June 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by JJS July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012

*Dear Olivier & Colleagues,* * * *at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier kindly gave me the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. * * * *Background & rationale * * * *At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.* * * *Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new gTLD programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP are making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider community are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization and the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.* * * *Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation. Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish this would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed to accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.* * * *The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and therefore its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.* * * *Clear, committed lines of responsibility. * * * *ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be led by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one of the three lines:* *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* *2) Policy, Process, Legal* *3) Finance, administration* * * *Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair, whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first stage.* * * *Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond the pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal engagement from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at other levels.* * * *This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this morning at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your comments.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * * * * * * *

5 5

Final Prague GAC Communique
by Alan Greenberg July 2, 2012

July 2, 2012

Attached is the GAC Communique from the Prague meeting.

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
by Alan Greenberg June 30, 2012

June 30, 2012

Gee, some of you people do not know how to take a weekend off after a rather tiring ICANN week. I will be commenting on this at some length, but not today! Not sure why this is on the regular list and the internal one, but keeping my reply on the regular list. Alan At 30/06/2012 12:41 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Dear Fouad, Jean-Jacques and all, > >as sb. who has no say here neither, I dare to express my opinion as well: > >* to me, JJ's suggestions seem to be well measured and appealing >with a clear diversification of roles, commitments and >sub-responsibilities as an accomplishment - or discharge - of the >multi-multi functions of the Chair. I am often wondering how one >person / Olivier can meet all those expectations and roles without >sliding into a burnout sooner or later? > >* I have not understood that JJ suggests more positions or any >sounding titles but is advocating for a clearer assignment of >complementary functions to make the ALAC leadership more effective >and prepared for new and increasing challenges! > >Therefore, I entirely agree with his suggestions what may also >strengthen regional aspects and concerns. > >I would have strongly appreciated such moves, models and discussions >in Prague -- instead of repetitive briefings and permanent dancing >in a round (like secondary language or procedure issues etc.), as >mentioned at the ExCom meeting ;-) > >Kind regards, >Wolf > > >Fouad Bajwa wrote Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:03 > >Dear JJS, > > > >I believe we are At-Large and not extra ordinary. Why not allow the Chair > >to appoint Special Advisors instead of so many Vice Chairs should the Chair > >require it on adhoc basis and that ends as soon as the task ends. > > > >Even appointing more Vice Chairs would be a legal concern and would require > >equal consensual deliberation. > > > >In today's world flatter organizations achieve more because of remote > >dispersion but 24/7 Internet based availability. Highly structured > >organizations are a vision and bureaucracies of the past and are crumbling. > > > >ALAC has wonderfully pragmatic and ethically sound members from my POV and > >they do not need additional VP posts as such posts are to boast and do not > >add to the great meaningful contributions they make. > > > >ALAC would sound like a bank with such designations in a large number and > >it feels that we want to make another structured ICANN in ICANN. > > > >Though I do not know the fine print in details of what provoked such a > >motivation but WG and their Chairs work so make 3 or more alac WGs with 3 > >or more Chairs. > > > >You should look at the ICANN board. There is one Chair with the rest as > >members of the board where as the board members chair a number of board > >committee. > > > >Let us be At-Large and not Extraordinarily Structured. > > > >Fouad Bajwa > >On Jun 30, 2012 6:22 AM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> *This is to follow up on comments by Carlton and Fouad:* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Carlton,* > >> *- thanks for supporting the general idea.* > >> *- You suggest this be discussed at the next ALAC meeting, and taken to > >> the ALAC RoP WG: I agree. As I'm not a member of the RoP WG, I would > >> appreciate being associated with its work if my proposal is taken up.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Dear Fouad,* > >> *- thank you for your support.* > >> *- Number of Vice Chairs: I do not hold any religious belief about this. > >> I say no to 5 because representation of regions is not the point here. I > >> put forward the figure 3 because, IMO, the main tasks of ALAC fit into 3 > >> categories.* > >> *- You suggest entrusting these 3 lines of responsibility to RALO > >> representatives, and not to ALAC members. This requires legal advice on > >> whether the two solutions are really equivalent (voting rights, etc.).* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> * > >> 2012/6/30 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > >> > >>> As an observer with no say in this, though I support many of the > >>> suggestions, I do not support 5 Vice Chairs for ALAC. There > should be just > >>> one vice chair to help the chair or two to sit in on his behalf if > >>> anything > >>> arises. > >>> > >>> Why have so many vice chairs when there are reps to the alac from the > >>> ralos. They are already helping the chair. You can have more reps on the > >>> alac if the work increases. Creating more positions in alac > should reflect > >>> ralo needs and not a new organizational structure on the top to honour > >>> people. > >>> > >>> Strengthen ralo participation and alac would appear evolving if you see > >>> ralo leaders rising up to share the alac burden, not the other > way around. > >>> > >>> vice chairs from ralos should then be allowed to participate in alac work > >>> if there is too much burden. Have the vice chairs from ralos come in as > >>> additional vice chairs to alac should the need arise but 5 vice chairs in > >>> alac is out of the question and gives undue authority to members to male > >>> public statements without following the bottom up process. No more > >>> structures should be made. The new gtlds do not call for more structures, > >>> they call for efficiency while sustaining transparency. Resolve the > >>> process > >>> obstacles and you will he happy without more structures. > >>> > >>> If our regional reps made such suggestions for new vice chairs without > >>> discussing with their ralo then I will be disappointed. > >>> > >>> Fouad Bajwa > >>> On Jun 29, 2012 4:07 PM, "JJS" <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > *Dear Olivier & Colleagues,* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier > kindly gave me > >>> > the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Background & rationale * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its > >>> > parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in > >>> > approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new > >>> gTLD > >>> > programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the > >>> > allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear > >>> > principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP > >>> are > >>> > making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider > >>> community > >>> > are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization > >>> and > >>> > the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will > >>> > impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation. > >>> > Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish > >>> this > >>> > would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed > >>> to > >>> > accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and > >>> therefore > >>> > its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose > >>> > implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Clear, committed lines of responsibility. * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be > >>> led > >>> > by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one > >>> of > >>> > the three lines:* > >>> > *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* > >>> > *2) Policy, Process, Legal* > >>> > *3) Finance, administration* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair, > >>> > whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be > >>> > expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial > >>> > element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first > >>> > stage.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation > >>> > comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond > >>> the > >>> > pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal > >>> engagement > >>> > from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our > >>> > structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at > >>> > other levels.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this > >>> morning > >>> > at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your > comments.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > *Best regards,* > >>> > *Jean-Jacques.* > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > * > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > ALAC-Internal mailing list > >>> > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >>> > > >>> > ALAC Wiki: > >>> > > >>> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >>> > > >>> > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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-Internal mailing list > >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > > >ALAC Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > >EuroDIG Secretariat >http://www.eurodig.org/ >mobile +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org > >Profile on LinkedIn >http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > >ALAC Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1 0

