional to Topic 2: Should the IDN ccTLD string be related to the territory name? Rationale: ccTLD should be use related to country code. For example, and no offense intended by the example, .tv should not have IDN .Television via IDN PDP process. A/ Your example is a very good one if you write television in another script like French "télévision" or Chinese (from Google - unfortunately I don't know Chinese) "电视" B/ Anyway I guess we want to say here via ccNSO IDN PDP process. Because .tv registry can apply for .television using the gTLD (future) process. All the best Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- > lists.icann.org] De la part de James Seng > Envoyé : mercredi 25 novembre 2009 14:39 > À : At-Large Worldwide > Objet : [ALAC] ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the > Introduction of IDN ccTLD > > As IDN Liaison on the behalf of ALAC, I was asked to prepare an ALAC > statement to the ccNSO IDN PDP WG1 Public Comments Requested on Draft > Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs. > > http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20oct09.htm > > Attached is the first cut of the statement I have drafted. > > I welcome any inputs or comments. > > -James Seng _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

4 4

Fwd: Status update on GNSI STI Progress - including draft proposals
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 29, 2009

Nov. 29, 2009

Following is a message just sent to the Names Issues Working Group. It will also be sent to the At-Large list. If applicable for your region, you may forward it to your regional list as well. Input and comments welcome from all, but please note the tight timeline. Alan >To: name-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Status update on GNSI STI Progress - including draft proposals > >I am attaching the current working "strawman" proposals for a >Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) service >associated with new gTLDs. PLEASE NOTE LAST PARAGRAPH. > >For completeness I am including pointers to previous documents, all >of which have substantially influenced what you see today and a >description of the process which has been followed. > >In June 2009, the final report of the IRT on trademark protection >measures was issued. It can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#irt-report. >Among the measures contained in the report were a Intellectual >Property Clearinghouse to facilitate pre-launch handling of >trademarks issues, and a URS process to address such issues after launch. > >Based on a variety of consultations, ICANN staff were requested to >formulate revised Clearinghouse and URS proposals. The specific >proposals can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-tm-cleari… >and >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct…. >Additional material including a comparison of these proposals and >those in the IRT Report can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm. > >Following initial comments on the staff proposals, the ICANN Board >requested that the GNSO review these proposals and (optimally) >present a consensus view of how ICANN should proceed. In the absence >of such consensus, staff and the Board would come to its own >decision of how to proceed (factoring in any input received >including non-consensus views from the GNSO). The letter requesting >this input can be found at >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p…. > >The GNSO was given until 14 December 2009 to deliberate and deliver >a report (2 months from receipt of the letter). During the Seoul >ICANN meeting, a group was created to take on this task - the >Selected Trademark Issues Review Team (STI-RT). The group includes >two representatives from each of the Registry and Registrar >Stakeholder Groups, four from each of the Commercial and >Non-commercial Stakeholder Groups, one GNSO NomCom appointee, and >one representative from At-Large. Several of these groups have >Alternates who can participate in the absence of one of the prime >delegates. I (Alan Greenberg) am the formal At-Large representative, >and Olivier Crepin-Leblond is the Alternate. > >It is important to remember that the question being asked is not >whether a Clearinghouse or URS should be implemented, but rather how >to best do it in light of conflicting needs of the various parties. > >The STI-RT was asked to report back to the GNSO Council in time for >its 23 November meeting. This target was viewed by some as being >unreasonably tight, which proved to be correct. > >To date, the STI-RT has met 9 times, once in Seoul, and two >teleconferences in each week since Seoul (1 on the Clearinghouse, >and 1 on the URS per week). In total, there have been about 14 hours >of formal meetings and many informal and sub-group meetings. At this >point, we have consensus on many but not all of the issues. To reach >consensus, for each of the two themes, a number of critical issues >and processes were identified. A "strawman" proposal was drafted for >each (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal) and for >the last two weeks, the STI-RT has been reviewing and adjusting this >proposal, with the intent of finding some middle ground which meets >the overall needs of all of the parties. > >The current plan is to keep refining these proposals over the next >week (4 teleconferences are scheduled) and to deliver a final >proposal to the GNSO on 07 December 2009. There is some chance that >this target may slip by a couple of days. This will give the GNSO >Constituencies and At-Large a week (or perhaps a few days more) to >review the proposal and to decide whether to ratify it during the >GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2009. The GNSO has been told >that this slippage of three days from the original requested target >is acceptable. > >There is a possibility that if full consensus is not reached, but is >felt that it is possible given more time, the report will be >submitted on the above schedule, but a face-to-face meeting in early >January may be scheduled to finalize it. > >Current versions of the two strawman proposals are attached. They >may be a bit cryptic, but reference to the documents mentioned above >will explain much of this. > >Since the ALAC, just as the GNSO Constituencies, will have just one >week to support or not support the report to be issued on 07 >December, these draft copies should be used to begin the evaluation >on those items where consensus has been reached, and to provide any >comments or advice on those items where common ground has not yet been reached. > >Alan

