October 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

My thoughts below. Alan At 24/10/2012 12:21 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Hi, Alan > >the ALS Starter Kit is a document which has relevant material on the >public facing ALAC/At-Large mailing lists >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALS+Starter+Kits (meaning >the ALAC_internal and ALAC Excom lists are not mentioned) > >Re: the At-Large and ALAC_announce lists, I think both lists need to >be kept as these lists serve different purposes. > >* The ALAC_announce list - all ALS representatives are added to this >list by At-Large Staff when their ALS is formally accredited by ALAC >and is the primary channel by which ALSes are informed on >ALAC/At-Large activity by At-Large Staff and the ALAC chair. Can individuals subscribe as well? >* The At-Large list - Anyone on the list can post on any topic >(typically ICANN policy issues) for others to comment on. I believe >that ALS representatives and ALAC members are NOT added automatically >but can "manually' join if they know how to. > >Re: ALAC Excom....a bigger question is the necessity of the Excom list >- shouldn't policy discussions on the Excom list be on the ALAC list? >IF Excom calls are open to ALAC members, shouldn't the Excom call >announcements also be on the ALAC list? Announcing ExCom calls on the ALAC list is a good idea. Don't think in precludes a list for ExCom discussions. >Re: creating shadow lists for the ALAC and ALAC Excom - I would >investigate the ability to have RSS feeds for these (and for that >matter all At-Large WG lists and GNSO WG lists) to make it easier for >anyone to monitor activity. Agree RSS should be an option. Not sure that it replaces the ability to receive via e-mail though. >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > While working on the Rules of Procedure, it became obvious that we > > needed a document describing the various ALAC mailing lists giving a > > summary of their usage and describing who must of should be > > subscribed. This list will not include RALO lists or the multitude of > > working group and committee lists > > > > Currently there are five such lists. All are archived and are > > publicly viewable except as noted. > > > > ALAC - General ALAC list used for the majority of ALAC e-mail > > interactions. Originally only ALAC members, RALO leadership, formal > > Liaisons selected by the ALAC, Liaisons to the ALAC, At-Large Board > > member and Staff were on it. More recently, it has included (either > > by accident or intentionally), selected former ALAC member, selected > > former RALO leadership, and others. (I am using the term "formal > > Liaisons" to refer to the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC Liaisons - those to > > other ICANN or external bodies.) > > > > ALAC-Internal - Used for things that we do not want to be publicly > > viewable. Most commonly, this is travel arrangements, social plans > > and occasionally semi-confidential issues or issues where we want > > targeted ALAC feedback. Membership is similar to the ALAC list, > but no "others" > > > > ALAC-ExCom - Publicly viewable list for the ALAC ExCom. Membership is > > traditionally ExCom members, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, > > and Staff. More recently a few others were added. > > > > ALAC-Announce - General list for announcements. Only ICANN staff and > > the ALAC Chair (I think) have sending privileges. This list includes > > pretty much everyone in the ALAC list plus about 175 others. > > > > At-Large - General public list. This list has Most but not all of > > those onthe ALAC list (missing about 10 ALAC members and RALO > > leadership) plus about 160 others. > > > > ALAC-Announce and At-Large membership overlaps. There are 98 people > > on both lists (about 1/3 of which are ALAC/RALO Leadership), 126 just > > ALAC-Announce and 98 just At-Large > > > > For mail sent to lists from senders not on the lists, there are four > > possible outcomes, it goes through, it is held for moderation, it > > bounces or it is discarded without a reject message (moderation > > requires staff action). Based on a test, I believe that for the ALAC > > list, such messages are discarded, for the ALAC-Internal list, such > > mail bounces, and for the ExCom it is moderated. Not sure about the > > two larger lists. > > > > My suggestions for going forward are: > > > > ALAC > > - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by > > the ALAC, Board member and Staff > > - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC > > - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above > > - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or > > could be receive only - see below) > > > > ALAC-Internal > > - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by > > the ALAC, Board member and Staff > > > > ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name > > used in the new RoP) > > - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board > > member and Staff > > > > I think we need to discuss the ALAC-Announce and At-Large lists > > further. I am not at all sure we need two lists for this. > > > > I suggest we create two additional lists that "shadow" the ALAC and > > ExCom lists. That is, subscription open to all and they receive all > > messages that got to the ALAC and ExCom lists. This allows those who > > want to follow the discussions to receive them without the > > inconvenience of having to go to the archive. This is equivalent to > > adding the to the lists in receive-only mode, but since we have had > > regular problems ensuring that the membership of the ALAC and ExCom > > lists is correct, having a shadow list would be a lot cleaner. > > > > Please let me know what you think about these issues. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

