August 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Dear All, In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those putting in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline where others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done. They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is nothing to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees will be asked for their perspective. Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>wrote: > Dear all, > > When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model > (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph : > > > Services to Registries > > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries will > pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still > being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently available > information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due > per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims > processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and > testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > participation in other programs or ancillary services. > > Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are of > benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is mentioned : > > > Services to Rightsholders > > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication > as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes > that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion and > the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard for > Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of > the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are performed > together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an individual > price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of rights > data for authentication. > > The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication and > validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual > renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of the > initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and > straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional services > will add to the cost. > > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such as > a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to > the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic submissions > might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs. > > > As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to get > their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by the > registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !! > > What's ALAC's position in this ? > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het volgende > geschreven: > > > Dear All, > > > > There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing > Hose > > Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much > > discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The > > recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark- > > > > For now here is my take on what occurred. > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation > Model.docx>_______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

3 3

Niagara Falls Tour @ ICANN Toronto, Oct 20 - 2nd call
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Hello everyone, Based on positive response to date I have confirmed that there will be an all day tour of Niagara Falls, to take place Saturday October 20 immediately following the ICANN meeting in Toronto. Now that many of you are making travel arrangements at this time I would like you to consider joining us. This is an all day tour that leaves the venue (the Westin Harbour Castle Hotel) at 08:30 and returns at 18:00. The tour costs $99 (Canadian or USD) and includes: - A private coach and guide from Niagara and Toronto Tours<http://www.niagaratorontotours.com/> - Travel through Ontario wine country, stopping at Pillitieri Estates Winery <http://www.pillitteri.com/> (including tasting of red, white and ice wine) - 45 minutes stopover in the historic town of Niagara-on-the-Lake<http://www.niagaratorontotours.com/itinary002.htm> - Scenic drive along the Niagara Parkway (just about the time of year the leaves will be turning colour) - Guided photo stop at the Niagara gorge and whirlpool rapids<http://www.niagaratorontotours.com/itinary007.htm> - Tickets for the Skylon observation tower <http://www.skylon.com/>overlooking the falls - Three-course lunch at the top of the Skylon, in the Summit Suite restaurant <http://www.skylon.com/summitdining.html> - Free time at the Falls and Clifton Hill <http://www.cliftonhill.com/>tourist area After evaluating various options, the tour operator has forgone pre-payment. However, it is necessary to confirm your intention to attend so that we can confirm sufficient numbers. PLEASE COMPLETE THIS DOODLE POLL TO INDICATE YOU WILL BE GOING<http://doodle.com/yskh84mh7yza5yxw> Note: If ICANN is paying for your travel to Toronto, *you will have to inform Constituency Travel about the later departure and pay for any hotel beyond Oct 19 yourself*. If you are looking for less expensive accommodations nearby, you may consider the Super 8 Downtown Toronto<http://www.super8downtowntoronto.com/>, in Chinatown and a short streetcar ride from the venue Basic but reasonable and a great location. If that is unaailable, the Radisson Hotel Admiral Toronto-Harbourfront<http://www.radisson.com/toronto-hotel-on-m5j2n5/ontoront>is slightly more expensive (though atill way less than the Westin) and less than five minute walk from the venue. I hope you'll all enjoy Toronto and Canada! -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Possible Wiki for ALAC comments on Trademark Clearinghouse procedures
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Hi Olivier, I was wondering whether we could have a wiki dedicated to Trademark Clearing House Issues so that there is a dedicated site to collate and generate feedback. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:15 AM Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Rudi also posted a message to the ALAC GTLD WG and I replied with a bit of the history. Alan >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:22:48 -0400 >To: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, gTLD WG > <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Staff At Large <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures > >This has been discussed since the start of the TMCH concept. > >The IRT said that the cost to TM holders should be "reasonable" but I >believe it was silent on whether ICANN or Registries should contribute. > >The STI report said the "cost should be born by users" but was silent >on who the users were, but the implication is both TM holders and >Registries. The rationale was that if the TMCH did not exist, the >registry would have to build a comparable system itself (although the >registry could then absorb part of the cost or put it all on TM >holders). The report was explicit that ICANN should not fund the CH >nor should the CH provide funds to ICANN. The Registry SG and NCSG >issues a minority opinion that TM should fund the entire cost. > >The final AG said "Costs should be completely borne by the parties >utilizing the services. Trademark holders will pay to register the >Clearinghouse, and registries will pay for Trademark Claims and >Sunrise services. Registrars and others who avail themselves of >Clearinghouse services will pay the Clearinghouse directly." > >Alan > >At 22/08/2012 09:18 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >Yesterday, I've participated remotely to the TMCH 2-days meetings in > >Brussels. A very interesting meeting with many discussions > >illustrating the TMCH solution is not yet in a consensus level. > >However, the provider is selected and should start delivering > >solutions. From the meeting I understood nothing has yet being > >worked out and the community was asked for input / approval of > >processes to implement. > > > >When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost > >Model (version 1 June 2012) (see attached PDF) I was surprised > >reading the following paragraph : > > > > > Services to Registries > > > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that > > registries will pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. > > Further details are still being worked out; however, initial > > estimates based on currently available information indicate that a > > set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due per TLD registry. The > > set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes as > > established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and > > testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > > participation in other programs or ancillary services. > > > >Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that > >are of benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph > >is mentioned : > > > > > Services to Rightsholders > > > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) > > authentication as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. > > The first establishes that rights information meets the criteria > > for Clearinghouse inclusion and the second establishes that a > > Clearinghouse record meets the standard for Sunrise eligibility as > > described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of the trademark. A > > bundled fee is expected where these services are performed > > together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an > > individual price if such is requested subsequent to the original > > submission of rights data for authentication. > > > The bundled fee or price for these initial services > > (authentication and validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 > > per submission. Annual renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are > > expected at a percentage of the initial price. The low fee requires > > that submissions be inexpensive and straightforward to process. > > Complex circumstances and additional services will add to the cost. > > > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required > > (such as a re-submission due to errors in the original submission > > or an appeal to the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, > > non-electronic submissions might be available at a higher rate in > > order to cover handling costs. > > > > > >As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee > >to get their name been protected while the majority of the cost is > >covered by the registry, which in the end means the registrant will > >pay for it !! > > > >At the other side, the registry (applicant) already invested > >185.000$ at least and should now add to this amount at least 7000 $. > >Was this foreseen in the Guidebook ? As far as I could see yet, it > >wasn't. Does this mean that applicants could eventually be able to > >withdraw with full reimbursement of their investment ? > > > >Just some thoughts and reflections after yesterday's meetings ... > > > >What's ALAC's position in this ? > > > >Rudi Vansnick > > > >_______________________________________________ > >GTLD-WG mailing list > >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > >Working Group direct URL: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > >_______________________________________________ >GTLD-WG mailing list >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > >Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