1 0

ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLD
by James Seng Nov. 27, 2009

Nov. 27, 2009

As IDN Liaison on the behalf of ALAC, I was asked to prepare an ALAC statement to the ccNSO IDN PDP WG1 Public Comments Requested on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs. http://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20oct09.htm Attached is the first cut of the statement I have drafted. I welcome any inputs or comments. -James Seng

3 3

Re: [ALAC] Deadline for public consultation on New gTLD Applicant Guidebook v3
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 20, 2009

Nov. 20, 2009

Hello all, While we continue to engage with other constituencies on issues related to intellectual property, all other components of DAG2 that we found objectionable remain in DAG3 with little change. Among them: - The prohibitive price to would-be community registries - The punitive method of refunds for failed applications - The persistence of a Morality and Public Order clause - The ability to challenge strings based on similar "meaning" to existing ones - New details -- yet new ambiguities -- on the role and capabilities of the Independent Objector Sadly, ICANN staff appears to have ignored each and every issue raised by At-Large. The compendium of public comments ignored us entirely. Indeed, it would be a significant challenge to indicate any change from DAG2 to DAG3 that indicates any influence from the many detailed, positive, well-thought-out recommendations that resulted from Summit WG3. (Aside: It's nice to hear all the positive comments on the Summit, but I would be far happier with fewer platitudes and more consideration of what we actually said.) As demoralizing was the (non) response to our input on DAG2, it is still our duty to respond to DAG3. Perhaps the landscape shifted somewhat after the joint ALAC-NCUC statement on the IRT which (I was told) mortally damaged its claim of broad community support. Perhaps we will be listened to this time. Even so, I would note that the IRT's replacement, the GNSO STI group, has deliberately reduced participation of At-Large. So the vested interests continue to assert that the voice of At-Large is to be marginalized. But we must not be silenced. In crafting a response to DAG3. We have an excellent starting point in our response to DAG2. Who is interested in helping? My intention (as chair of the gTLD WG) is to move further discussion on this issue to that WG's mailing list.(gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org). See you there! - Evan 2009/11/18 ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Dear Chairs of the gTLD working group and the At-Large Names Issues > Taskforce, > > We would like to inform you that the deadline for the public consultation > on the Version 3 of New gTLD Applicant Guidebook is 12 December 2009. The > deadline was originally set to 22 November 2009 but since the non-English > versions of the DAG 3 were not available before 28 October we informed the > person in charge for this consultation that the deadline needs to be > extended to allow non-English speakers equal time to respond. > > You can find a detailed overview of the new gTLD program under: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. > > The full At-Large Policy Advice Schedule is available under: > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/policycalendar > > *Explanation/Background: *The Draft Applicant Guidebook, V3 is available > for review and comment at > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-3-en.htm. The Guidebook > has been changed significantly with regards to version 2. In all, there are > over 50 areas of change, clearly indicated in the “redline” version of the > Guidebook. All materials are in draft form for public comment and review. > Your comments will help with the production of the next version of the > Applicant Guidebook. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff at atlarge.icann.org >

3 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by At-Large Staff Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

