November 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

I was asked for an opinion on whether an ALAC statement is necessary on the <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Preliminary+Issu…>Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D. The short answer is that I do not believe that a statement is required, but I would appreciate a "sense of the ALAC" that this PDP should be initiated. IRTP-D is the last of a set of PDP's to review and possibly update various aspects of the Inter-Registrar transfer Policy (IRTP). IRTP-D consideres: a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf); d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs (Forms of Authorization). This Public Comment is an opportunity to identify errors or omissions in the Preliminary Issue Report, and to provide support for initiating the PDP. O know of no specific errors or omissions. Although I support the PDP going forward, given the long history which got us to this stage, I am not expecting much opposition so I do not feel that a written comment is worth the effort. The PDP does address a number of issues that could benefit registrants and for that reason I do believe that it should go ahead. If the ALAC agrees, I would like to carry that message forward. I would also strongly advise that there be At-Large representatives on the resultant WG. Alan

1 0

The sales case for defensive registrations
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 22, 2012

Nov. 22, 2012

I just received an unsolicited email that some of you may find interesting. Due to non-ICANN related work, I own a domain related to ebooks. Some domainer -- or its agent -- sent me a solicitation to acquire a similar domain. Obviously my WHOIS info was culled for this, but that doesn't particularly bother me. What is interesting to read is the sale pitch that pushes defensive registrations and says that even if you own a trademark it doesn't really matter. Quotes of note: *Q:But I already own a similar domain, why do I need another one?* * * *A: The answer is pretty simple, you will get more exposure for your business for the least amount of money. Search engines file your page contents within one domain name. If you have multiple domains, this multiplies the chance of having a surfer click on the link to your website.* *Q:But my domain name and business are trademarked..* * * *A: This does not really prevent other people from using unregistered versions of your trademark for other legal or illegal reasons. A good example is Nissan.com, a trademark just for your branch in the industry and quite often just for your region of the world. Defensive registering will help protect your brand and business.* I have zero interest in the domain, if anyone else wants *stud-ebooks.com*you're welcome to it http://ourbestnames.net/acquire/hgag/WkaM3hn6T7 -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: URS update
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2012

Nov. 22, 2012

FYI. Alan >From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] >Sent: 22 November 2012 10:26 >To: Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com) >Subject: URS update > >Dear Jonathan, > >The deadline for responses to the URS RFI has passed and I'm happy >to inform you that we have received several responses which we are >now evaluating. Moreover, my first impression is that the situation >looks quite promising, both in terms of adherence to the URS text >and regarding the target fee. This also means that there is less of >an urgency than I previously thought to convene a drafting team >(and I'm glad to have been proven wrong in that regard!). There may >still be details where such a drafting team can provide useful >guidance and I will get back to you with further updates on this and >other URS matters as we advance with the evaluations. > >Very best regards > >Olof

2 1

Google launches "Fight the ITU/WCIT" website
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 20, 2012

Nov. 20, 2012

https://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/ Also: https://www.google.com/intl/fr/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/es/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/ar/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/pt-BR/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/intl/ru/takeaction/ And a number of others... -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Board WHOIS resolution and Board Briefing Document
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 20, 2012