Re: [ALAC] More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Hi Beau It makes more sense for you to say something than for me. My statement was a disappointment that what was a multi-stakeholder working group with a range of proposals to improve the RAA for all users is now seen as just a GNSO working group dealing with LEA proposals in two party negotiations. But what you say is more broadly drawn. Comments on your statement: On redrafting of 3.7.8: the conclusion we came to was that even the new version uses the term 'reasonable' - and unless it is clear what steps a registrar must take for their behaviour to be considered as reasonable, the term can let registrars off the hook And I like the other proposals HOlly On Thu 28/06/12 6:36 PM , Beau Brendler beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net sent: 1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC Working List >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 [1] >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [2] >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [4]) >> >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [7]) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [10]) Links: ------ [1] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ic… [2] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [3] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [4] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [5] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlar… [6] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.at… [7] https://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommu… [8] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [9] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [10] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Fwd: Revised motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this topic on the Thursday 28 June public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum topic list. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action nor of the content of the .com agreement. The process followed by the Board is objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. To give the impression that the Board is interested in additional community comment but then make a decision five days earlier is not appropriate. It is imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

1 0

More proposed motions for the Thursday wrap-up
by Beau Brendler June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

1. Support and submit the re-wording of RAA 3.7.8, as well as supporting the draft text language in the new RAA along with the whois guidance document. 2. Name a public-interest liaison from ALAC to the RAA accreditation agreements, which are currently closed. 3. Agree to collaborate with the registrar community to create a statement requiring the compliance department to resolve the problem of fake domain expiration notices. 4. Name a task force or investigative panel to review the work of the compliance department and produce a report by Toronto recommending an improved way forward. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Jun 28, 2012 4:57 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting > >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to substance and >remind them that we regret the renewal without the thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the substantive >point of departure of our previous statement. We should not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >> contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >> relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >> pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >> enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >> the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >> was not added as a requirement. >> >> There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. >> >> There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >> agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. >> >> It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >> last Saturdays Board meeting. >> >> The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >> The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >> rather just the process that has been followed. >> >> Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >> the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >> substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >> the ALAC pass this motion. >> >> ================= >> >> The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >> with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >> June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 >> . >> >> ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >> time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >> agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >> on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >> agreement at its closed session. >> >> This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >> The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >> at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >> therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >> standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Two points: 1. It is unclear at this moment if the GNSO will or will not pass such a motion. 2. I strongly disagree regarding Whois, and request that you defer discussion of this until I arrive (I am at the GNSO wrap-up now). Alan At 28/06/2012 04:57 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I would support this statement. I would also remain true to >substance and remind them that we regret the renewal without the >thick WHOIS requirement. > >Don't see why we should back away now. Afterall, it was the >substantive point of departure of our previous statement. We should >not let this slide. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com >contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not >relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were >pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will >enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on >the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois >was not added as a requirement. > >There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. > >There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com >agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. > >It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at >last Saturdays Board meeting. > >The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. >The statement will not question the content of the contract, but >rather just the process that has been followed. > >Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on >the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO >substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that >the ALAC pass this motion. > >================= > >The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment >with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 >June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. > >ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some >time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum >agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was >on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the >agreement at its closed session. > >This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. >The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable >at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is >therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest >standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Proposed motion for the Thursday wrap-up meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

