March 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Call for further comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline now 28 March
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear All, I have now compiled answers from your replies as well as input I received by email. Please be so kind to review them. They are all linked from: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Mar… Time is of the essence, so please be so kind to comment by Monday 28 March 2011. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/03/2011 20:47, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote : > > Dear All, > > > > On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for > comments on the US National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Request for Comments on > the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) > > Functions is being made. > > > > Information on the NOI is available at: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. > > > > An At-Large Workspace has been created to collect comments on the six > questions of the NOI from the At-Large community. The Workspace is > available at: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Mar…. > Please either use the edit function on the Workspace or submit comments. > > > > As the *deadline to submit comments on the NOI is 31 March*, the > time-line for At-Large comments is as follows: > > > > *23 March 2011 - Deadline for At-Large comments* > > *24 March 2011 - ALAC prepares draft statement* > > *25 - 29 March 2011 - 5 day ALAC vote* > > *31 March 2011 - NTIA deadline for comments* > > > > If you have questions on the NOI, please contact At-Large Staff at: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. > > > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella > Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 2

Proposal for ALAC work on future challenges
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, Please see below a proposal by Jean-Jacques on the use of a currently standing Working Group or the establish of a Task Force to discuss emerging ALAC challenges. This proposal will be discussed during today's Wrap-Up Session: ** Dear All, at the ALAC meeting on Sunday 13 March, a proposal was made regarding a working group or task force which would discuss emerging challenges and the way ALAC should address them. Building upon the debate which followed, and on conversations which have taken place since then, the following elements are submitted to your approval and/or discussion: PURPOSE AND NAME It is suggested the group would be called, at least for the time being, ALAC Task Force F (for Future), or TF-F. The notion of "task force" underlines its temporary nature, the fact that its duty is to address a given set of issues, and that it is expected to deliver results within a given time frame. MEMBERSHIP It is hoped the composition of TF-F will be fairly representative of ALAC's overall geographic diversity, but clearly personal motivation is of prime importance. Once the list of members has been established and agreed upon by ALAC, the members of TF-F will choose their two co-chairs (this can be done by e-mail, or in a conference call). Once constituted, TF-F may call upon experts, as required. PROGRAMME The first task of TF-F will be to propose a limited list of (perhaps 3 or 4) priority issues which the ALAC should address in the near future, because of their impact on the global Internet, on ICANN, on ALAC. These issues shall constitute the core of the work programme for TF-F for 2011. STAFF SUPPORT In parallel to the membership of TF-F being finalized, it would be necessary to finalize arrangements for Staff support for TF-F. VERY NEXT STEPS ALAC members interested in taking part in this work are requested to reply to this e-mail to * make known their candidacy * list the 3 or 4 topics they consider ALAC should take a position on, with regard to the future of the Internet, ICANN, or ALAC (in their order of priority, 1 being the most important or urgent). At this stage, the wording of these topics should be brief and self-evident. ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

9 17

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program - Call for comments
by Wolf Ludwig March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Great draft and statement, Carlton. Congratulation and thanks, Wolf ICANN At-Large Staff sent Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:25: >Dear All, > > > >On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, please find the draft ALAC >Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program (see: >https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Prop >osed+Recommendation+for+a+Global+Outreach+Program+-+March+2011) which has >been drafted by Carlton Samuels. > > > >The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: >http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach. This public comment >closes on Sunday, 10 April. > > > >Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the >wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 1 April. > > > >An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. > > > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > >ICANN At-Large Staff > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0

Draft ALAC statement on IRTP-B report
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Sorry about the long delay in getting this out. I have not had much time for ICANN work this last week. The draft version presented here is identical to that distributed to the ALAC during the ICANN meeting, except that there is an enlarged introduction and I have now incorporated some specific answers to the questions posed under recommendation 1. No comments were received to the earlier draft. Alan ================================================================ Draft ALAC Statement on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report The ALAC supports all of the recommendations in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report. Individuals who register domain names are arguably the registrants who are most vulnerable to problems being addressed in this PDP. They often have little technical or domain-industry knowledge and are ill-prepared to deal with hijacking or the subtleties of domain name transfer. Moreover, the ALAC has specific comments on two of the recommendations: Recommendation 1. The ALAC strongly supports the Emergency Action Channel. With regard to the specific questions, we offer the following comments on several of the questions: - Within what timeframe should a response be received after an issue has been raised through the Emergency Action Channel (for example, 24 hours - 3 days has been the range discussed by the WG)? >As a prime use of the Emergency Action Channel is to reverse domain >hijacking, we support as short a period as practical. The target >should be well under 24 hours. - What qualifies as 'a response'? Is an auto-response sufficient? >An automated response is not considered acceptable as it eliminates >the intent of establishing communications between the registrars. - Should there be any consequences when a response is not received within the required timeframe? >The Emergency Action Channel would have no meaning if there were not >consequences to no response. Consequences should include a >provision for the registry unilaterally reversing the transfer and >possibly fines. - Is there a limited time following a transfer during which the Emergency Action Channel can be used? >We support a reasonably long period but have no specific suggestion. >We defer to the registrars who regularly must respond to hijacking >as to what time period they find acceptable. - Who is entitled to make use of the Emergency Action Channel? >The Emergency Action Channel may be useful for a number of registrar >issues. Those are likely outside the scope of this PDP, but other >uses should not be precluded. Recommendation 2. The ALAC supports the concept of increased and improved registrant education. Although it is not clear that the ALAC should be designated as the prime channel for such activities, it may be considered one of the possible channels, factoring in the limited ICANN budget at its disposal for such activities and the limited control over volunteer time that it exercises.