Dear All: It may be useful to note that the Board's request for Staff to study the potential impact of an "Expressions of Interest Process" (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-30oct09-en.htm#5) is being handled by ICANN's Services Staff. More information will be publicly posted in the near future. Those interested in the subject may wish to participate in this effort. We shall of course post further information as it becomes available. Vanda UOL wrote: > Once the suggestion area ready I understand goes to staff which will prepare a text to sugestion action from the board which may be : post for public comment. After that goes back to staff to prapare board vote. The quick the text goes to public the best. > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:27 AM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group > > Actually, we are both right. > > Before the first call, there was a willingness to work with a small group > with a good balance between all parties, in the hope that it would be > easier to find consensus. This is what I reported. > > However, during and after the call, some people asked for colleagues to be > included. > There are now 21 people in the WG, up from 15 originally. I still have > other subscription requests pending for the mailing list. > My concern is that I am not sure this will help getting the job done > faster, better or if it will be the opposite. > > Patrick > > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:22:46 +0100, Sébastien Bachollet > <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr> wrote: > >> Thanks Bret, >> I will be happy to be part of that discussion but your impression is >> contradictory to the mail send by Patrick on Monday: >> >> "-----Message d'origine----- >> De : at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Patrick >> Vande Walle >> Envoyé : lundi 9 novembre 2009 13:35 >> À : At-Large Worldwide >> Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group >> >> Thanks James and Siva for volunteering. >> >> My understanding is that the group participants were selected as to have >> both an adequate coverage of all AC/SOs and regions, without favouring >> > one > >> or another. It was also meant to be rather limited so as to move forward >> fast. Hence, I am afraid there is no possibility to add participants. I >> note however, that the WG still misses a member from Africa. >> >> However, as I said, I would be happy to relay your concerns. >> >> Patrick" >> >> Sébastien Bachollet >> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >> sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >> www.egeni.org >> www.isoc.fr >> >> >> >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- >>> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Bret Fausett >>> Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 19:11 >>> À : At-Large Worldwide >>> Objet : Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working >>> Group >>> >>> I was on the call yesterday, and I had the distinct impression that >>> the group wanted to be open. Who wants to be on the mailing list and >>> phone calls? I will forward your names to the group. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >>> >>> >>>> OK it is an UNOFFICIAL CLOSED group of a bunch of interested people. >>>> Yes they are interested! But to what? >>>> If it is period then it is not time for "official" At-Large >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> Sébastien Bachollet >>>> Président d'honneur - Isoc France >>>> sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >>>> www.egeni.org >>>> www.isoc.fr >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> At-Large mailing list >>> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- >>> lists.icann.org >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > > -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

To echo what Patrick said at the very start, this is an UNOFFICIAL group of a bunch of interested people. Period. Regardless of how we may have selected At-Large people to participate, that does not change it. See a recent note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO Council who are having similar problems with the representativeness of the participants. Alan At 10/11/2009 11:48 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >Hello, >Nothing against the persons... > >But I am concern with the composition of the Working Group. >8 of the members have signed a common letter >http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom-21sep09-en.pd >f >6 didn't sign it, (Maybe because in those stakeholder groups no one sign the >letter ;)) >3 names are Awaiting confirmation. >I am afraid that we will repeat the same situation than with the IRT. >We can be very happy with a bottom-up process but if some rules are not >taking into account (like publication of a statement of interest by each >participants of "official" WG) it is not good. >Geographic diversity is another point of concern. > >My statement of interest is available at >http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/bachollet.html > > >Sébastien Bachollet >Président d'honneur - Isoc France >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >www.egeni.org >www.isoc.fr > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Vanda UOL > > Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 14:06 > > À : 'At-Large Worldwide' > > Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group > > > > I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and > > should > > have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be > > posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go > > further. > > best > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James > > Seng > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM > > To: At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group > > > > What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call > > will > > be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a > > hurry > > before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN > > endorse > > the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it. > > > > On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where > > folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people > > to > > gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So > > as a > > matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see > > more > > of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN. > > > > If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive > > timeline > > they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on > > Friday). > > > > In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but > > rather > > the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf > > call, I > > think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more > > months, > > working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be > > finally accepted as part of the DAG process. > > > > -James Seng > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande- > > walle.eu > > > wrote: > > > > > Just to be clear: > > > > > > - The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have > > not > > > asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. > > > - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to > > > logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, > > > ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of > > > their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my > > personal > > > mail server. > > > > > > The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG > > > not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with > > a > > > proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to > > > present to the board at its December meeting. > > > > > > As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information > > I > > > have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had > > > with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is > > still > > > waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW. > > > > > > Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02: > > > > First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed > > timeline. > > > > > > > > /"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a > > > > teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" > > > > / > > > > > > > > This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe > > > > DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public > > > > Forum into complete policy in less than a month? > > > > > > > > This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) > > > > indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either > > ICANN's > > > > Board, staff or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN > > knows > > > > how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an > > > > ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories > > is > > > > clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing > > with > > > > in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. > > > I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of > > the > > > goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a > > > priority treatment. > > > > Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out > > sometime, > > > > might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and > > need > > > > not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against > > ICANN > > > > engaging in NDAs with applicants. > > > This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a > > > proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an > > official > > > policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. > > This > > > is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my > > > personal capacity. > > > > At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and > > public > > > > order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the > > existing > > > > clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it > > out > > > > because want *some* provision there and they have no alternative > > ideas. > > > The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and > > > public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow > > > those who submit controversial proposals that generate large > > opposition > > > from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain. > > > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > At-Large mailing list > > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann > > .org > > > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann > > .org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