Nov. 20, 2012

(Thanks to Bruce Tonkin) WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Whereas, the WHOIS Policy Review Team Report was submitted to the Board on 11 May 2012 and was the subject of extensive public comment and community discussion; Whereas, the Review Team's work has encouraged the Board and community to re-examine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, has inspired renewed and new efforts to enforce current WHOIS policy and contractual conditions, and has served as a catalyst for launching a new approach to long-standing directory services challenges; Resolved (2012.11.08.01), the Board directs the CEO to launch a new effort to redefine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, as a foundation for new gTLD policy and contractual negotiations, as appropriate (as detailed in the 1 November 2012 Board paper entitled, "Action Plan to Address WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"-ICANN Board Submission Number 2012-11-08-01 [PDF, 266 KB]), and hereby directs preparation of an Issue Report on the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and on solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as part of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process; Resolved (2012.11.08.02), the Board directs the CEO to continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to the collection, access and accuracy of gTLD registration data (referred to as gTLD WHOIS data), and increase efforts to communicate, conduct outreach on, and ensure compliance with existing policy and conditions relating to WHOIS (as detailed in the 1 November 2012 Summary of the Board Action entitled, "WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"). Resolved (2012.11.08.03), pursuant to Article III, Section 5.4 of the Bylaws, the Board directs that the contents of this resolution and rationale shall not be made publicly available until 19 November 2012. Rationale for Resolutions 2012.11.08.01 - 2012.11.08.02 The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce commits ICANN to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS (subject to applicable laws), which "requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information." The AoC obligates ICANN to organize no less frequently than every three years a community review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The AoC further commits ICANN's Board to publish for public comment the report submitted by the Review Team, and to take action on the report within six months of its submission. The Team's volunteer members were appointed by ICANN's CEO and the GAC Chair, per the AoC requirements, and reflected the broad Internet community's interests in WHOIS policy. For 18 months, the Team conducted fact-finding, including meetings with ICANN's relevant Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, members of the broader Internet community, and other interested parties, and issued a draft report for public comment before submitting its Final Report to the Board on 11 May 2012. The Report was posted for two months of public comment and the Board requested input from ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Community discussion and input on the Report continued through the ICANN Toronto meeting in October 2012. The GAC and ALAC endorsed the WHOIS review report, SSAC provided a response in SAC055 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-055-en.pdf) and the GNSO provided a response by constituency (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-icann-board-07nov12-en.… [PDF, 377 KB]). There is general agreement on the objective of strengthening the enforcement of existing consensus policies and contracts and the WHOIS Review Team Report provides many relevant recommendations to that effect. However, both the WHOIS Review Team Report and the SSAC comments highlighted the limits of the current framework for gTLD directory services and the need to move beyond the present contractual provisions. The WHOIS Review Team for instance clearly stated that "the current system is broken and needs to be repaired." Likewise, the SSAC report stated that "the foundational problem facing all 'WHOIS' discussions is understanding the purpose of domain name registration data", that "there is a critical need for a policy defining the purpose of collecting and maintaining registration data" and suggested that "the formation of a properly authorized committee to drive solutions to these questions first, and to then derive a universal policy from the answers, is the appropriate sequence of steps to address the WHOIS Review Team's report ." Indeed, the WHOIS protocol is over 25 years old (the current version is documented in RFC3912 dated September 2004, and the original version is documented in RFC812 dated March 1982). Furthermore, ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries and registrars are largely unchanged after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies. Concerns of access, accuracy, privacy, obsolescence of protocols in an evolving name space, and costs to change remain unresolved. In this context, taking into account these inputs and community concerns, the Board has determined that a broad and responsive action is required and has decided to implement a two-pronged approach. Accordingly, the Board is simultaneously: 1.Directing the President and CEO to continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions as well as to increase efforts to communicate, conduct outreach on, and ensure compliance with such existing policy and conditions. 2.Directing the President and CEO to launch a new effort focused on the purpose and provision of gTLD directory services, to serve as the foundation of an upcoming Board-initiated gNSO PDP. The outcomes of this work should act as guidance to the Issue Report that will be presented as part of the GNSO's policy development work; as a result, the Issues Report is not expected to be produced until such time as the President and CEO determines that his work has progressed to a point that it can serve as a basis of work within the PDP. On both aspects, additional information is contained in the document, "Action Plan to Address WHOIS Policy Review Team Report Recommendations"-ICANN Board Submission Number 2012-11-08-01" (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12… [PDF, 266 KB]). As part of the work of the President and CEO to ensure continued compliance with existing policy and conditions, the President and CEO has moved the Compliance Department to report directly to the President and CEO (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14sep12-en.htm) and the Board granted financial authorization to establish a Contractual Compliance Audit Program through an independent Service Provider (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm#1…) Furthermore, appropriate liaison will be established with the ongoing work undertaken in the IETF WG on the Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) Protocol to ensure coherence. The Board strongly feels that taking this two-pronged approach is essential to fulfill ICANN's responsibility to act in the global public interest. The initiation of a focused work on Whois is expected to have an impact on financial resources as the research and work progresses. If the resource needs are greater than the amounts currently budgeted to perform work on Whois-related issues, the President and CEO will bring any additional resource needs to the Board Finance Committee for consideration, in line with existing contingency fund request practices. This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of this work may result in positive impacts. This is an Organizational Administrative Function of the Board for which the Board received public comment, at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e….