2 2

FOR REVIEW: At-Large Delegates to the NomCom: Next steps
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Dear All, ICANN's Nominating Committee has asked the At-Large Advisory Committee to submit a list with ALAC delegates from each of ICANN's five geographic regions. According to the ICANN Bylaws (XI-2.4.e <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI-2.4> ): The ALAC shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI to the Nominating Committee. Therefore, on behalf of Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, please see below the names of the candidates recommended by the RALOs for the position of At-Large Delegate to the 2013 NomCom for your review: AFRALO - Mohamed El Bashir<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Mohamed+El+Bashir+Bio+Page> APRALO - Siranush Vardanyan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/18121045/Siranush+Vardanya…> EURALO - Veronica Cretu<http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/alac/cretu.html> LACRALO - Results of prioritization vote: 1) Vanda Scartezini<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/scartezini.htm> ; 2) Jacqueline Morris<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Jacqueline+Morris+Bio+Page> Details: Upon close of the poll, and the weighting of the votes, the results<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2586NxIJjsrBAeZ25Yip75Dr> are: · Jacqueline Morris - 29.42 · Vanda Scartezini - 32.77 · Abstain - 0 · No Vote - 37.77 NARALO - Glenn McKnight<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Glenn+McKnight+Bio+Page> The ALAC will need to carry out an endorsement vote on these candidates, or additional candidates identified by the ALAC. The revised schedule for the appointment of five voting delegates to the 2013 NomCom is: ALAC Review of RALO Recommendations/Additional List of Nominations Accepted: 22 August -26 August 2012 ALAC selection and endorsement vote: Carried out on-line between 27-31 August Notification to NomCom of Appointees: No later than 31 August 2012 or as arranged with NomCom Secretariat Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

