August 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Comments on the At-Large Director Bylaw revisions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Well, for whatever reason, the comment period is still open. And since it is now after 9 am in Marina del Rey, that may not be the case much longer! Alan At 16/08/2010 11:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I'm generally OK with your changes except one. > >In the change toÂ Article XI, Section 2(4.j.1) >you propose eliminating the reference to >selection by "the At-Large Community". Even >though the procedures are maintained by ALAC it >must remain clear that this is to be a >community-wide process, and not just something >done by ALAC on behalf of community.Â I think >it needs to stay, as a reminder to all that: >1) The bylaw is making a distinction between >formally defined "ICANN At-Large" and the broader community-at-large >2) This is not just an ALAC process, it is one >that must include the view of the entire At-Large infrastructure > >Keeping the phrase "At-Large Community" intact >will dissuade furture ALACs from considering >change its RoP so to shut out the RALOs and ALSs from the process. > >So I'd modify your suggested change to this clause a little: > >Making a selection to fill Seat 15 on the Board. >Procedures for selection by the At-Large >Community are defined in the ALAC Rules of >Procedure. Notification of the At-Large >Communityâs selection shall be given by the >ALAC Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, >consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). > > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] NARALO Candidate for ALAC Delegate to NomCom Position
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Hello, This is to inform you that the NARALO recommendation for its regional representative to the Nomination Committee is for Eduardo Diaz to continue for another term. - Evan

1 0

AFRALO Candidate for ALAC Delegate do NomCom Position
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

Dear Cheryl, We would like to inform you on behalf of AFRALO that Yaovi Atohoun has been recommended for the position of ALAC Delegate to the NomCom from the African region. Yaovi was nominated by Tijani Ben Jeema and was largely supported by the members of the region. There was no oposition to his nomination. Yaovi accepted his nomination on 4 August 2010. No other regional candidacies were received. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Public consultation on the Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs - advice from James Seng, ALAC IDN Policy Liaison
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 14, 2010

Aug. 14, 2010

Dear All, With respect to the currently open public consultation on the Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs (see: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#jig-initial-report) which closes on 9 September 2010, please see below the advice provided by James Seng, the ALAC IDN Policy Liaison, on whether the ALAC should comment on this paper: ** I am in contact with the folks in the Joint ccNSO‐GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) and am keeping tab on the progress they are making. The interim paper as it is right now is just a captured of all the issues and concerns involving the introduction of single-character. Therefore, there is no particular recommendations as of now that we can agree or oppose. And the fact capture is not something we can contest, nor do I see any missing issues in the paper. I think it is too early to comment on this. It would be more productive to wait for their next revision of the paper to make a comment. They are also going to publish the other topic JIG is working on (Variants) fairly soon. I just got a copy and is reviewing that right now. -James Seng ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Call for ALAC members to join the ALAC/At-Large Improvements work teams
by Seth Greene Aug. 10, 2010

Aug. 10, 2010

Dear All, CALL FOR ALAC MEMBERS TO JOIN THE ALAC/AT-LARGE IMPROVEMENTS WORK TEAMS The ALAC/At-Large Improvements project is moving ahead. The goal is to review and improve both ALAC/At-Large’s participation in ICANN and the ALSes’ participation in At-Large. This will be done through the implementation of the 13 recommendations detailed in the Simplified At-Large Improvements Implementation Outline (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhOqmBdY590QdExXZklQLVRZZUtncm1xSDZ…) We have divided these recommendations into four groups, each of which will be assigned a work team consisting of ALAC members and regional representatives. These recommendation groups (and work teams) are listed below. We are now looking for ALAC members to join each of the four work teams. We ask that those interested respond to the At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) no later than Wednesday, 11 August 2010. Please specify which work team(s) you would like to join. Each work team is expected to schedule a call every two weeks. As with other At-Large work groups, these teams will conduct their business in English. For more details, please see the Improvements Project Plan (attached). The four recommendation groups and work teams are: Work team A: Work team on ALAC’s continuing purpose Rec 1: ICANN bylaws to reflect ALAC's continuing purpose Rec 10: ALAC/At-Large is home of individual Internet users Rec 11: Board statement recognizing Rec 10 Work team B: Work team on ALS participation Rec 3: Remove any obstacles in ALS-RALO-ALAC structure Rec 4: ALS education and engagement Rec 7: ALAC should choose its own communication/collaboration tools Rec 9: ICANN should strengthen its translation/interpretation tools Work team C: Work team on ALAC planning processes Rec 5: ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s planning process Rec 6: At-Large should develop accurate cost models Work team D: Work team on ALAC’s policy advice development Rec 8: ALAC may request public comment period be extended to 45 days Rec 12: Consumer representatives should have input into decisions and policy advice Rec 13: ALAC/At-Large policy advice mechanisms should be strengthened Many thanks, Seth ____ Seth Greene At-Large Improvements Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org<mailto:seth.greene@icann.org> Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723