1 0

ICANN Board Addresses WHOIS
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

19 November 2012 For Immediate Release ICANN Board Launches New Effort to Tackle gTLD Registration Data Challenges Based on Policy Review Team Report Approved resolution also reconfirms full support for Enforcement of WHOIS policy and obligations Los Angeles, California The ICANN Board of Directors has directed the Chief Executive Officer to launch a new effort to re-examine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) registration data. The move follows the recommendations of a review team that examined implementation of WHOIS data policy. WHOIS is a listing of domain registrants and their contact information. WHOIS began more than 25 years ago, before there was even a World Wide Web and its purpose was far more technical than it is today, said Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, ICANN Board Chair. Its clear that we have to take a thorough look at WHOIS from the ground up, and thats what were asking the CEO to do - what should WHOIS be and how can we best improve its accuracy? The Board tasked the CEO to go beyond the existing WHOIS protocol and start a new initiative focused on directory services. In response CEO Fadi Chehadé will convene an expert working group to help lay the foundation for new policy development work. The Board resolution also directs the CEO to continue to fully enforce the contractual conditions that relate to the current collection, access and accuracy of gTLD registration data, and increase efforts to communicate and conduct outreach ensuring compliance with existing WHOIS policy and conditions. Its basically a two-track approach, said Crocker. In addition to a full examination of WHOIS, the Board wants to make certain that enforcement of existing WHOIS reporting requirements is strengthened in conformance with the Affirmation of Commitments and the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team. The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) is an agreement signed by ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2009 that, among other things, commits ICANN to enforcing existing policies relating to WHOIS. ## To read the Board resolution on WHOIS, go here: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm#1>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm#1 To read the report of the WHOIS Policy Review Team, go here: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12… MEDIA CONTACTS: Brad White Director of Global Media Affairs Washington, DC, USA Tel. +1 202.570.7118 <mailto:brad.white@icann.org>brad.white(a)icann.org Andrew Robertson Edelman Public Relations London, U.K. Tel. + 44 (7811) 341 945 <mailto:andrew.Robertson@edelman.com>andrew.Robertson(a)edelman.com About ICANN: ICANNs mission is to ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internets unique identifiers. ICANN doesnt control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesnt deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internets naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. For more information please visit: <http://www.icann.org>www.icann.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from ICANN, let us know by clicking <http://ICANN.pr-optout.com/OptOut.aspx?523509x19831x89344x1x3785396x24000x6…>here. ICANN, 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094 United States

3 2

ALAC Input into policy discussions?
by Holly Raiche Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

Hi Everyone I was looking through the issues that are open for comment on the ICANN website. While there is an ALAC response on the strategic plan and Alan is looking at the Expired Registration Recovery Period, I don't see (on the ALAC work space) that anyone is doing anything on either the IRPT Part C (due 3 Dec) or IRTP Part D (due 14 Dec). Has a decision been made that we are not commenting, or is someone doing work on either or both. Given that we have commented on Part B, maybe we should be following up on Parts C and C. (and yes, I'd be happy to have a look and draft something) Thanks HOlly

2 1

Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/engli...
by Holly Raiche Nov. 18, 2012

Nov. 18, 2012

So what is the process this 'Independent Objector' will follow - particularly since he can file objections on 'community and public interest' grounds. Any ideas on whether we will be consulted? Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz(a)facebookmail.com> > Date: 17 November 2012 10:23:44 AM AEDT > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146(a)groups.facebook.com> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/engli... > Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+41jkrxbe000zg543zelp003mrvv4tj4l000zg4db9t6127i46(a)groups.facebook.com> > > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A) > > Philip Corwin 17 November 10:23 > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independen… > The Independent Objector's Opinions on Controversial Applications - Official Website of the Independ > www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org > When assessing whether an objection should be filed against an application for a new gTLD, the Indep... > > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Fatimata Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

