February 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 2, 2012

March 2, 2012

Hello all, we have until the end of the week for our suggestions. I have left this to rest until now since we were not aware of the hot issues, and hot issues a month ago might have cooled down until now. Please email me your suggestions. The ALAC ExCom will discuss suggestions on its call on Friday. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] FW: ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building Date : Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:11:09 -0800 De : Marilyn Vernon <marilyn.vernon(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> Copie à : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> *[Sent on behalf of Filiz Yilmaz]* ====== Dear ICANN Community Leaders, This is a friendly reminder to submit your suggested topics for the Public Forum agenda. If you have already done so you may disregard this message, for those who have not please be advised of the approaching deadline, *Friday, 02 March 2012.* Kind regards, Filiz Yilmaz Sr. Dir Participation and Engagement ICANN From: Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org <mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:40:53 -0800 To: "soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org>" <soac-discussion(a)icann.org <mailto:soac-discussion@icann.org>> Cc: "steve.crocker(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>" <steve.crocker(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN 43 Public Forum Agenda Building [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] Dear ICANN Community Leaders, We are approaching ICANN 43 in Costa Rica, San José. As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 15 March 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. We believe building the agenda with your input facilitates this forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about.This has been the practice in the recent meetings and we would like to repeat it again for Costa Rica. We believe publishing the agenda as early as possible facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in Dakar, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org <mailto:filiz.yilmaz@icann.org>) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Costa Rica, before the end of Friday, 2 March 2012. We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. Thanks for your consideration and input. Kind regards, Steve Crocker

7 6

Fwd: [soac-discussion] Universal Acceptance of Domains - 14 March Discussion Scheduled at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 29, 2012

Feb. 29, 2012

A forwarded message, in preparation of Costa Rica meeting. Possible controversy regarding this subject, with a question about universal acceptance of .XXX Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-discussion] Universal Acceptance of Domains - 14 March Discussion Scheduled at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica Date : Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:02:03 -0800 De : David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> To Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees Leadership: Universal Acceptance of Domains is an ongoing effort within ICANN dedicated to raising awareness of issues relating to ensuring that all domain names work correctly in software on the Internet. ICANN initiated the project when issues were first identified relating to the earlier rounds of adding new gTLDs. For example, some software and web sites have made the assumption that top-level domains were always either 2 or 3 characters long, which is problematic for a number of newer TLDs. More attention has been given to these issues with the adoption of IDN top-level domains, and with the expectation that many more ASCII and IDN gTLDs will be added to the DNS in the near future. In order to best assure successful adoption of these various new domains, and that software is implemented correctly to cater for all available domains, collaboration is needed between software developers and vendors, network administrators and others. ICANN is conducting outreach within the ICANN community to develop a plan to best improve awareness of these issues. A working group meeting on this topic is scheduled to take place during the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica on Wednesday, 14 March 2012. This will serve as a good opportunity for all involved to share their experiences and suggestions. These suggestions will feed into ICANN's future work in this area. *We hope that representatives* *from various Advisory Committees and constituencies can attend this working* *session and provide us with their valuable feedback.* Please direct your questions or comments on this topic to Nadia Sokolova <nadia.sokolova(a)icann.org <mailto:nadia.sokolova@icann.org>>. Nadia is working in the DNS root zone management area in IANA department and manages this project. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 Washington, D.C. 20005 Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 25, 2012