1 1

Fwd: Comments on RAA report
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

For those who may be interested, I submitted the following comments to the RAA Improvements report. Alan >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Comments on RAA Report > >Comments on: Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the >Registrar Accreditation Agreement > >These comments are submitted solely on my own behalf and do not >necessarily represent the views of the ALAC or NARALO. > >I commend the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting team for a comprehensive >report on a difficult subject. > >I first must comment on the timing of this report and the >implications for RAA changes in the future. The GNSO resolution that >created this Drafting Team was passed in March 2009, with the stated >intent of having the recommendations by the end of July 2009. A year >later, we have an Initial Report. This is not meant as a criticism >of the Drafting Team(s) - in retrospect, the target date was >euphorically optimistic. But it should be a wake-up call to push >forward with the process with due haste. The high priority issues >listed in the report are indeed high priority, and it would be good >to see quick progress. This is all the more so in light of the >recommendation to handle issues that are eligible for consensus >policy via PDPs, a process which itself typically takes years, and >the fact that as the RAA is interpreted, it can take up to five >years to implement a new version. > >I would like to highlight a number of specific issues. > > >Resellers >--------- > >The 9th high priority topic is to define reseller and clarify >responsibilities. I strongly support this. I specifically support >the wording of the IPC and Law Enforcement proposals to make it >explicit the resellers must comply with ALL registrar requirements >that are delegated to them. Prior to the May 2009 RAA, resellers >were not mentioned in the RAA, and one could assume that resellers >would have to adhere to any rules associated with the registrar >tasks that they perform. It is a given that in the general case, a >party to a contract cannot absolve themselves of >their responsibilities simply by subcontracting the work to a third >party - if that was the case, there would be a lot more >subcontracting being done. However, it the May 2009 RAA, section >3.12 explicitly assigns certain responsibilities to resellers, and >some registrars have claimed that this means that those >responsibilities not mentioned are de facto excluded. As a result, >adding section 3.12 could be viewed as having effectively weakened the RAA. > >Although not currently an RAA issue, it is also important to note >that ICANN Compliance has always said that since ICANN has no >contracts with resellers and therefore cannot take actions against >them, they do not focus any attention on reseller issues. They are >correct that they have no right to audit or otherwise force >disclosure of information from resellers. But that can take action >through the appropriate registrar. And there is nothing to stop >compliance from doing audits using publicly available information >(such as web pages) and then following up with registrars if needed. >The lack of a definitive list of all resellers should not stop ICANN >from at least doing spot checks or investigations based on complaints. > > >Registered Name Holders >----------------------- > >The report section on "Registrar Business Dealings with Registrants" >starting on page 39 includes the text: > >"The RAA sets forth actions the Registrar may take at the conclusion >of the registration period if a Registered Name Holder has not >provided consent to renew the registration, including the Registrar >cancelling the registration at the end of the current registration >term. If the Registered Name Holder did not consent to renewal, the >Registrar must make sure that a Registered Name is deleted from the >Registry database within 45 days of the end of the registration term." > >This makes it sound as if the "Registered Name Holder" is a single >entity. However, as noted in RAA Matrix No. 10.2, most registration >agreements allow the registrar to unilaterally reassign a Registered >Name to itself or a related or unrelated third party at any time >after expiration. It is unclear if such transfers are in fact in >compliance with section 3.7.4 of the RAA, but regardless, the >ORIGINAL Registered Name Holder (that is, the one on record just >prior to expiration) is not accorded the rights as described in this >section. As a result, this section of the report does not really >represent reality. > > >Section 5.2 Recommended Next Steps >---------------------------------- > >I believe that the wording in both Option A and B implicitly biases >the outcome. They describe the two parties who must negotiate as >Staff and Registrars. But it is not "Staff" who is one of the >signatories of the contract, it is "ICANN". The responsibility to >negotiate and sign has been delegated to certain ICANN staff, but >that is a policy decision within ICANN. > >In a bottom up, stakeholder-based organization such as ICANN, paid >or contract staff are given certain responsibilities, but that is a >conscious decision. If ICANN chooses to have as its negotiating >team, someone from ICANN legal services, the ICANN Chief Registrar >Liaison, and several people representing ICANN Stakeholder Groups or >Advisory Councils, that should be an internal ICANN decision. These >user representatives do not have to be either excluded or classed as >observers. If ICANN management wants to include them, then that is a >decision that they can make.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS Application from the Information Policy Analytical Center
by Fouad Bajwa Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