Thank you Alan and Evan for attending this marathon meeting and keeping us informed. ALAC should be given the means to physically participate next time IMHO. Best, Fatimata T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >I concur with what Alan said. > >While I was disheartened by the second-class-citizen status afforded ALAC >at these meetings, our presence here was greater than it was within the IRT >or STI efforts. I like to think that, together with the NCSG, we (again) >fended off the worst excesses requested by the rights holders. However, as >Alan said, we are sympathetic to the desire to reduce cybersquatting, >frivolous and defensive registrations, and end-user confusion/misdirection. > > >On 17 November 2012 00:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> Copy of a message sent to ALAC list >> =================================== >> >> As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels >> several weeks ago to discuss implementation >> issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). >> The meeting included representatives of the GNSO >> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not >> At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a >> follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In >> addition to a discussion of many of the technical >> issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend >> discussing a list of issues that had been >> presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and >> Intellectual Property Constituencies >> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf >> ). >> This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately >> only remotely as no travel funding was provided). >> I had the honour of participating along with Evan. >> >> The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both >> interesting and productive. The intent was: >> >> 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC >> and IPC were asking for. The original document >> was not particularly clear, and in fact, the >> BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. >> >> 2. To understand whether these issues were in >> fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) >> believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by >> GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much >> discussed within ICANN, but the difference has >> never been formally addressed before. Staff were >> charged with starting to develop a methodology >> for making such decisions in the future. Although >> the work is still preliminary, it was used to >> analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC >> proposals, and the outcome matched that of the >> discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to >> be Policy and thus required GNSO action to >> formally change the status quo (a relief to some >> at the table, and troubling to others). >> >> 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC >> and see if any solutions could be found to >> address the issues that concerned them which at >> the same time might be acceptable to the other >> stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 >> solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on >> Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The >> proposal completely pleased none of the people >> involved, which some people say is a good measure >> of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a >> good start for more traditional community-based >> discussions which now have to happen. >> >> ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to >> not have new policy changes in the new TLD >> program at this late date. However we also did >> look at the individual issues as discussed in a >> message I sent earlier this week. The resultant >> strawman proposal actually fits in moderately >> well with the positions that ALAC took. Of >> course, this is not yet a formal policy and there >> are many details to be developed. This is perhaps >> not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to >> protect innocent Internet users coincide well >> with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting >> and fraud, and the over-reaching that some >> attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting >> protections far an above those granted by the TM >> itself) were to some extent held in control. >> >> I have to note that this type of focus group is >> not an unknown way to try to bridge widely >> disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon >> one in ICANN, and one that some people have said >> violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of >> ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI >> group which many herald as one of the more >> effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened >> issues that the community (well, part of the >> community including At-Large) had thought or >> hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an >> effective move or not history will tell. One of >> the measures that I have is how quickly we can >> convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and >> actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. >> >> After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said >> that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue >> and would personally oversee its implementation. >> True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours >> of meetings. It was interesting! >> >> I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in >> the coming days on some of the high and low >> points of the meeting, but this will have to do >> for the moment. Today I was on the call for over >> 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting >> starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 >> hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time >> for a bit of rest and relaxation. >> >> You can find the initial description of outcomes >> of the meeting at >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. >> >> 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… >> > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >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

Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

Copy of a message sent to ALAC list =================================== As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels several weeks ago to discuss implementation issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The meeting included representatives of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In addition to a discussion of many of the technical issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend discussing a list of issues that had been presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf) This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately only remotely as no travel funding was provided). I had the honour of participating along with Evan. The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both interesting and productive. The intent was: 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC and IPC were asking for. The original document was not particularly clear, and in fact, the BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. 2. To understand whether these issues were in fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much discussed within ICANN, but the difference has never been formally addressed before. Staff were charged with starting to develop a methodology for making such decisions in the future. Although the work is still preliminary, it was used to analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC proposals, and the outcome matched that of the discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to be Policy and thus required GNSO action to formally change the status quo (a relief to some at the table, and troubling to others). 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC and see if any solutions could be found to address the issues that concerned them which at the same time might be acceptable to the other stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The proposal completely pleased none of the people involved, which some people say is a good measure of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a good start for more traditional community-based discussions which now have to happen. ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to not have new policy changes in the new TLD program at this late date. However we also did look at the individual issues as discussed in a message I sent earlier this week. The resultant strawman proposal actually fits in moderately well with the positions that ALAC took. Of course, this is not yet a formal policy and there are many details to be developed. This is perhaps not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to protect innocent Internet users coincide well with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting and fraud, and the over-reaching that some attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting protections far an above those granted by the TM itself) were to some extent held in control. I have to note that this type of focus group is not an unknown way to try to bridge widely disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon one in ICANN, and one that some people have said violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI group which many herald as one of the more effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened issues that the community (well, part of the community including At-Large) had thought or hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an effective move or not history will tell. One of the measures that I have is how quickly we can convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue and would personally oversee its implementation. True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours of meetings. It was interesting! I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in the coming days on some of the high and low points of the meeting, but this will have to do for the moment. Today I was on the call for over 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time for a bit of rest and relaxation. You can find the initial description of outcomes of the meeting at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. Alan

5 4