I do not think that I have the time to be the second person on this group, despite my strong interest in the subject (I am spending close to full time on the STI Review team right now). I would appreciate being on the core mailing list as an observer (and alternate if applicable) and on the ALAC/AT-Large support group. Alan At 09/11/2009 12:09 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >FYI as it relates to exchanges running in this list... > >CLO > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Date: 2009/11/10 >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group >To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>, james(a)seng.sg, Alan >Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List < >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >Patrick... Thank you for the "heads up" on this and those of us who were >supportive of this concept in Seoul will indeed be very interested in how >the work of this ad-hoc "cross-community" WG... > >Clearly some assumptions have been made in the lead up to and the formation >of this WG and we [ALAC] in my view need to work within the framework of the >formal documentation sent to ICANN as attached by Patrick in his original >email to the public at-large list (and the following thread regarding WG >"membership") and recognizing that the formation of this WG is not either >ICANN Board directed or Chartered under the auspices of any SO or AC, there >are a couple of points, that as ALAC in my view we need to address >urgently:- >1. The documentation and Charter (Section 3a) calls for "Two(2)Members from >the ALAC;" > 2. The documentation lists its "EOI Working Group Participants" as > *'awaiting >confirmation'* relating to the two (2) member positions for the ALAC (and >here we can as we often do [have precedent] make that 'two members from >ALAC' to be 'two from ALAC / At-large' in a balanced ratio [1:1 in this >case] in my view) the following; > > Name ICANN Affiliation WG >Position > >1. Patrick Van de Walle At-Large Member >2. * {To Be Appointed/Confirmed}* ALAC Member > > >3. The documentation also states that "Given the short time frame for the >work to be completed, a core group of points of contact will be responsible >for the work. The slate of participants is ...... from a wide cross section >of the ICANN community. In establishing the points of contact slate. The >Working Group looked for well-respected members of a wide range of >constituencies from diverse geographical regions." > >This principal does *not* indicate that all geographic regions must be >covered nor that the second "ALAC / At-Large slot" has to come from Africa >(though it would be desirable to see true geographic (or other) diversity >being attended to more seriously. > >So as I see it regardless of 'in what capacity' people volunteered or were >selected for this WG we have an additional ALAC appointment to make and we >need to confirm Patrick formally. > >As has been our practice in such tightly focussed WG's (e.g. the post Paris >meeting GNSO Improvements WG and the current GNSO SIT-WG) the ALAC will >facilitate and support our representatives in their work directly via >activities and engagement with ALAC - Working Groups (or Work Teams thereof) >existing or ad hoc for the role, and we will be happy to arrange for >conference calls etc., to assist in specific WG and wider At-Large community >input for this purpose. > > >Therefore I propose that we ask who from the ALAC is willing and able to >make the considerable commitment to undertake the role of the second >WG-Member... Assuming here that you all agree with me that our SSAC Liaison >is to be confirmed... > >As I see it there are two obvious choices: > >a) appoint our GNSO Liaison as it fits within mandate of his role => Alan do >you have the time available? > >or > >b) appoint James (who has already indicated his interest and availability) >and who can act as both our ALAC voice and in his IDN Liaison capacity. > > >Responses please as soon as possible! As I would want to confirm our >"Two(2)Members >from the ALAC;" at the meeting Patrick is attending or as soon as possible >after that... > >CLO > > > >2009/11/9 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > > > > > > > I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the > > Expression of Interest working group. > > > > In summary, there is a proposal to > > the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify > > ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. > > > > The goal is that it will > > allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. > > Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for > > sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. > > > > > > For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple > > applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible > > partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the > > towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and > > expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that > > the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. > > > > I have > > joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from > > the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I > > could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look > > forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. > > > > Note > > that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight > > (Monday) and a final call next Friday. > > > > Looking forward to your comments, > > > > > > Patrick > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Fwd: Expressions of > > Interest Working Group > > > > Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 > > > > Antony Van > > Couvering > > > > avc(a)mindsandmachines.com > > > > I sent the following note to Rod > > Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes > > ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them > > something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the > > formation charter - the initial first draft plan > > The charter and the > > plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information > > for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting > > for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in > > the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony > > > > Begin > > forwarded message: > > FROM: Antony Van Couvering > > DATE: November 6, 2009 > > 4:16:44 PM EST > > TO: Rod Beckstrom > > CC: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org [3], > > doug.brent(a)icann.org [4], kurt.pritz(a)icann.org [5] > > SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF > > INTEREST WORKING GROUP > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > Please find attached our > > correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a > > cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest > > Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions > > of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on > > October 30 in Seoul. > > > > We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline > > and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to > > have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone > > bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. > > > > A full list of our > > membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to > > contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. > > > > With > > best regards, > > > > Antony Van Couvering > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] > > mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com > > [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org > > [3] > > mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org > > [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org > > [5] > > mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) > > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