Noted! Lets also discuss this at the monthly meeting to be scheduled in August? - Fouad On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Please send all the future communications to the worldwide list. We > should keep everything completely transparent. > > Hong > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS Application from the Information Policy Analytical Center
by Fouad Bajwa Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

Dear Hong: Thank you for consolidation of comments and the summary for agenda items for the next meeting. Taking note now. Dear Matthias: The final decision for APRALO approval of the ALS application will be scheduled for the upcoming APRALO meeting (August) Dear Pavan: Please take note of agenda items as shared by the Chair. Best Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Wolf and all others, for thoughtful contributions to these > useful cross-RALO discussions on this interesting issue. We could > build our future practices on these views and interactions on division > of regions by ICANN. > > With respect to this specific case, may I suggest the follow pragmatic > approach? > > a) Could staff send to APRALO list an updated application form reflect > the applicant's new preference to joining APRALO, rather than any > other RALO? > > So far we only heard from the staff, not from the ALS applicant > directly. What we have in hand is still a form applying to join > EURALO. Could we get things procedurally clear at least? > > b) Since all our discussions are on APRALO list, our members may still > comment on this issues until the second last Tuesday of August. > > c) The application will be on Agenda of our RALO's next Monthly > Conference call on the last Tuesday of August. If we could have > consensus on this, our regional suggestion will be forwarded timely to > ALAC later on the same day. > > Fouad, I assume you agree with me. > > Anybody else from APRALO? Alternative proposals are welcome but we've > asked to speed up. > > > Hong > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> wrote: >> Dear Fouad and all, >> >> I very much appreciate your elaborations on the IPAC case and your >> reflections on and your comparison with Armenia. Armenia - from a >> historical and cultural point of view - would be even more difficult to >> assess in the ICANN regional rules context, as your reference to the >> WP page clearly and rather contradictory shows. I think, we could >> spend exciting evenings to discuss cases like this, come up with >> interesting conclusions without consequences for existing rules... >> >> If - in the given case - the applicant seems to be pragmatic on their >> preferences (even if their representative expressed his preference for >> EURALO to me in Brussels), we shouldn't enter into an endless >> discussion on this. We should agree on a workable solution that IPAC >> will formally be part/member of APRALO -- and if they want to have >> working contacts with EURALO (on an informal level) as well, it could >> become a good example for cross-RALO cooperation and we are always >> open for new experiences. If there are no strong objections raised any >> more, I think that APRALO should start with the certification procedure >> -- and the At-Large community should be glad about welcoming a new >> member soon. >> >> Kind regards, >> Wolf >> >> >> Fouad Bajwa wrote Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:30: >>>Dear Matthias, >>> >>>I would like to step in on this issue and search for a solution since >>>within this framework of community consensus, I believe that there are >>>always some means available to reach a compromise between RALO's on >>>issues where exceptions can be explored with community consent. On >>>this issue, I would like to get in touch with EURALO. >>> >>>When I look at Armenia and that is a region present on the edge of >>>Europe or the bridge to Europe from Turkey, only Turkey is the country >>>that is both in Asia and Europe and history maintains that the Ottoman >>>Empire was always in conflict with Armenia because it was not possible >>>to find path to Europe otherwise. Armenia exists as EuroAsia >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia therefore I will treat this as a >>>EurAsia issue and not an Asian issue only. >>> >>>The documents shared are not rules, they are more or less principles >>>that in principle we recognize these regions in the way links point to >>>but we as a community have a responsibility to also facilitate ALSs >>>where otherwise we are unable to find a possible equally acceptable >>>solution. We as an At-Large community can work together to request a >>>change of this principle with respect to working with ICANN to reach a >>>compromise because this is need-to-need based. >>> >>>Instead of giving a sweeping statement to revoke this party from >>>joining APRALO, I would like to take this issue up with Wolf Ludwig, >>>Sebastian and Olivier before we reach a final decision and the fact >>>remains that the final decision remains with the APRALO community and >>>the fact also remains that RALO's have an Inter-RALO link and we can >>>jointly resolve issues with mutual consent/consensus. >>> >>>I would like to request staff to await a final decision regarding this >>>interested ALS party from both APRALO and EURALO as we make contact >>>with eachother taking some time to resolve this issue within the >>>community. >>> >>>In consensus oriented groupings and networks, we have to work together >>>to workout possibilities and mutual opportunities. >>> >>>Best >>> >>>Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> >>>On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Matthias Langenegger >>><matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> wrote: >>>> Thank you, Hong. >>>> >>>> We will inform the applicant that it is unfortunately not currently possible >>>> to choose the region they would like to join. According to ICANN's >>>> geographic regions, IPAC is part of the APRALO region (see full list under: >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/montreal/geo-regions-topic.htm) >>>> >>>> ICANN's Geographic Regions Working Group has done an extensive review on the >>>> current geographic model and has recently published its Latest Draft Interim >>>> Report (see >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-28may10-en.htm#foot3) >>>> >>>> Cheryl represents At-Large in the Geographic Regions WG along with Carlton >>>> Samuels. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Matthias Langenegger >>>> Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs >>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>> >>>> Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >>>> Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >>>> Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >>>> Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27/07/2010 10:20, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for sending us the ALS application to the list. I've a >>>>> question: if we take a look at Objective part Q.3, it seems that the >>>>> applicant is based in Europe and interested in joining EURALO. Did I >>>>> overlook anything? >>>>> >>>>> Hong >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff >>>>> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is to inform you that we received an ALS application from the >>>>>> Information Policy Analytical Center. It is based in Baku, Azerbaijan and >>>>>> would be a member of APRALO if accepted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find the application form attached. Due diligence for this >>>>>> application will be provided to you in due course. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, >>>>>> Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström >>>>>> ICANN At-Large Staff >>>>>> >>>>>> email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> website: www.atlarge.icann.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> comunica-ch >> phone +41 79 204 83 87 >> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >> www.comunica-ch.net >> >> Digitale Allmend >> http://blog.allmend.ch - >> >> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >> http://euralo.org >> > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China >

