November 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2011

Nov. 28, 2011

Thanks. Regarding proxy registrations, some people read the current contracts as not allowing them, but that is moot at this point, since they have been going on for a long time now and ICANN has never tried to stop them. Certainly for .net and .com, it is far too late to put the genie back in the bottle. So no change from thin to thick whois is going to alter the current situation. Or at least, that is how I read it. Alan At 28/11/2011 05:35 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: >Alan > >I'm pro thick whois but only where policy locally can support proxy >registration services on proviso there are processes to deal with >specific cases of abuse (technical, administrative, >ownership). This needs to be local so that local jurisdictions can >establish their own flavour of policies and provide registrants and >users with choice and information. > >Imposing a one size fits all global policy on all localities tends >to lead to technical suspensions of domains due to registration >inaccuracies (deliberate or not) rather than for the underlying >problem behaviour. This has the capacity to increase instabilities >in the DNS. Choice for users and registrants depends largely on >maintaining an Internet environment where local policies have room >to effectively exist and be available to users globally. > >Many domain owners have legitimate reasons to need privacy. This >need for privacy where it exists should not be used a rationale by >Registry or Registrar operators to control (own) as a trade secret >the information in their registries. It should in my view be there >to support registrants within an environment of local safeguards for users. > >A PDP should re-address the importance of the local dimensions for >Internet Policy development and management in my view. In other >words be bottom up not simply in developing a policy but most >importantly in its day to day management. > > > >Christian > >On 22 Nov 2011, at 01:08, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > One of the recommendations of the IRTP-B Policy Development Process > > (PDP) was for the GNSO to investigate requiring all gTLD Registries > > to use a "Thick" Whois. > > > > With thick Whois, all of the Whois information related to a > > registration is maintained by the Registry. With "Thin" Whois, the > > only information maintained by the Registry is the current status of > > the registration and identification of who the sponsoring Register > > is; the rest of the information and specifically that related to the > > Registrant is kept by the Registrar, making Whois a widely > > distributed database. > > > > Currently most Registries use thick Whois, and thick Whois is > > required for all gTLDs to be created under the new gTLD program. The > > only Registries that use thin Whois are operated by Verisign, but > > these of course include .com and .net which constitute the majority > > of gTLD registrations. > > > > In response to the IRTP-B recommendation, the GNSO requested and > > Issue Report and a preliminary version is now available and has been > > posted for public comment. Comments on this document will be received > > until 30 December, 2011. See > > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…. > > > > The report confirms that the issue is within the scope of ICANN and > > the GNSO and recommends that the GNSO initiate a Policy Development > > Process on the issue. > > > > The primary purpose of this comment period is to ensure that the > > Issue Report does indeed address all of the relevant aspects of the > > issue. However, it will likely also be the only formal opportunity > > for the ALAC to state whether it recommends that a PDP should be > > initiated or not. > > > > I have not yet reviewed the document in sufficient depth to say > > whether I feel that it is complete, but on an initial review, it > > looks fine. My personal belief is that the ALAC should strongly > > support the initiation of a PDP on this issue. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

[Balancing Rights - European Court of Justice] #Intellectual Property #ISP #privacy
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 25, 2011