7 Aug letter from Senate Judiciary Committee
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Dear all, please be so kind to find a link to a recent letter from Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, to ICANN's interim CEO & President, Akram Atallah. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%2… Kind regards, Olivier

2 2

Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

Dear All, There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing Hose Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark- For now here is my take on what occurred. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Fwd: Board decision to renew .com agreement without thick Whois
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 17, 2012

Aug. 17, 2012

Dear all, please find attached the letter co-signed by the ALAC, BC and IPC, sent to the Board Chair concerning the Board decision to renew the .com agreement without thick whois. This comes in addition to the letter which the ALAC has sent to the Board Chair, commenting on the closed nature of the Board meeting. This letter can be found on: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-28jun12-en.htm Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Board decision to renew .com agreement without thick Whois Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:37:28 +0000 From: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)*.com> To: steve.crocker(a)*.org <steve.crocker(a)*.org> CC: 'akram.atallah(a)*.org' <akram.atallah(a)*.org>, 'secretary(a)*.org' <secretary(a)*.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com>, 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)*.com>, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)*.com> Dear Steve, Please see the attached letter from the chairs of ALAC, BC and IPC on the above-referenced subject. Steve Metalitz, IPC president

1 0

New ICANN Board posts
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

Further details at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02aug12-en.htm and May 6/31 minutes below. 2 August 2012 The following resolutions were adopted by the ICANN Board through a unanimous online vote, pursuant to Section 19 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VI-19. 1. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes 6 May 2012 (includes discussion of work of the conflicts and ethics subcommittee as it related to appointing Directors to the new gTLD programme committee): http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-06may12-en.… 31 May 2012 (appointment of Fadi Chehadé): http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-31may12-en.htm 2. Appointment of Ondrej Filip to SSAC 3. Acknowledgment of Completion of ALAC Structural Review 4. Acknowledgment of Completion of NomCom Structural Review 5. Thank You Resolutions a. Departing At-Large Community Volunteer b. Rod Beckstrom c. Sponsors of Prague Meeting d. Scribes, Interpreters, Staff, Event and Hotel Teams of Prague Meeting e. Local Hosts of Prague Meeting

1 0

Fwd: Re: [ALAC-Announce] Fwd: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure"
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 8, 2012