1 0

Proposal from Paul Vixie: a DNS reputation system
by Patrick Vande Walle Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

FYI . http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100728_taking_back_the_dns/ Patrick

1 0

At-Large, new gTLDs and Vertical Integration
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 3, 2010

Aug. 3, 2010

Hello everyone, This morning attended the briefing call on the thorny ICANN issue of "vertical integration" (VI), a topic that is being reviewed because of the planned roll-out of new gTLDs. At its simplest state, VI is the discussion of ICANN regulations governing the extent to which registries may own and sell domains through registrars. At one level -- the level taking the most discussion right now -- is "who may own what". Much deeper (IMO, from the At-Large perspective) are closely related issues such as (but not limited to): - Under what circumstances may a registry sell domains direct to the public? - What limits exist on how registries may use domain-search information to set prices or reserve names? - Do registrars serve a necessary (and thus mandatory) purpose, or is their role be that of an optional value-added service provider? - To what extend does ICANN have jurisdiction and/or authority to regulate Internet business models? What are its limits? The current debate IMO only skims the surface of most of these issues, concentrating largely on the ownership issues which are most dear to some of the most vocal participants, the contracted parties directly affected by policy change. In my opinion this is an issue that requires At-Large involvement, but we need not be constrained by the same charter given by the GNSO to its current VI working group<https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?vertical_integration_pdp>(in which there is ALAC participation). I am quite fine with the issue currently falling under the realm of ALAC's new-gTLD Working Group (which I chair) for short term tactics related to the DAG (as suggested at today's meeting), However, I believe that ultimately the issue is larger than that for just gTLDs or just new ones. We have the ability to frame the issues on our own terms and ask the questions we need answered -- how to provide most benefit and least harm to non-speculator registrants (and would-be registrants). Should we even care "who owns who" if the public is well-served? I invite anyone interested in this issue to join the gTLD WG, which looks ready to be the home of two of ICANN's more ... lively ... issues: "vertical integration" and "morality and public order". This looks to be a lively time of year (unusually lively for those in the northern hemisphere). - Evan PS: In addition to materials on the VI website, I also highly recommend Milton Mueller's analysis of the current diversity of positions<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4582700.html>on VI. PPS: I would point you to the actual home page of At-Large's gTLD working group but it looks like it's been hacked<https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy>. (I wonder what else has been hit?)

1 0