RE : Re: ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists
by jjs.global Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

Hi, I'm pretty much on the same line as Yaovi. Jean-Jacques. Envoyé depuis un mobile SamsungYaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> a écrit :Hi Alan, Thank you for this initiative to clarify the use of the various mailing lists. My comments on your suggestions below: ALAC - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or could be receive only - see below) I agree with the membership list but I am not in favour of automatically adding past holders. However any past holder subscribingwill be approved to be member ALAC-Internal - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff My suggestion is that this list includes only ALAC members and staff. I assume that a formal communication from the Board or other groups to ALAC will go through the chair of the staff. ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name used in the new RoP) - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff My suggestion is that this list serve only for communication between ALAC-Excom members. I will also include staff. Thank you Yaovi ________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Mercredi 24 octobre 2012 4h37 Objet : [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists While working on the Rules of Procedure, it became obvious that we needed a document describing the various ALAC mailing lists giving a summary of their usage and describing who must of should be subscribed. This list will not include RALO lists or the multitude of working group and committee lists Currently there are five such lists. All are archived and are publicly viewable except as noted. ALAC - General ALAC list used for the majority of ALAC e-mail interactions. Originally only ALAC members, RALO leadership, formal Liaisons selected by the ALAC, Liaisons to the ALAC, At-Large Board member and Staff were on it. More recently, it has included (either by accident or intentionally), selected former ALAC member, selected former RALO leadership, and others. (I am using the term "formal Liaisons" to refer to the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC Liaisons - those to other ICANN or external bodies.) ALAC-Internal - Used for things that we do not want to be publicly viewable. Most commonly, this is travel arrangements, social plans and occasionally semi-confidential issues or issues where we want targeted ALAC feedback. Membership is similar to the ALAC list, but no "others" ALAC-ExCom - Publicly viewable list for the ALAC ExCom. Membership is traditionally ExCom members, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, and Staff. More recently a few others were added. ALAC-Announce - General list for announcements. Only ICANN staff and the ALAC Chair (I think) have sending privileges. This list includes pretty much everyone in the ALAC list plus about 175 others. At-Large - General public list. This list has Most but not all of those onthe ALAC list (missing about 10 ALAC members and RALO leadership) plus about 160 others. ALAC-Announce and At-Large membership overlaps. There are 98 people on both lists (about 1/3 of which are ALAC/RALO Leadership), 126 just ALAC-Announce and 98 just At-Large For mail sent to lists from senders not on the lists, there are four possible outcomes, it goes through, it is held for moderation, it bounces or it is discarded without a reject message (moderation requires staff action). Based on a test, I believe that for the ALAC list, such messages are discarded, for the ALAC-Internal list, such mail bounces, and for the ExCom it is moderated. Not sure about the two larger lists. My suggestions for going forward are: ALAC - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or could be receive only - see below) ALAC-Internal - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name used in the new RoP) - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff I think we need to discuss the ALAC-Announce and At-Large lists further. I am not at all sure we need two lists for this. I suggest we create two additional lists that "shadow" the ALAC and ExCom lists. That is, subscription open to all and they receive all messages that got to the ALAC and ExCom lists. This allows those who want to follow the discussions to receive them without the inconvenience of having to go to the archive. This is equivalent to adding the to the lists in receive-only mode, but since we have had regular problems ensuring that the membership of the ALAC and ExCom lists is correct, having a shadow list would be a lot cleaner. Please let me know what you think about these issues. Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

Please redistribute as think necessary. Alan =================== Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Last Updated: 23 October 2012 Date: 23 October 2012 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. What This Group Will Do As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected, at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>'thick' Whois Final Issue Report: * Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. * Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick' registry. * Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? * Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? * Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? * Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? * Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. * Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? * Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? * Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. * Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. For further details and requirements, see the <https://community.icann.org/x/H4EoAg>WG Charter. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>GNSO Working Group Guidelines. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf>GNSO PDP Manual. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20%27thick%27%20Whois%20PDP%20Working%20Group>GNSO secretariat (<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries. Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data is associated with the domain name (this information includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name. In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois. As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012. At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GAC CommuniquÃ(c) from Toronto
by Hong Xue Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > My recollection is that the URS does allow for names protected by > international accord but the UDRP does not. Not sure about TMCH. Neither URS nor TMCH covers marks other than trademarks/services (registered, protected by international law or by special domestic law). They are all purely trademark measures. Hong > > > > At 22/10/2012 02:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>Quick answer: >> >>Because they don't want the hassle and cost incurred by other name-holders >>(clearinghouse, URS/UDRP) and have convinced the GAC that their legal >>titles are more important than those of the private sector. >> >>This is all the more curious because my understanding is that international >>treaty/law protects the IOC graphic symbol (five rings in that >>colour/pattern) but not the word "olympic". >>So... in other words (if this is accurate), they are asking ICANN to extend >>beyond existing protections in the outside world. >> >>At very least, this is not as clear-cut as the GAC would suggest. >> >>- Evan > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0

GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto and attached for your convenience. Several things of particular note: - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs and not just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight. - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves). - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient. Alan

6 10

Re: [ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

Ron, I tend to agree with your point, although it could be argued that they initially raised the point because clearly ICANN had not acted on what they believe to be clear instructions in the form of "international instruments and national laws". So their original request was a "wake-up" call and nothing else is reguired. There is another aspect that I raised on the GNSO Council list (slightly revised to make it understandable out of the context of the thread there). >The GAC position is that the names cannot be used. > >As Jeff Neuman has repeatedly said, the USE of >these names may be forbidden but there is no >requirement that registries not register them. >There is ample precedent that registries are not >held responsible for what people do with the >names they register. Certain countries forbid >the use of certain words, but that does not >automatically put them on a reserved names list. >If we expect all registries to deny >registrations of these names, they must be explicitly listed in the contracts. > >Historically the reserved names list has been >changed without the benefit of a PDP - compare: >http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/appendix-06-01… >and >http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/registry-agmt-…. >I am not sure if these changes were all the >result of Board action, or simply staff action. >In any case, we need to NOT say that a PDP is >required for any change of that list. History >says otherwise. And in my mind, there is no >reason to believe that this is still not the case. > >However, given the likelihood (already >experienced) of others saying "me too", a formal >PDP is warranted. The fact that the GAC is >willing to create a specific list (something I >suggested a while ago and was told the GAC would >*never* agree to do such operational work) makes >it implementable if the PDP should decide that reservation is warranted. Alan At 22/10/2012 01:18 PM, Ron Sherwood wrote: >Good morning, Carlton and Alan: > >It seems to me that there is conflicted >reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto. > >"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a >PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their >mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient." > > If: "the international instruments > and national laws should be sufficient."... >Then: Why the specific request for >protection of these two entities in the first place? > >Best regards, Ron > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton >Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Thanks for circulating this , Alan. > >It makes sense the list of those IGO for >automatic protection begin with those eligible >for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms. > >Given the method of developing the list, we need >to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection. > >The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further >study since these may not enjoy the same rights >and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law >of the several jurisdictions. This is where I >think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > > <http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto>http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and > attached for your convenience. > > > > Several things of particular note: > > > > - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs > andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments > made in their applications must be incorporated > into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight. > > > > - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of > organizations to be protected prior to the > delegation of the first new TLD, and that this > protection be given to those IGOs who are > eligible for registration under .int. They have > committed, however, to develop a list of names > and acronyms that should be protected (since > registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves). > > > > - The GAC is questioning the need to have a > PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their > mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient. > > > > Alan >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] GAC CommuniquÃ© from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

My recollection is that the URS does allow for names protected by international accord but the UDRP does not. Not sure about TMCH. Cost avoidance for exact names is likely not at that level but at defensive registrations or reservation within TLD. Perhaps all moot, because after all this fuss, any TLD that does not voluntarily include these names in their reserved lists (except for registration by the parties involved) is just looking for additional hassles that they don't need. Regarding the Olympic symbols/names, my recollection (which may well be wrong) is that the symbols are protected by international agreement but the names are protected by some national laws (and particularly those in countries that have held the Olympics). Alan At 22/10/2012 02:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Quick answer: > >Because they don't want the hassle and cost incurred by other name-holders >(clearinghouse, URS/UDRP) and have convinced the GAC that their legal >titles are more important than those of the private sector. > >This is all the more curious because my understanding is that international >treaty/law protects the IOC graphic symbol (five rings in that >colour/pattern) but not the word "olympic". >So... in other words (if this is accurate), they are asking ICANN to extend >beyond existing protections in the outside world. > >At very least, this is not as clear-cut as the GAC would suggest. > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