Aug. 8, 2012

FYI (re-sent since it was bounced from ALAC-Announce) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ALAC-Announce] Fwd: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure" Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:32:28 +0200 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, COS Wallonie <cos(a)wallonie-isoc.org> Dear Olivier: Bertrand's questions are no doubt relevant and timely, although I foresee difficulties in At Large responding constructively until much more information is available. Although there are numbers of new TLD applications on the table, there are so many thresholds and hurdles to be crossed, that one really does not yet know what the new environment is going to look like. In particular, the presence, or not, of new IDN and public interest TLDs will influence the At Large perceptions. According to the ICANN-announced scenario, the main change might become a radical restructuring of the GNSO, because numbers of established Registrars might turn up as proto-Registries. To be confirmed when the evaluation processes have been undertaken. Abstracting for the moment from my longstanding opposition to this development on grounds of competition policy, one could imagine that this change in the internal dynamic of GNSO might interfere with the normal functioning of the bottom up PDP and other decision making procedures. Accordingly, At Large - and for that matter, NCUC - may encounter opportunities to give the ICANN community and Board clear advice on the management of the expanded DNS, in the face of some confusion and delay pertaining in the GNSO. At Large may also wish to keep an eye on the budgetary aspects of the new situation. On the one hand ICANN has declared that the new TLD programme will be budget-neutral (whence the exorbitant fees) but on the other hand the successful creation of numbers of successful new TLDs might have a permanent influence on the ICANN budget, in which case the allocation of additional budgetary resources could become an issue for At Large. (Personally, I am inclined to discount this aspect because I gather that the aggregate domain name market - excluding IDN - is not growing fast enough to accommodate large numbers of successful new gTLDs at this time.) In short, it is not a good idea to introduce a new TLD - let alone several - in the midst of a global recession. Just a few thoughts, to start the discussion. Regards Christopher. PS: I shall add a copy of these comments to the Wiki page in the near future. On 03 Aug 2012, at 23:39, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > During the Prague meeting, several Board members have asked ICANN > communities to think about the impact of the new gTLDs on the overall > ICANN Structure. > > Below is an email from Bertrand de la Chapelle detailing such enquiry. > > Comments are welcome from the whole community. Please add your > comments > at the bottom of the WIKI page created on: > https://community.icann.org/x/XAUeAg > > The ExCom will summarise in order to provide a single input from At- > Large. > > *At-Large Comments open*: 3 August 2012 > > *At-Large Comments close*: 3 September 2012 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's > structure" > Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:24:46 +0200 > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com> > To: > CC: > > > > Dear all, > > The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the functioning > of ICANN and its structure. An in-depth community discussion is needed > to identify early the corresponding challenges and possible > evolutions. > It should be conducted while the gTLD program itself is being > implemented, without waiting for the completion of this round. This > should in particular be taken into account in the upcoming gNSO > review, > planned in 2013. > > As you probably remember, this issue was therefore put on the agenda > of > the various Board interactions with SOs, ACs and constituencies during > the Prague meeting. Several issues were identified during these > discussions, pertaining both to scalability factors (due to the number > of applications) and qualitative impact (including the diversity of > the > new gTLDs and the potential overlapping of the constituencies they > could > belong to). > > At the end of each such session, *Steve Crocker invited participants > to > share a one-pager on this topic* to gather preliminary views and help > prepare a dedicated session in Toronto. > > I am writing to you as Chairs of the respective SOs, ACs, Stakeholder > Groups or Constituencies to renew this call for input. The Board > Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), chaired by Ray Plzak, will > discuss the topic during the Board Workshop mid-September and your > perspective is eagerly sought after. The contributions can be very > synthetic at that stage, for instance merely listing bullet points of > identified potential impacts. The objective is to get as complete a > picture as possible of the different dimensions of the issue. > > I know the summer period is not the easiest to gather views in you > respective groups but I also understand that this has already been > discussed before Prague and you probably are in a position to share > the > concerns already identified, if not the possible solutions. This is > only > a preliminary stage and further consultations will take place to > prepare > the Toronto session. > > Thank you in advance for your contribution, *if possible before > September 10*, and don't hesitate to share this call for input with > people I might have inadvertently overlooked or you think might be > good > contributors from your group. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic > Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net <http://www.internetjurisdiction.net > >) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >

2 1

Fwd: [Itu2012chapters] ISOC video - Open Internet Standards
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 2, 2012

Aug. 2, 2012

FYI. I am quite impressed with the way this is explained. I wonder whether we should also use this format to explain how At-Large/ALAC and ICANN work. Is this something we might be interested in discussing with the ICANN Comms Team? Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Itu2012chapters] ISOC video - Open Internet Standards Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:11:26 -0700 From: Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> To: itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org CC: leaders(a)isoc.org Hi The Internet Society's Internet Leadership Team (cc'd) developed the following video on Open Internet standards and why they matter. We think that this is a great video that may be of interest to you, particularly in the context of some claims that the ITU standards should be preeminent to the output of other standards organizations. Let us know what you think! English: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/video/our-internet-open-standards-and-w… French: http://www.internetsociety.org/fr/news/video/our-internet-open-standards-an… Spanish: http://www.internetsociety.org/es/news/video/our-internet-open-standards-an… Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org <mailto:wentworth@isoc.org> www.isoc.org

1 0