You may recall that we made a comment a while ago on the .com contract renewal with Verisign. The substance of that comment is not relevant to this note, but for the record, it was that the we were pleased with many of the changes, particularly those that will enhance security and consumer trust and had no substantive comment on the other changes. However, the we were disappointed that thick Whois was not added as a requirement. There was no expectation that the draft agreement would change as a result. There is a 20 minute slot of time allocated to discussion of the .com agreement during the Thursday afternoon Public Forum. It is therefore rather disturbing that the contract was approved at last Saturdays Board meeting. The GNSO is likely to approve a motion expressing their displeasure. The statement will not question the content of the contract, but rather just the process that has been followed. Following is a statement for ALAC consideration. It is patterned on the GNSO statement. I may suggest a revision of it if the GNSO substantively changes theirs, but otherwise I strongly suggest that the ALAC pass this motion. ================= The At-Large Advisory Committee wishes to express its disappointment with the Board's decision to meet in a closed session on Saturday 23 June to adopt the draft .com renewal agreement: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2. ICANN staff had placed this on the Thursday public forum agenda some time ago, and the .com renewal item remains on the public forum agenda tomorrow. Although we were aware that the .com agreement was on the Board's agenda, we were not aware of the intent to approve the agreement at its closed session. This comment is not with regard to the merits of the Board's action. The ALAC finds the process followed by the Board to be objectionable at a time when ICANN is subject to increased scrutiny. It is therefore imperative that the Board hold itself to the highest standards of transparency and accountability that it is mandated to uphold.

3 3

GNSO Liaison Report - Prague
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

I am currently at the GNSO Wrap-Up session and will join the ALAC Wrap-up part-way through the meeting. My Report ========= I has been a busy but relatively calm meeting, at least compared to the last one. In terms of immediate actions required, the proposed ALAC statement on the .com agreement is the only one. The most interesting session was a review of a number of GNSO issues with ICANN staff. It was a "jaw-dropping" session in that there were a number of issues that most of us in the room found outrageous. The two main issues were: - ICANN doing significant work related to the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, including hiring a consultant to develop EPS (Extensible Provisioning Protocol - the mechanism used for communication the registries) extensions, all without any involvement of or communication with registries or registrars - the ones who are the experts in EPS and who will have to implement the results. - The URS, one of the key protections that ICANN has been claiming to provide security to trademark holders, has been found to be un-implementable at the specified cost. Although the URS was developed by a GNSO body (with involvement of ALAC), but the only notification of this problem was that there was a line in the proposed budget that ICANN was providing funds to hold "summits" to attempt to resolve the issue, all without any explicit involvement of the GNSO. - Digital Archery - well understood that the Board did not consult at all. There has been considerable discussion on issues related to the Red Cross/Red Crystal/International Olympic Committee, Intergovernmental Organizations and the wider non-governmental international organizations (and charities in particular). There are multiple activities going on and this is an issue that will continue for some time. It is quite controversial within At-Large and I would strongly suggest more ALAC/At0Large involvement as the processes go forward. A statement on the open Preliminary Issue Report will be drafted over the next few days (AG, EL, HR). I did not attend the bulk of the open GNSO session yesterday, as I was in the ALAC RoP meeting. I will review the records of the meeting and report on that on the agenda. Alan

1 0

Pointers for Prelim Issue Report on IGO domain name protections
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

The call for comments is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… and the Preliminary Issue Report is at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.…. Alan

1 0

Fwd: informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions
by Alan Greenberg June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