Patrick... Thank you for the "heads up" on this and those of us who were supportive of this concept in Seoul will indeed be very interested in how the work of this ad-hoc "cross-community" WG... Clearly some assumptions have been made in the lead up to and the formation of this WG and we [ALAC] in my view need to work within the framework of the formal documentation sent to ICANN as attached by Patrick in his original email to the public at-large list (and the following thread regarding WG "membership") and recognizing that the formation of this WG is not either ICANN Board directed or Chartered under the auspices of any SO or AC, there are a couple of points, that as ALAC in my view we need to address urgently:- 1. The documentation and Charter (Section 3a) calls for "Two(2)Members from the ALAC;" 2. The documentation lists its "EOI Working Group Participants" as *'awaiting confirmation'* relating to the two (2) member positions for the ALAC (and here we can as we often do [have precedent] make that 'two members from ALAC' to be 'two from ALAC / At-large' in a balanced ratio [1:1 in this case] in my view) the following; Name ICANN Affiliation WG Position 1. Patrick Van de Walle At-Large Member 2. * {To Be Appointed/Confirmed}* ALAC Member 3. The documentation also states that "Given the short time frame for the work to be completed, a core group of points of contact will be responsible for the work. The slate of participants is ...... from a wide cross section of the ICANN community. In establishing the points of contact slate. The Working Group looked for well-respected members of a wide range of constituencies from diverse geographical regions." This principal does *not* indicate that all geographic regions must be covered nor that the second "ALAC / At-Large slot" has to come from Africa (though it would be desirable to see true geographic (or other) diversity being attended to more seriously. So as I see it regardless of 'in what capacity' people volunteered or were selected for this WG we have an additional ALAC appointment to make and we need to confirm Patrick formally. As has been our practice in such tightly focussed WG's (e.g. the post Paris meeting GNSO Improvements WG and the current GNSO SIT-WG) the ALAC will facilitate and support our representatives in their work directly via activities and engagement with ALAC - Working Groups (or Work Teams thereof) existing or ad hoc for the role, and we will be happy to arrange for conference calls etc., to assist in specific WG and wider At-Large community input for this purpose. Therefore I propose that we ask who from the ALAC is willing and able to make the considerable commitment to undertake the role of the second WG-Member... Assuming here that you all agree with me that our SSAC Liaison is to be confirmed... As I see it there are two obvious choices: a) appoint our GNSO Liaison as it fits within mandate of his role => Alan do you have the time available? or b) appoint James (who has already indicated his interest and availability) and who can act as both our ALAC voice and in his IDN Liaison capacity. Responses please as soon as possible! As I would want to confirm our "Two(2)Members from the ALAC;" at the meeting Patrick is attending or as soon as possible after that... CLO 2009/11/9 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > > > I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the > Expression of Interest working group. > > In summary, there is a proposal to > the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify > ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. > > The goal is that it will > allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. > Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for > sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. > > > For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple > applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible > partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the > towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and > expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that > the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. > > I have > joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from > the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I > could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look > forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. > > Note > that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight > (Monday) and a final call next Friday. > > Looking forward to your comments, > > > Patrick > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Fwd: Expressions of > Interest Working Group > > Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 > > Antony Van > Couvering > > avc(a)mindsandmachines.com > > I sent the following note to Rod > Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes > ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them > something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the > formation charter - the initial first draft plan > The charter and the > plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information > for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting > for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in > the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony > > Begin > forwarded message: > FROM: Antony Van Couvering > DATE: November 6, 2009 > 4:16:44 PM EST > TO: Rod Beckstrom > CC: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org [3], > doug.brent(a)icann.org [4], kurt.pritz(a)icann.org [5] > SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF > INTEREST WORKING GROUP > > Gentlemen, > > Please find attached our > correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a > cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest > Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions > of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on > October 30 in Seoul. > > We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline > and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to > have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone > bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. > > A full list of our > membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to > contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. > > With > best regards, > > Antony Van Couvering > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com > [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org > [3] > mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org > [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org > [5] > mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