At 22/10/2012 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 22 October 2012 10:15, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. >At this point, it would appear that little would >need to be changed to meet the price points. >Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of >complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There >have also been comments that requiring electronic >submission might lower costs and that too sounds >reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. >It is structural changes that we need to be careful about. > > >I agree. Complaints-per-submission and method of submission sound >more like mechanics than policy and I'm fine with discussing those, > >Indeed, I don't recall that such minutae was even considered by the >STI as policy. If that was the case, do such non-policy-related >changes even need to go back to the community? Why not just revise >them and open a public comment process? Perhaps if that is all that needs to be changed, a public comment may be the vehicle. Important to remember that the STI set a $300-500 window. If the prospective bidders can do it for $500, may still be worth looking at acceptable changes that can get it to approach the lower bound. >If there is a review team to monitor the implementation change, it >certainly demands At-Large involvement. The concept of an implementation team is a new one that was not contemplated at the time of the STI. Otherwise, would have doubtless been suggested then. If a group is now reconvened to make any changes (whether at the substantive level or process, I would expect an implementation team to be created to address questions that come up during implementation, with membership open to those involved in setting the policy, which I expect to include ALAC. Alan >- Evan

2 1

FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

Promising note regarding the URS. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up >Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100 > >All, > >Please be aware of the following note from Olof >Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. > >Jonathan > >From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] >Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 >To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com >Cc: Kurt Pritz >Subject: URS follow-up > >Dear Jonathan, >Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO >Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all >Council members for the constructive discussions >we had on URS matters on 18 October! The >willingness to consider a drafting team to >address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. > >The subsequent URS session the same day in >Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to >presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential >URS providers, we had the advantage of a very >late addition to the agenda a presentation >from a new entrant, Intersponsive, intending >to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the >target fee, although with some adjustments of >the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they >would be able to stay within the target fee, >provided reasonable limitations could be >established to the current translation >requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. > >I realize that you and other Council members >couldnt attend this session, as it partially >overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but >the recording is available at ><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. >Furthermore, there are a number of relevant >documents posted on our recently established URS >web page at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, >notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, >with considerations, proposals, some costing >aspects and, most importantly, questions needing >to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). > >I believe these recent developments further >clarifies the need for a drafting team to >establish realistic implementation measures >based on the URS text. I look forward to further >contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. > >Very best regards >Olof > >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

At 21/10/2012 11:41 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks, Alan, as commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto, >we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it >seems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting >could be enabled under the name "implementation". What do they want to >"draft" in the Drafting Team? I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. At this point, it would appear that little would need to be changed to meet the price points. Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There have also been comments that requiring electronic submission might lower costs and that too sounds reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. It is structural changes that we need to be careful about. > Is the team cross-constituency or solely >for GNSO? That will likely be up to the GNSO. The STI was a GNSO activity, with the ALAC included due to the sitting Liaison function and I think a GAC observer (not sure on that). Whether this time it will be the same or more open as in a WG, I cannot say. If I had to predict, I would say the former. > Normally implementation plan is completed by staff. These days it also includes a review team typically from the original policy group, to make sure that the implementation is true to the intent (and not only the words) of the implementation. This is a VERY good thing. >Why is >it referred back to GNSO? Well, if a change to a GNSO approved policy/implementation is needed (and I said IF), then it is reasonable to go back to that group for further input. Clearly we would like At-Large to be involved though. Alan >Hong > > > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Promising note regarding the URS. > > > > Alan > > > >>From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > >>To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >>Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up > >>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100 > >> > >>All, > >> > >>Please be aware of the following note from Olof > >>Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. > >> > >>Jonathan > >> > >>From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] > >>Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 > >>To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com > >>Cc: Kurt Pritz > >>Subject: URS follow-up > >> > >>Dear Jonathan, > >>Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO > >>Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all > >>Council members for the constructive discussions > >>we had on URS matters on 18 October! The > >>willingness to consider a drafting team to > >>address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. > >> > >>The subsequent URS session the same day in > >>Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to > >>presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential > >>URS providers, we had the advantage of a very > >>late addition to the agenda a presentation > >>from a new entrant, Intersponsive, intending > >>to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the > >>target fee, although with some adjustments of > >>the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they > >>would be able to stay within the target fee, > >>provided reasonable limitations could be > >>established to the current translation > >>requirements and to the number of domain > names covered by a single complaint. > >> > >>I realize that you and other Council members > >>couldnt attend this session, as it partially > >>overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but > >>the recording is available at > >><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/u > rs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. > >>Furthermore, there are a number of relevant > >>documents posted on our recently established URS > >>web page at > >><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>h > ttp://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, > >>notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, > >>with considerations, proposals, some costing > >>aspects and, most importantly, questions needing > >>to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of > particular interest in that regard). > >> > >>I believe these recent developments further > >>clarifies the need for a drafting team to > >>establish realistic implementation measures > >>based on the URS text. I look forward to further > >>contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. > >> > >>Very best regards > >>Olof > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >-- >Professor Dr. Hong Xue >Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) >Beijing Normal University >http://www.iipl.org.cn/ >19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street >Beijing 100875 China

2 1