>From: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:10:59 +0200 >Subject: [council] informal batching discussion - summary and conclusions >To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Councillors, >this is a follow-up to the invitation that I sent to the list earlier. > >Please feel free to share the document with your respective groups. > >Thomas > >On Monday, June 25, an informal group of community members convened >to exchange thoughts on potential answers to the questions of >Batching and Digital Archery. > >The group did not neither craft nor agree on a common proposal to >present to the ICANN Board since the time available did not allow >for an attempt to do so. A huge number of ideas and suggestions were >presented and commented on. > >With this document, I would like to briefly summarize those and more >ideas that were brought to my attention in follow-up discussions and >try to structure them. The conclusions I will draw do not represent >the group's view, but my personal thoughts based on the cumulative input. > >The main areas of discussion were > >- Application Evaluation Batching and >- Delegation Batching. > >However, the subjects of Digital Archery as well as the impact of >the letter by the GAC to the ICANN Board on any proposal were also >discussed and deemed necessary factors when defining what could be a >superior solution to the current approach. > >The group also felt that more data was needed to come up with a >sound proposal in order to base calculations on facts rather than >guesses. Apart from questions on parameters of the contracts with >the firms that have been tasked to carry out the evaluation, the >question of the maximum delegation rate per day or week was of >interest to anticipate potential roll-out scenarios in the >delegation phase. Kurt Pritz responded to this both in the informal >meeting as well as during the public session. In summary, there does >not seem to be a clear answer with unambiguous figures rather than >the fact that the 1000 TLDs somewhat need to be distributed over the >year i.e is a rate per year. > >For the evaluation phase, there seemed to be a lot of support and >little or no opposition to processing all applications in a single >batch. That should be done as quickly as possible. While Kurt Pritz >emphasized that quality is of highest priority and that it is not >easy to add more evaluators since they have been trained for months, >ICANN should try to deploy more resources. There is partially >identical information in applications using the same Registry >Service Provider and those of portfolio applicants. For these (and I >am not suggesting that these should be processed in batches), only >the the differences of the applications have to be identified, i.e. >the evaluator would process one in total and then be able to >concentrate on the variations of the applications and the impact of >those on the assessment of the application. By doing so, it should >be possible to expedite the evaluation process significantly. I >understand that there are other proposals currently being drafted >which focus exclusively on incasing process efficiency. > >There did not seem to be an unanimous view on whether all results of >initial evaluation should be published at the same time or whether >they should be published as their evaluation is completed. A >proposal was made to publish the results for individual applications >as the initial evaluation is completed and then queue them for >delegation as they are ready to go until the delegation rate limit >of 1000 TLDs per year is reached. > >Numerous proposals have been made to establish a sequence of >processing and then delegating TLDs. > >These can roughly be grouped into the following categories: > >- Clustering > >Several participants argued for different treatment for different >types of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs, Community TLDs, >grouping by competitors (applicants should tell who should not be >delegated earlier than their application), grouping not only by >contention sets, but also by synonyms (i.e. .music should be grouped >with .hiphop). > >- Financial > >Proposals were made to provide financial incentives to those who >agree to be processed later or to give each applicant one point and >that such points can be traded. > >- Choice > >Applicants should get the opportunity to opt-out and portfolio >applicants could volunteer to prioritize their own applications. > >- Natural sequencing > >Several attendees pointed to the fact that there will be a natural >sequencing because of contention sets, objections, extended >evaluations, GAC Advice, differences of time required for contract >negotiation and execution. > >In addition to that, withdrawals or rejections of applications will >further reduce the number of TLDs that need to be delegated. > >Another idea was to use the quality of the applications as a basis >for sequencing them, eg. by scoring them or taking into account the >requirement to get back to the applicant for additional information. > >Conclusions: > >It seems like creating groups of applications, such as IDNs, geoTLDs >etc., is not an approach that gets broad community support. No >matter how legitimate the reasons brought forward may be to either >prioritize those or at least ensure that they are not processed at >the end of the queue, it seems unrealistic to serve all these groups. > >Thus, it will be difficult to establish a new methodology for >clustering applications as the basis for creating an order for >processing and delegating them. > >A combination of various elements described above could be an >eligible solution. These elements could be: > >- Resources: ICANN should hire more resources to provide for an >expedient evaluation taking into account the suggestions above. > >- Choice: Applicants should say whether the earliest possible >delegation is of high, medium or low priority for them. The >applications will be processed in that order. > >- Complexity: In terms of complexity, a distinction needs to be made >between external and internal factors. > >Internal factors: Priority is given to applications with, i.e. where >no additional information has to be requested and where no extended >evaluation is required. This addresses the widely welcome idea that >quality should be a factor. > >External factors: Where contentions, objections or GAC advice are >given, the applications are processed in the order these issues are resolved. > >The results of the initial evaluation of applications where no >clarifying information had to be provided by the applicant was >required, should be published at the same time. For the remaining >applications, the results should be published whenever the >evaluation is completed. > >The applications will then be processed whenever the respective next >stage is reached. There will be a natural sequencing because of >different time needed for contract negotiations and execution. > >It should also be noted that the delegation process is not under >ICANN's exclusive control, which will provide for additional sequencing. > >Again, this document and the conclusion is an attempt to summarize >and amalgamate proposals and feedback into what might be a possible >approach. It is an effort in personal capacity which does not >necessarily represent the view of the participants. > >Please circulate to those who are interested. I will collect >feedback and make that available later this week. > >Thomas Rickert

1 0

Half of all new top-level domains will fail, CIRA says
by Evan Leibovitch June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

Just half? That's optimistic. http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=67442 - Evan

1 0

IRTP C
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

I was asked to review the Initial Report of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C PDP WG, and recommend whether the ALAC should comment on it, and if so, to draft a comment. The call for comments can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e… and the Interim Report at English version of the report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf (other languages at first link). The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is primarily focused on the transfer of a registered domain name from one registrar to another. However, at the time of Registrar Transfer, there is often also a change of who the registrant is, yet the IRTP is silent on any aspect of that. Since transfers of this sort are often associated with domain hijacking, it should certainly be of concern to At-Large and ALAC. The PDP is also looking at a number of other aspects of IRTP including how Registrars are identified (currently some registries use proprietary identifications). I strongly recommend that the ALAC comment on this report and my draft comment follows. The initial comment period closes on July 5th. Alan ===================================================== The ALAC supports the general direction that the IRTP C PDP WG is heading. Specifically, the ALAC strongly supports all measures the will reduce the possibility of domain hijacking while still providing legitimate registrants the ability to change registrars. The ALAC similarly supports all efforts to formally define the process by which the registrant of record can be changed, with implicit safeguards to inhibit hijacking. The ALAC does not have strong views as to whether this needs to be a separate consensus policy of not, but the overall results and benefits to registrants should not be diminished by this decision. The ALAC supports the requirement to have all gTLDs use the IANA Registrar IDs (in addition to any proprietary ones if desired). Lastly, the report could benefit from a clearer overview describing the change of registrar and registrant processes.