Nov. 25, 2011

Interestingly, the European Court of Justice ruled today, in a unrelated case, that > privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be superseded by other interests, and > certainly not in a disproportionate manner. As you say, unrelated. But nice, very nice. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.… http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=… James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre(a)jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org The significance of this Judgment is in relation to how they dealt with the prioritisation of rights, that is the rights if intellectual property owners, the rights of ISPs to conduct their business freely and the rights of consumers to privacy. "The injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system involve a systematic analysis of all content [ISPs cannot afford this and at the end of the day, this cost would be borne by customers somehow] and the collection and identification of users' IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified". (Highlighted portion is mine) The consideration in how the Judges arrived at their decision is on [para 52, 53] where there is no guarantee that lawful content would not be blocked. After considering all the rights stemming from the Directives listed in para 55, the courts held in favour of "privacy" of consumers that is fundamental rights trumping when reading all of the Directives together. Although the European Court of Justice recommended that harmonization take place. Some may recall a thread initiated by Carlton attaching Geist's article. I apologise for repeating previous posts but am doing so in case there are those that did not read the other threads. Most of us are aware of the controversial bill that was debated in US Congress called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which has had a few multinationals raising a ruckus for obvious reasons. The Bill is accessible here:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c11213UD8d: Whilst some of you may wonder what that has to do with us who do not live in the United States of America, that Bill will force the taking down of websites if there are infringements to intellectual property rights. Well before the SOPA, the US Government took down a Spanish Website called Rojadirecta even though the Spanish government and people protested and their Petition: See: https://www.eff.org/files/Petition%20for%20Release%20of%20Seized%20Goods%20…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> You can see the extra-territorial jurisdictional implications through that example. You can also read a lighter version here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/us-government-rojadirecta-owners-must-p…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> (I apologise that this is a secondary source) There is also an interesting perspective by Geist via http://www.thestar.com/article/1085475--geist-internet-belongs-to-us-u-s-ar…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> (I am re-attaching this link that was initially sent by Carlton) As pointed out by James S Tyre during the discussions on the other thread, the European Court of Justice handed down a decision. I found this Judgment interesting in the wake of the controversies surrounding SOPA. To see impact of SOPA, read the Summary, Problems and Implications of the SOPA visit http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> There are some interesting developments by the European Court of Justice on the prioritisation of rights, where EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files, see the Press Release: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> The actual Judgment that was just released on the 24th November, 2011 is available here: http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> Whilst this is true for ISPs, it also is interesting to see the manner in which IP addresses is viewed by the European Court of Justice in the Judgment which makes the Judgments interesting. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

LACRALO regional advice to ALAC re: ISOC-CR ALS Application
by José Francisco Arce Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Dear All, LACRALO has reviewed the ALS Application from the ISOC Costa Rica Chapter (ISOC-CR) and recommends that the ALS application be accepted. Both the LACRALO chair and secretariat note the following: * The LACRALO President met the ISOC-CR President, Carlos Carazo at the regional IGF event in Trinidad and Tobago in August 2011. * We have reviewed the information provided on the form and ISOC-CR's website and have found it sufficient, and futher note that it is hosting an ISOC event, in collaboration with ICANN in November 2011. * The LACRALO President has clarified the answer provided to Question 3 in the ISOC-CR's ALS application form. Question 3 states "Provide support for the statement that your Organization is self-supporting (by answering "yes" you confirm that it will not rely on ICANN for funding)". While the response in the form was "NO", the LACRALO President has confirmed with ISOC-CR's President that the question was misunderstood and that ISOC-CR is a self-supporting organisation and does not rely on ICANN for funding. Kind Regards, Jose Francisco Arce LACRALO President Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat For all the above LACRALO advice is to approve the ISOC Costa Rica application.

2 1

Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

One of the recommendations of the IRTP-B Policy Development Process (PDP) was for the GNSO to investigate requiring all gTLD Registries to use a "Thick" Whois. With thick Whois, all of the Whois information related to a registration is maintained by the Registry. With "Thin" Whois, the only information maintained by the Registry is the current status of the registration and identification of who the sponsoring Register is; the rest of the information and specifically that related to the Registrant is kept by the Registrar, making Whois a widely distributed database. Currently most Registries use thick Whois, and thick Whois is required for all gTLDs to be created under the new gTLD program. The only Registries that use thin Whois are operated by Verisign, but these of course include .com and .net which constitute the majority of gTLD registrations. In response to the IRTP-B recommendation, the GNSO requested and Issue Report and a preliminary version is now available and has been posted for public comment. Comments on this document will be received until 30 December, 2011. See http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…. The report confirms that the issue is within the scope of ICANN and the GNSO and recommends that the GNSO initiate a Policy Development Process on the issue. The primary purpose of this comment period is to ensure that the Issue Report does indeed address all of the relevant aspects of the issue. However, it will likely also be the only formal opportunity for the ALAC to state whether it recommends that a PDP should be initiated or not. I have not yet reviewed the document in sufficient depth to say whether I feel that it is complete, but on an initial review, it looks fine. My personal belief is that the ALAC should strongly support the initiation of a PDP on this issue.