1 0

Google Book Settlement Rejected
by Hong Xue March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

A long saga ended today. A federal judge rejected a *Google settlement*<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216923562033348.h…>that would allow it to post millions of *books* online. It shows that Google should not be allowed to make Global law through its opt-out (opt-in by default) rules to manage the world knowledge. Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

3 4

ICANN compliance positions filled
by Alan Greenberg March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf>http<http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf>://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf

1 0

Fwd: Additional elaboration on remaining GAC Board sessions
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Additional elaboration on remaining GAC Board sessions Date : Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:35:07 -0700 De : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> Pour : Olivier Crepin-LeBlond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com>, "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>, Tony Holmes <tony.ar.homes(a)bt.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> Copie à : Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, Barbara Clay <barbara.clay(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <jeffrey(a)icann.org> All: As stated earlier, there is no GAC-Board meeting this afternoon at 4PM. The Board and GAC continue to work separately, continuing its review of the exchange of information as well as consider the recent community inputs and transcripts from the recent the public session. The GAC came to the session today with a lot of ideas and the Board is taking time to process them all. This schedule change should not be seen as an indication of disagreement, but rather reflecting the volume of work that is being completed and processed in a short period of time. The Board will be available to receive additional comments from the community tomorrow. It is intended to be a session to receive additional comments on the pending issues. Comments that were made during the previous session have already been noted and do not need to be restated. Written statements should be provided for posting and will not need to be read into the record, but will be considered by the Board. The sessions are currently scheduled as follows: New gTLD Program: Discussion of Issues Identified by Governmental Advisory Committee, Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 09:00AM, Grand Ballroom. The session will be held but may be shortened depending upon comments to allow more time to work on preparation for the Board / GAC discussions. The Board/GAC consultation will be open to the public again at Thur 17 March 2011 @ 0900. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Kurt Pritz ICANN

1 0

ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg March 13, 2011

March 13, 2011

At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC statement on the draft IRTP-B report is warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed to this reply) and inserted here followed by mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome. At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org wrote: >Dear all: > >It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues. > >I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we >have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? ) > >The nine recommendations has specifics solutions >for almost all the situations. > >I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at >least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria. > >As far as I know, it is hard to believe that >members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report. > >But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view. > >My two cents. > >Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge > >Kind Regards, > >Sylvia ----------------------------- Alan's comments... I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless: - we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations. In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so. If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations. If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad. A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position. If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC. Alan

4 3

Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
by Alan Greenberg March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

FYI, Alan

6 7

Fwd: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this list.
by JJS March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

Hello, I just realized my answer to Vanda and others may have been sent only to Vanda, by mistake. So here is my message (below). Regards, Jean-Jacques. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:03:02 +0800 Subject: Re: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this list. To: Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> Dear Vanda, All, like you, I would like to have (from the outgoing co-Chairs, or from Staff) an overview of the programme (things achieved, way forward). I've only just been added to this list, and have not attended any of its meetings, so I don't have that information. It would be reasonable to start from there. Also, to my knowledge there has been no ALAC or ALAC Executive Committee decision regarding membership, or Chair of this WG. Board Committees have a given number of members (3 to 5) : does the ALAC have anything similar? Regards, Jean-Jacques. On 09/03/2011, Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> wrote: > JJ, do you plan to have any meeting in San francisco? Just to organize > agenda. Thanks and will be a pleasure to be with you once more. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > IT Trend > > Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 > > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > > De: future-trans-account-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:future-trans-account-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de JJS > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2011 20:38 > Para: Baudouin SCHOMBE > Cc: future-trans-account(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Assunto: Re: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this > list. > > > > Dear Baudouin, > > > > thank you for the message. As you may have noticed, I only recently was > added to this list, and have no role in welcoming or otherwise guiding the > membership. > > > > I suppose it's up to the Chair of this Working Group to determine the > appropriate number of its members, their geographic distribution, or any > other aspect. The Chair was Sébastien Bachollet, but now that he has joined > the Board, I don't know who has taken over that responsibility. Let's find > out from Staff. Also, it would be interesting to learn about the programme > of activities and the calendar of this WG for 2011, and how that blends with > the overall orientations of the ALAC for the rest of the year. Ultimately, > we may wish to find out from Olivier and the Executive Committee what is > envisaged for this WG. > > > > Regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > 2011/3/5 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe(a)gmail.com> > > Bonjour Jean Jacques, > > I wish to be in > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > ACADEMIE DES TIC > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 > email : b.schombe(a)gmail.com > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > <http://akimambo.unblog.fr/> > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > 2011/3/1 Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > > Hello, > > > > staff advised me that I have been added. > > Looking forward to working with you. > > > > Regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > > _______________________________________________ > Future-trans-account mailing list > Future-trans-account(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/future-trans-account > > > > > >

1 0