1 0

Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs
by Evan Leibovitch June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

I don't always agree with Lauren (Weinetstein, I mean, not my wife). And I don't agree with the excesses of his conclusions. However, his take is an interesting one worth understanding. I have put forth the premise that the reason for the lack of African and applicant support TLD applications has only a little to do with poor communications. Rather, I suggest that non-speculators have determined they have better uses for $185K (even after an Applicant Support discount is applied) than for a TLD. - Evan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> Date: 25 June 2012 05:25 Subject: [ NNSquad ] Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org Casino Owner donates $1M to charity, rather than buying gTLDs http://j.mp/LUsx5F (Huffington) "An anonymous Las Vegas casino owner has struck again - this time with a $1 million donation to help needy people." - - - The subject line I chose for this posting is purposely somewhat deceptive. There is no direct connection between this charity gift and ICANN. But it is still an *accurate* statement. We have here an example of someone who chose to use a million dollars to help the needy, when he could have used it for anything else -- including buying gTLDs from ICANN. When I saw this story, I couldn't help but be reminded of the 100's of millions of dollars -- approaching half a billion at least, that have been funnelled to ICANN for gTLD submissions, which will mainly serve primarily to enrich the domain-industrial complex -- and lots of affiliated lawyers as well, of course. How else might that vast amount of money have been spent in this time of vast economic want, when so many people don't have basic necessities. Imagine if those funds had been donated to charity, or for other truly community-positive purposes. I don't really blame the corporations that have felt it necessary to participate in the corrupt, conflict of interest ridden, ineptly executed, and ethically vacuous gTLD process. Since the process exists, it could be argued that it would be negligent from a business standpoint not to participate. I do, however, accuse ICANN in its current state of being morally bankrupt to a level that if not criminal, is at the very least bobbling at that threshold. They should be ashamed of themselves. More than that, we should be ashamed of *ourselves* for permitting this gTLD travesty to exist and continue, while so many people need so much real help, and the Internet itself is saddled with so many serious problems relating to control, free speech, censorship, and so much else. We are failing in our stewardship of the Net. Miserably. --Lauren--

1 0

Briefing Document: Second-Level Protections in New gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

During its 12 April meeting http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…, the Board passed a motion that included: >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD >Program Committee is not directing any changes >to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive >gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD >Program Committee directs staff to provide a >briefing paper on the topic of defensive >registrations at the second level and requests >the GNSO to consider whether additional work on >defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken; The briefing paper has now been released and is attached. The GNSO has not yet addressed this. I note that this initiative overlaps very significantly with the current GNSO Drafting Team focusing on special protections for International Red Cross and Olympics, and the Possible PDP on protections for Inter-governmental Organizations (See draft Issue Paper - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…) There is the possibility for up to three parallel efforts utilizing significant volunteer and staff resources and at worst could go in three different directions. Alan >Dear Stephane: >With the closing of the application period for, >and the pending delegation of new gTLDs, the >ICANN community is encouraged to continue to >consider the perceived need for defensive >registrations at the second level, and whether >additional protections for established legal >rights at the second level should be developed and implemented. >In its 12 April 2012 resolution regarding >defensive applications (top-level protections) , >the New gTLD Committee ofthe Board acknowledged >that the sense of the public discussion on this >issue through the public comment forum and the >public workshop at the Costa Rica Meeting >indicated that trademark protections should >continue to be discussed and developed for the >registration of second-level domain names. As >required by the Boards resolution, ICANN staff >members have drafted a briefing paper on this topic. >The paper suggests that the GNSO Council >consider utilizing one of its available >processes such as requesting an Issue Report or >conducting a policy discussion to address the >issue whether additional work on defensive >registrations at the second level should be undertaken. >We welcome comments on this paper. Please send >me any comment or questions you might have. >Best regards >Kurt Pritz >ICANN > cc: GAC Heather Dryden > ALAC - Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Agenda - ICANN Board meeting Saturday 23 June 2012
by Alan Greenberg June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

"I would have thought" was an indication that I am still less than happy with no open Board meeting, but rather closed ones instead. Alan At 20/06/2012 04:42 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >To clarify 'I would have thought' translates to >mean "I think y'all (ALAC) should be interested >in these 2 pieces of Board's business? > >Not a reflection on the agenda items submitted >for the Board/ALAC meeting, right? > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Comment a bottom > > >From: > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm > > > >23 June 2012 > > > >Consent Agenda For Approval: > >============================== > > > >- Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board > >Meeting Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 15 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 16 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 28 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 10 April 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Minutes of 6 May 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting > >- Delegation of ÚãÇä (Oman) > >- SSAC Report on Dotless Domains > >- Ombudsman Regular Meetings with the Board > >- GNSO Improvements Program Wrap-Up/June 2012 > >- NomCom Transparency Guidelines > >- .post RSEP Request > > > >Main Agenda > >============ > > > >- Renewal of .com > >- FY13 Budget & Operating Plan > >- Location of April 2013 ICANN Public Meeting > >- WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > >- Any Other Business > >I would have thought that the .com agreement >would have been of considerable interest to the >committee. And the budget as well. > >Alan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Agenda - ICANN Board meeting Saturday 23 June 2012
by Alan Greenberg June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

Comment a bottom >From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-23jun12-en.htm > >23 June 2012 > >Consent Agenda For Approval: >============================== > >- Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board >Meeting Minutes of 14 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 15 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 16 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 28 March 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 10 April 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Minutes of 6 May 2012 ICANN Special Board Meeting >- Delegation of ÚãÇä (Oman) >- SSAC Report on Dotless Domains >- Ombudsman Regular Meetings with the Board >- GNSO Improvements Program Wrap-Up/June 2012 >- NomCom Transparency Guidelines >- .post RSEP Request > >Main Agenda >============ > >- Renewal of .com >- FY13 Budget & Operating Plan >- Location of April 2013 ICANN Public Meeting >- WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report >- Any Other Business I would have thought that the .com agreement would have been of considerable interest to the committee. And the budget as well. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Alan Greenberg June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