Feb. 25, 2012

At 24/02/2012 10:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 24 February 2012 17:17, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > >On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and >work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply >ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but >that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or >At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to >participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were >many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I >look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now. > > >On the contrary, I applaud your initiative and participation. > >My suggestion of a "boycott" is to not endorse the results of this >action, but to do so properly requires informed action, and your >involvement has offered that information. > >It's also my understanding that one of the options offered to the >drafting team was to insist on no exceptions, but that was rejected >because the decision had already been made (opaquely and without >consulting stakeholders) to "do *something". There is no doubt that we certainly could have said that the exception should be removed from the AG, but there was a perception (which I certainly shared)that this would be a futile gesture and our time was better spent trying to ensure that what we ended up with was reasonable and equitable. I, for one felt that it was important to try to set expectations for other applicants to understand what the process would be for their applications if there was a perceived overlap with the protected marks (ie the oft-quoted example Olympus Cameras). As stated in the AG that application might sail through, or might end up in a costly and time-consuming objection process. With the proposal, it is still far from clear, but if there is a problem, it is likely to show up much earlier in the process and in the worst case, will likely result in a full refund if the application is not allowed. >- However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to >paraphrase George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts. > > >In order for the MSM to work there still needs to be consultation >(before decisions are made) with other stakeholders. > >If the GAC is to always get its way without the ability to challenge >what it wants, why bother with ICANN anyway? Sadly, some of those same governments are already saying why bother with ICANN. I guess my only reply is to get the MSM working so that GAC input is truly factored in early. > >- To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last >moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded >it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed. > > > >"Factor in" is not the same thing as "the decision's already been >made by them, opposition is fultile" > >As you well know, I would be the last one here to claim that the >processes and decisions are infallable. But they have far more >evidence of deliberation and transparency than the current >overriding process cooked up by the Board and GAC, which is indeed >being presented to the GNSO (and even more indirectly, ALAC) as >something that "by definition cannot be changed". In this case, and at the top level, I think that opposition was futile. Perhaps we have learned a bit from the process so it will not be repeated, at least not in exactly the same way. It is quite unclear (in my mind) whether what is a reserved name is truly a GNSO policy issue or not. My understanding is that the list has changed a number of times and with no GNSO policy involvement. If that is correct (and I don't really know if it is), then it was a Board prerogative to make the change. Since we are doing the present work in a DT and it will then go to Counsel, and not via a PDP, that tends to say the interpretation is correct. In any case, no doubt the next problem area will have a different set of parameters and we will have to learn anew... > >I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" >position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be >in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them. > > > >Reconsider? Sure. There are plenty of things about ICANN -- and >specifically the gTLD program -- that I consider badly flawed and >would love to have reconsidered. >And any process of reconsideration cannot be as opaque as the one >inflicted on the GNSO. > >But, as you say, some stakeholders are more equal than others, and >ALAC is the least equal of all. Just don't expect us to legitimize it. Not a thing I would presume! ;-) >That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has >been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and >perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future. > > >"But, nonetheless, regardless of how troubling THIS is, let's ram it >through anyway.....?" > >Obviously they can't be THAT visibly troubled... > >But we can be. Indeed. And with that I will remind myself that this is just ICANN, shut down my computer and resume my real life. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 25, 2012

Feb. 25, 2012

At 24/02/2012 04:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 24 February 2012 16:41, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments >on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special >exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is >shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also >generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and >there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept. > > >It is absolutely necessary to make clear the position that "the >exemption has already been granted" is a grotesque subversion of the >multi-stakeholder model that diminishes public respect for ICANN. >This example makes clear that the MSM can be easily dispensed when >politically difficult. > >I also object to the substance of the proposal, but what is truly >odious is this method of decision making in which bad decisions are >make in secret and then stakeholders are left to determine the best >way to "polish the turd". > >Personally, I disagree with our accepting a "best that we can get" >fallback position because it validates (and encourages more use of) >this top-down, opaque process. I would rather boycott this exercise >in futility, but explain why. > >Or opposition to both the substance and the process of this should >be clear and unambiguous, IMO. > >- Evan Evan, that is a position that the ALAC may well choose to take. On a personal basis, I had the choice of whether to join the DT and work to make the end-result as palatable as I could, or to simply ignore it (or boycott is as you phrase it). I chose the former, but that was a personal decision and not one on behalf of ALAC or At-Large. If I had been given a directive from ALAC not to participate, that might have altered the situation. But there were many months during which this could have happened, and it did not. I look forward to seeing what collective action ALAC takes on this now. On a philosophical level, I am not nearly as upset as you are. My reasoning goes as follows: - This is NOT what the original GNSO recommendation on new gTLDs said to do. - However, the GAC is one component of the MSM, albeit (to paraphrase George Orwell), a part that is perhaps more equal than other parts. - To not factor in such GAC advice, even if delivered at the last moment, is to pretend that the processes and decisions that preceded it are infallible and by definition cannot be changed. I find the last conclusion to be a "stick your head in the sand" position that ignores that the world changes and we must always be in a position to reconsider past decisions when alerted to problems with them. That being said, hopefully this round of last-minute GAC input has been troubling to all parties, including (I think) the GAC, and perhaps we are on a path to doing things in a more rational way in the future. Or not... Alan