1 0

FW: ICANN Academy Proposal
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 21, 2011

Nov. 21, 2011

Dear All, We are forwarding Sala's message to the ALAC Working List as this list is used to discuss ALAC work-related issues. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:25 PM To: ALAC Internal List Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: ICANN Academy Proposal Dear All, Firstly I would like to congratulate Sandra and Wolf for proposing the ICANN Academy in terms of addressing the "knowledge gap". I finally found the courage to use the "wiki" today and rather than waiting for my wiki training just went ahead and used it and found it really easy to use. I did not know that I could post thoughts and views on the wiki space but now that I know it will be less of emails and more wiki space. Here are some thoughts. I recognise that we have a packed Agenda and as such discussions will be limited. Kindly find my views on the same attached. I had alluded to this in Dakar when I commented but decided to put my thoughts to paper. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 15 Nov 12:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

Cheryl, I can open the Motion, but not the JIG Response file. Alan At 14/11/2011 03:54 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >ALAC, IDN Liaison / WG and Regional Leaders *Especially APRALO*, > >Please find below an email to the attention of the ccNSO Council >(who meet later today) referencing the attached Motion for >JIG-WG (joint ccNSO & GNSO) response and associated letter to ICANN >Board regarding single character IDN TLD's... > >I *strongly recommend* (not only as your ccNSO Liasion but as >someone who has supported and worked in 'matters of IDN's for many >years now as an essential issue for Asia Pacific and beyond) that >the ALAC (via its ExCom and of course with the endorsement of the >IDN Liaison and his associated topic WG) formally endorse this >letter to the ICANN Board. And that we specifically with relation to >points a., b., and c., from the letter adopt this as formal ALAC advice... > >I further recommend that APRALO also undertakes similar action to >endorses / supports this letter as Regional / RALO endorsed advice... > >Finally if the ALAC / ALAC ExCom so desire I would be happy to >report to the ccNSO Council at their meeting later today that such >endorsement action / discussion is currently underway... > >I look forward to your *URGENT and timely* advice on this matter,... >I also assume that the GNSO Liaison might also have opinion / action >plan to offer on this issue. > > >Kindest regards, > > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Jian Zhang <<mailto:jian@aptld.org>jian(a)aptld.org> >Date: 15 November 2011 02:36 >Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call >15 Nov 12:00 UTC >To: Lesley Cowley <<mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk>lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> >Cc: <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>ccnso-council(a)icann.org, Bart >Boswinkel <<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > > >Dear Lesley: > >JIG drafted a response letter to ICANN board in response to board >August resolution on single char IDN. JIG would like to circulate >this to both ccNSO and GNSO councils for the considerations. > >Sorry for the last minute submission. > >Best regards > >Jian Zhang > > > > > >From: ><mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org>owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org >[mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kristina Nordstrom >Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 4:30 PM >To: <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>ccnso-council(a)icann.org >Subject: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 15 >Nov 12:00 UTC > > > >Dear all, > >The next ccNSO Council Call will take place tomorrow Tuesday 15 >November at 12:00 UTC. Please find the dial in details below. > >Dial in numbers: <http://www.adigo.com/icann/>http://www.adigo.com/icann/ >Conference ID: 5258 > >Other time zones: ><http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html > >Kind regards, >Kristina > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="JIG Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single > Character IDN TLDs --" > final.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="JIG Response to ICANN Board" > Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs -- final.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: 23d46f6b2b235418_0.1 > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="Motion for JIG Response to Aug 2011 Board Resolution.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Motion for JIG Response to Aug 2011 Board Resolution.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: 23d46f6b2b235418_0.2

2 1

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 15 Nov 12:00 UTC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 14, 2011