During the "reveal" Cherine made it clear that the archery process would proceed. But it was far from clear that the results would be used. He said that the Board had heard the discomfort in the community and would consider alternatives following discussions in Prague. I read this as saying they may be open to not using the results and using some other methodology to process the applications. Interestingly, one of the implications of the contention that the evaluation process will be far easier than expected due to the relatively small number of actually applicants (particularly after you exclude the .brand applications which are likely to breeze through) is that the price of $185k was an overestimate too. Alan At 18/06/2012 02:18 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >This new post justifies my original unease and adds to that evolved >from the Kinderis letter. > >But other than question the equity of the thing - not to mention the >kinda dumb attempt to sell this DA as more than a lottery + the >services being advertised to 'game' DA - I'm not sure the ALAC has >much of a dog in this race. > >Somebody will sue.... > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >For those who haven't already read it, see Antony Van Couverings >CircleID post from last Sunday - ><http://www.circleid.com/posts/0120610_biggest_glitch_of_all_icanns_batching…>http://www.circleid.com/posts/0120610_biggest_glitch_of_all_icanns_batching… > > >At 07/06/2012 06:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >Hello all, > > > >please find below, more information about the Digital Archery which will > >be used to batch new gTLD applications into batches of probably 500 > >applications at a time. With a possible 2000 applications to process, > >some applications might only be processed much later than others and > >this "game" of Digital Archery will set applicants apart. > >Already several firms run by close ICANN insiders are proposing a paying > >service to "win" the Digital Archery using their automation service > >which they claim will ensure their client's applications are considered > >first. This means more sources of profit, but this also means that > >applications which were made possible by thanks to all of the work the > >community did to have Applicant Support, might be discriminated against > >since they will not be able to afford the automated digital archery > >winning service. > > > >Also, looking closely at the terms and conditions of "digital archery", > >(see video on > ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batchin > g-demo>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batching-demo > >at Time 2:37 mark) , applicants using the Digital Archery system agree > >legally that this is a contest of skill rather than a contest of chance. > >Clearly, with the Internet's differing delays depending on where you are > >located, and since digital archery system will be accurate to 100th > >second (as seen on the demo), it is *impossible* for anyone to display > >any kind of skill except by being physically at the data center itself. > >I remind you that delays on the Internet range from 3ms to 700ms or > >more, depending on where you are, since any satellite link will > >automatically induce between 300 to 700ms -- it is a physical > >propagation time needed. And these delays are jittery too. > > > >Is Digital Archery therefore allegedly a game of chance, not controlled > >by any kind of legal structure associated with games of chance, with > >open opportunities for cheating? > > > >There have been calls to the Board by some members in the ccNSO for > >Digital Archery *not* to be used and an alternative process to be > >followed, which may also involve *not* having any batching altogether. > >Others in the GNSO Council have also written to the Board about this, > >with similar findings or other alternative propositions. > >Should we support those comments? > > > >Alas, the Board correspondence page has its last entry on 21 May 2012 > >and the correspondence which I have been CC'ed into was sent on June 4th > >and on June 6th but I have asked if those have already been published. > > > >With Digital Archery starting on June 8th, should the ALAC issue a > >statement on this ASAP? > > > >I'd be interested in your points of view. > > > >Kind regards, > > > >Olivier > >(the above message includes some of my own points of view) > > > > > >-------- Message original -------- > >Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement > >Date : Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:35:29 -0400 > >De : ICANN News Alert > <<mailto:communications@icann.org>communications(a)icann.org> > >Pour : <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> > > > > > > > >ICANN <<http://www.icann.org/>http://www.icann.org/> > > > > > > News Alert > > > ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en > .htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > New gTLD Batching Announcement > > > >6 June 2012 > > > >Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) > >applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching > >system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close > >at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching > >order is 11 July 2012. > > > >The batching process will be used to determine which applications will > >be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be > >done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. > > > >/Timestamp assignments/ will be done using the TLD Application System > >(TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and > >accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and > >select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed > >applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate > >a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to > >gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. > > > >/Batching formation/ considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, > >(2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among > >identical and "similar" applications. > > > > (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed > > last. > > > > (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition > > and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will > > be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, > > Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their > > secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from > > each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach > > selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a > > time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in > > applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining > > regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the > > opted-out applications last. > > > > (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention > > sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention > > set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the > > contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel > > establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be > > reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a > > result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch > > larger than 500. > > > >ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the > >batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp > >high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. > >Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, > >including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an > >application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if > >ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching > >system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or > >any other applicant's use of the system." > > > >Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional > >resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include > >a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user > >guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, > >which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at > ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/>http://newgt > lds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on > >security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these > >materials. > > > > > > > >This message was sent to <mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com from: > > > >ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > > > > > > >Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! > ><<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > > ><http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=Y > VM2&m=884550&c=165637> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Comm > ittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