2 1

Red Cross and IOC Protection under the new gTLD process
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 24, 2012

Feb. 24, 2012

During the discussions between the Board and the GAC preceding the launch of the new gTLD program, the GAC requested special protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names, due to the special protection given to these names by a variety of unique international agreements and treaties. The Board responded by reserving a specific list of names from being used during the first round of the new gTLD program, and remanded the issue to the GNSO for further deliberations. Such deliberations were to address both use of RC/RC and IOC names both at the top and second level for new gTLDs. The Board action was implemented by means of provisions in the current <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf>Applicant Guidebook, Section 2.2.1.2.3 Page 2-10 to 2-11. To enable the GNSO to properly consider the GAC request, additional information was requested of the GAC. This <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/GAC+advice+on+IOC+and…>additional detail was provided in September. A GNSO Drafting Team was created with the intent of providing guidance to the GNSO. Details of the groups deliberations (including transcripts) can be found in the <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>GNSO Calendar, with meetings generally held on Wednesdays, and in the groups <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/>mailing list (which has seen much traffic). If the GNSO were to take no action at this point, the exemptions already in the Applicant Guidebook will stand. I have made it clear that to the extent that there have been comments on the issue within At-Large and ALAC, the tone has been that special exemptions for these bodies should not be granted. That view is shared by some other participants in the DT. However, it was also generally accepted that an exemption has already been granted and there is little opportunity for the GNSO to change the basic concept. My personal position has been that although these special exemptions are not what I would have preferred, it is clear that the Board has already agreed to the basic concept, and the DT's major responsibility is to ensure that the exemptions can be implemented in as rational and effective means as possible, minimizing the need for extraordinary action later in the process and definitely minimizing the impact on other gTLD applicants. The DT decided that the first priority was to provide clarification on how top-level domains should be treated, as it was viewed as important that any changes be finalized prior to the end of the gTLD application period. Following extensive discussion, the group has drafted <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Draft+RCRC-IOC+Recomendation+-+…>a recommendation on how Section 2.2.1.2.3 should be revised. This recommendation, or what results from discussions over the next week, will be discussed with interested members of the GAC on a teleconference on March 2. The intent is that whatever comes out of the next week of discussions go to the GNSO in Costa Rica, for potential adoption in its meeting on Wednesday, allowing the Board to consider adoption on Friday. The DT will likely also suggest that if any applications already submitted are disqualified due to these changes, that the entire application fee be refunded. The above discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/FZ7bAQ. The Recommendation can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/GJ7bAQ. Please add any comments to the recommendation page. Due to the tight timing, the earlier that comments are made, the more likely they are to be considered. Alan

3 2

Advice of NEW Public Comment OPEN on Interin Report re "Significantly Interested Parties" (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

Dear all, Your attention is drawn to http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03feb12-en.htm where the ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI) has published its Interim Report which contains draft recommendations on obtaining and documenting support from ³Significantly Interested Parties² (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD: A matter that should be of considerable interest and concern for all ALSes and Member of At-Large.... I am satisfied with the WG Report but wish to ensure you all have the opportunity to read, review and comment should you need to, via the PC or of course via me as your active ALAC representative in the WG... The Interim Report is open for public comments until the 30 March 2012. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO and Member (ALAC Rep) on the FOI-WG

1 0