Nov. 14, 2011

ALAC, IDN Liaison / WG and Regional Leaders *Especially APRALO*, Please find below an email to the attention of the ccNSO Council (who meet later today) referencing the attached Motion for JIG-WG (joint ccNSO & GNSO) response and associated letter to ICANN Board regarding single character IDN TLD's... I *strongly recommend* (not only as your ccNSO Liasion but as someone who has supported and worked in 'matters of IDN's for many years now as an essential issue for Asia Pacific and beyond) that the ALAC (via its ExCom and of course with the endorsement of the IDN Liaison and his associated topic WG) formally endorse this letter to the ICANN Board. And that we specifically with relation to points a., b., and c., from the letter adopt this as formal ALAC advice... I further recommend that APRALO also undertakes similar action to endorses / supports this letter as Regional / RALO endorsed advice... Finally if the ALAC / ALAC ExCom so desire I would be happy to report to the ccNSO Council at their meeting later today that such endorsement action / discussion is currently underway... I look forward to your *URGENT and timely* advice on this matter,... I also assume that the GNSO Liaison might also have opinion / action plan to offer on this issue. Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jian Zhang <jian(a)aptld.org> Date: 15 November 2011 02:36 Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 15 Nov 12:00 UTC To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk> Cc: ccnso-council(a)icann.org, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> Dear Lesley:**** JIG drafted a response letter to ICANN board in response to board August resolution on single char IDN. JIG would like to circulate this to both ccNSO and GNSO councils for the considerations.**** Sorry for the last minute submission.**** Best regards**** Jian Zhang**** ** ** ** ** *From:* owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kristina Nordstrom *Sent:* Monday, November 14, 2011 4:30 PM *To:* ccnso-council(a)icann.org *Subject:* [ccnso-council] Reminder: Dial in details Council Call 15 Nov 12:00 UTC**** ** ** Dear all, The next ccNSO Council Call will take place tomorrow Tuesday* 15 November *at *12:00 UTC*. Please find the dial in details below. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Other time zones: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html Kind regards, Kristina****

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Comments Requested: Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 5, 2011

Nov. 5, 2011

In response to the call for comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan, I wish to advance the following position as ALAC advice: > *Periodically, ICANN indulges itself in a re-evaluation of its Strategic > Plan. There are presentations from senior staff, workshops, and a > significant chunk of At-Large policy-making time on the Tuesday allocated > to this endeavour.* > > *We submit that that this exercise is a massive waste of time and energy, > not just on the part of At-Large but of all of ICANN. In fact, at this > critical time (US Government contracts up for renewal, changes at both CEO > and Board Chair, and increasing pressure from governments to scrap the > whole multi-stakeholder experiment), such an energy consuming exercise in > "navel-gazing" simply calls public attention to the extent of which ICANN > is out of touch with the community it is supposed to serve. We submit that > the abandonment of this charade of creating laminated "motherhood > statements" and diversion of energies to matters more pressing is urgently > called upon.* > > *ICANN's role is well defined and its scope should be fairly focused. It > strategic plan should needs fine tuning at best -- and certainly not an > overhaul of the kind being requested on a frequent and ongoing basis. That > any broad changes are contemplated indicates either mission creep or > capture -- or both. ICANN has never lived up to its aspirational > "strategic" plans of the past, allowing staff rather than the community to > really determine the priorities regardless of what the words say. > Compounding the farce is the charging of this same staff with evaluating > its own success. As a result, the community spends more time in endless > reviews of the plan than in actually holding ICANN accountable for its > execution.* > > *We request that ICANN focus its resources -- and those of its volunteers > -- on genuinely implementing the strategies it has already defined before > repeatedly coming back to the community to engage in further rounds of > self-absorbed distraction.* > I have added this statement to the comment section of the appropriate At-Large wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace+for+th…>. I wish to submit it for approval as a position of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Failing that, I would like to solicit support from community members in the submission of a minority position. I am certainly open to modification of the message to make it more broadly acceptable but I hope that the main point intended by the statement is reasonably unambiguous. Note: I am doing this as an individual ALAC member, not as representing any existing position of my region or the ALAC Executive Committee to which I belong. A version of this statement has already been made to the NARALO mailing list, and during an ALAC teleconference briefing on the strategic plan. Thank you for your consideration. - Evan On 4 November 2011 18:38, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>wrote: > Dear All, > > > > The message below was originally sent on 21 October 2011. However, since > many At-Large representatives were travelling to Dakar for the 42nd ICANN > Meeting at that time, the Chair of ALAC has asked staff to re-send it to > ensure that as many At-Large members are made aware of the call for > comments > on the Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan as possible. > > > > ICANN is currently seeking community input on the Draft 2012-2015 Strategic > Plan <http://goo.gl/pX4EM> until 17 December 2011. > > > > An At-Large Workspace for the ICANN Strategic Plan 2012-2015 has been > created to serve as a central point for information on the four strategic > focus areas as identified by ICANN as well as the key issues that members > of > the At-Large community should address in their comments. Each RALO is > requested to submit their comments on the 2012-2015 Strategic Plan on their > specific Regional Strategic Planning Workspaces located on the main > Workspace. > > > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie > Peregrine, Marilyn Vernon > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >

1 0