Hello all, please find below, more information about the Digital Archery which will be used to batch new gTLD applications into batches of probably 500 applications at a time. With a possible 2000 applications to process, some applications might only be processed much later than others and this "game" of Digital Archery will set applicants apart. Already several firms run by close ICANN insiders are proposing a paying service to "win" the Digital Archery using their automation service which they claim will ensure their client's applications are considered first. This means more sources of profit, but this also means that applications which were made possible by thanks to all of the work the community did to have Applicant Support, might be discriminated against since they will not be able to afford the automated digital archery winning service. Also, looking closely at the terms and conditions of "digital archery", (see video on http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batching-demo at Time 2:37 mark) , applicants using the Digital Archery system agree legally that this is a contest of skill rather than a contest of chance. Clearly, with the Internet's differing delays depending on where you are located, and since digital archery system will be accurate to 100th second (as seen on the demo), it is *impossible* for anyone to display any kind of skill except by being physically at the data center itself. I remind you that delays on the Internet range from 3ms to 700ms or more, depending on where you are, since any satellite link will automatically induce between 300 to 700ms -- it is a physical propagation time needed. And these delays are jittery too. Is Digital Archery therefore allegedly a game of chance, not controlled by any kind of legal structure associated with games of chance, with open opportunities for cheating? There have been calls to the Board by some members in the ccNSO for Digital Archery *not* to be used and an alternative process to be followed, which may also involve *not* having any batching altogether. Others in the GNSO Council have also written to the Board about this, with similar findings or other alternative propositions. Should we support those comments? Alas, the Board correspondence page has its last entry on 21 May 2012 and the correspondence which I have been CC'ed into was sent on June 4th and on June 6th but I have asked if those have already been published. With Digital Archery starting on June 8th, should the ALAC issue a statement on this ASAP? I'd be interested in your points of view. Kind regards, Olivier (the above message includes some of my own points of view) -------- Message original -------- Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement Date : Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:35:29 -0400 De : ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Pour : <ocl(a)gih.com> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New gTLD Batching Announcement 6 June 2012 Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching order is 11 July 2012. The batching process will be used to determine which applications will be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. /Timestamp assignments/ will be done using the TLD Application System (TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. /Batching formation/ considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, (2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among identical and "similar" applications. (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed last. (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the opted-out applications last. (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch larger than 500. ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or any other applicant's use of the system." Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these materials. This message was sent to ocl(a)gih.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=YVM2&m=884…>

10 14

LACRALO’s Paper on the Draft Language Services Policies and Procedures Document published on May 18th, 2012
by Presidencia Internauta June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

Dear Olivier and collegues: LACRALO made a paper on the Draft Language Services Policies and Procedures Document. We are sending the document as a contribution to the discussion. Kind Regards -- *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [At-Large] Registrars: The new travel agents? (was Re: Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics)
by Evan Leibovitch June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Followup: Almost everyone in the domain industry -- based on publicity to date -- has been following Verisign and its monetization / distribution model, differing mainly in target audiences, services levels and choices of partners. It's a path of tradition, not necessity, that could have looked very different had ICANN made different priorities a decade ago. The newcomers, absent such tradition, offer alternatives -- not replacements -- to that status quo; whether these alternatives succeed is of course far from being determined. Like Bret, I agree that the "domain tenancy" model is *not* a broadly useful models. But then, it may be possible that -- like has been envisioned for some dot-brands -- that these domains are primarily for Amazon internal use. What if Amazon, for instance, used an entire TLD as a basis for categorization of goods in its virtual department store? (ie http://www.rum.beverages.food.amazon) In any case, Amazon is not what I was referring to, in thinking about the disruption that bothers Michele. Why did Amazon need so many nearly identical TLDs? Not sure. Don't really care. It looks like some were purely defensive against Google, IMO, as the domain game is sometimes less about getting a name than preventing others from doing so (or getting in the way such as you must be paid off for merely being involved). How many existing applications have no intention to sell subdomains but exist for purely speculative or defensive purposes? But it only takes one truly disruptive TLD from amongst the hundreds to turn the rest of the industry on its ear. I don't have any trust at all in the "intentions" part of the applications, since existing gTLDs have had a habit of breaking commitments in their application when convenient, and there have been no consequences for doing so. In other words, I'm not speculating on the future based on the content of the applications, but rather based on the past and current behavior of some of the applicants. So I look at what Google and Microsoft and Apple have done to the commercial email (ie, Lotus Notes), and GPS industries. I see how some internet service companies don't need to directly monetize domains any more than they monetize email, productivity applications, media players, mapping services.or even computer operating services. It is from this history that I see a potential future of domain industry disruption as described in my first email. Studying the applications will not, IMO, reveal the disruption to come. - Evan

1 0

Future of CWGs
by Alan Greenberg June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012