2 1

Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force. >To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: At-Large Position Statement > >Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement. > >Note that: > >- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language >which has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team. > >- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and >process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants. > >- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic >issue that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team. > >- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees. > >Alan

5 8

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

At 09/11/2009 11:31 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >2009/11/9 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Â >This is certainly an important issue, but your >analysis of the work to date is not quite >accurate, as there has been both the admission >that such problems could exist, and that they will need to be dealt with. > > >It simply converned me that none of the >questions from the Board to GNSO concerned >protection for good-faith registrants. >Â >Sanctions for "abuse" of the URS (and let's be >pragmatic, abuse is likely to be judged >differently depending on who the beholder is) > > >Actually, this is part of the problem. Without a >consistent definition we can't trust that it >will be applied with any usefl consistency. Im >my brief times to date working with the GNSO on >"registrant abuse", all they were concerned with >was abuse *by* (bad-faith) registrants. > >Having clear guidelines for abuse also helps >guide the panelists in acknowledging the purpose >of the URS/UDRP process. Consumer confusion over >brands -- not protecting monopoly control over >names -- should be the primary interest. > >Â >have yet to be discussed in the STI group (we >have had only one meeting dedicated to the URS). >However, both the IRT report and the staff >proposal sets what I presume will be the base >level of sanction: three occasions where >complaints are abusive will bar the complainant >from filing a URS for 1 year (abusive not yet defined). > > > >The sanction is pointless if the definition is >so vague that abuse will never judged to occur. > >Has there ever been judgments (that have stood) >that complainants have abused the UDRP since it started? >Â >NCSG has defined a set of sanctions which I am >guessing will deemed to be too high by the group >as a whole. Presumably the final outcome, if >there is one, will be in the middle. > > >I wouldn't make that assumption. NCSG and >At-Large positions have been completely ignored >in other ICANN contexts, and Hong has also >suggested that much of the NCSG sanctions are >unreasonable. Are there certain specific parts >of Kathy's sanction proposals that are worth pressing for? To quote myself in a private e-mail with a Board member who has an interest in these things, in a conversation about the definition of "abuse", the mechanism by which a Complainant would be "held to have filed [an] abusive complaint", who does the judging: "... the lack of clarity here does make a bit of a mockery of trying to specify in detail what level of "abuse" results in what sanction." Alan

1 0