A reply from the ccNSO on the GNSO draft principles related to cross constituency working groups. There will be a session in Prague on this subject - Monday at 14:00 - http://prague44.icann.org/node/31641, and I have been asked to be on the panel. Alan >From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >Subject: [council] Re: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:04:29 +0200 >To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hi Lesley, > >Thanks for this. I am copying the Council for >their information and I agree that this would be >an excellent topic for our joint meeting in Prague. > >Best, > >Stéphane Van Gelder >Directeur Général / General manager >INDOM Group NBT France >---------------- >Head of Domain Operations >Group NBT > >Le 12 juin 2012 à 22:50, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > >>Hi Stéphane, >> >>Further to your email of 15th March on cross >>community working groups to the chairs of the >>SOs and ACs, the ccNSO Council has now been >>able to review the drafting team output. >> >>The ccNSO Council appreciates the work done to >>date by the GNSO. It is our understanding that >>the GNSO sought input and feedback from other SOs and ACs on: >> >>1. The principles themselves, and >>2. The route forward for community-wide >>adoption or development of a related set of >>principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups >> >>On the principles, and acknowledging they are >>high level, some aspects relating to the >>creation, working and decision-making processes >>relating to cross-community working groups may >>need additional coverage by principles, in particular: >> * Defining the purpose and scope of a working group; >> * What should be included in a charter >> * Decision making by the participating SOs >> and ACs, in particular in case of >>> o Disagreement across participating SOs and ACs or >>> o Between WG and (one of the) a participating SO or AC. >>The ccNSO Council views are based on an >>analysis of both the principles and our >>experience with cross community working groups >>to date. This analysis is available. >> >>As to the route forward, the ccNSO Council >>suggests the setting-up of a cross-community >>working group, with the goal to arrive at >>common set of principles and the identification >>of areas of divergence in guidelines and >>practices across SOs and ACs. Such a WG >>should take into account the experiences of the >>cross community working groups to date (both >>those that are active and closed) and include >>the active participation of ICANN staff, who >>over time have gained significant experience >>with the formation and functioning of cross community working groups. >> >>Perhaps we could discuss next steps at the >>SO/AC Chair's meeting and or the ccNSO GNSO lunch meeting in Prague? >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Lesley Cowley OBE, >>Chair of the ccNSO >>Lesley Cowley, OBE >>CEO >>Nominet >>Minerva House >>Edmund Halley Road >>Oxford Science Park >>Oxford, OX4 4DQ >>UK >> >>Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 >><http://www.nominet.org.uk/>http://www.nominet.org.uk/ >> >>From: Stéphane Van Gelder >><<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>Date: Thursday, 15 March 2012 21:30 >>To: Lesley Cowley >><<mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk>lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, >>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >><<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik >>Fältström >><<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>patrik(a)frobbit.se>, >>John Curran >><<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>jcurran(a)arin.net>, >>Heather Dryden >><<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, >>Louie Lee <<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net> >>Subject: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs >> >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>You may be aware that over the course of last >>year the GNSO Council launched a drafting team >>to examine the issues associated with the >>formation and operation of Community / Cross-Community working groups. >> >>The output of the drafting team was >>encapsulated in a set of draft principles which >>were accepted by the Council through a motion >>passed at the 14 March 2012 meeting of the GNSO Council. >> >>The motion is linked to here: >> >><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20…>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… >> >>The draft principles are linked to here: >> >><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf >> >>It is important to note here that work >>undertaken by the drafting team was undertaken >>specifically in order to develop a GNSO Council agreed perspective. >>The output shared here is not in any way >>intended to presume that this is a broader, community agreed position. >> >>Accordingly we are offering this work as input >>into the discussion which you may wish to >>initiate or further develop within your organisation or committee. >> >>Best, >> >>Stéphane Van Gelder >>GNSO Council Chair

1 0

Fwd: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability, Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections
by Alan Greenberg June 9, 2012

June 9, 2012

From the GNSO Council list. >>From: >><mailto:board-gtlds-bounces@icann.org>board-gtlds-bounces(a)icann.org >>[mailto:board-gtlds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of >><mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca >>Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:32 AM >>To: board-gtlds(a)icann.org >>Cc: jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org; kurt.pritz(a)icann.org; >>jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gac(a)gac.icann.org >>Subject: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root >>Scalability,Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections >> >>Dear Cherine, gTLD Committee colleagues, >> >> >>(cc GAC) >> >> >>At this time, I would like to provide the following comments on >>behalf of the GAC. >> >> >>The GAC believes it is important to address the concerns raised by >>the GAC and others about the fairness of Digital Archery, before it >>is launched. >> >> >>The GAC further understands that the Board gTLD Committee intends >>to communicate next steps for providing further information to the >>GAC and identifying where there are linkages between Digital >>Archery, Batching, Root Scalability, Early Warning and GAC >>Advice/Objections so that there can be agreement reached, where >>appropriate, on the process and timelines. In essence, the GAC >>needs further information about ICANN's approach in order to >>finalise its own processes. >> >> >>Lastly, please be informed that the GAC intends to send a letter of >>advice before the meeting in Prague, related to the above. >> >> >>Best, >>Heather Dryden >>Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee >> >>

4 3

Re: [ALAC] ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

At 08/06/2012 10:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >DA is also based on something random -- that is, whatever reference >moment the selected timestamp is supposed to be closest to. >The main difference between my checksum method and DA is that the >applicant's "entry" -- in the form of the checksums of their >applications -- already exists and can't possibly be gamed after the fact. > >I agree with Avri, that if the checksum method is susceptible to >challenge as an illegal lottery of chance then so is DA. Yup. That is what I said, although perhaps not as clearly. >OTOH, there are a number of non-random methods to create the >reference point for my alternate scheme. One of them could be to >collect the first page of every application, make a checksum of THAT >resulting (1900 page) document, and use that checksum as the >reference against which to measure the others. I like that one! Of course, if they had announced that ahead of time, it could have been gamed as well (presuming the page size and algorithm were fixed). >- Evan

2 1