September 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 8, 2012

Oct. 8, 2012

Dear Dev, thank you very much for your email explaining the course of action which you recommend. I am CC'ing the present email to the ALAC for its information. I also trust that Avri Doria, Chair of the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, will be picking up the ball from here. I look forward to her WG making recommendations as to the course of action they suggest. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/08/2012 19:51, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > Dear All, > > The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) > received a comment on community objection grounds by InternetNZ, an > ALS in APRALO, on the application by Amazon EU S.A.R.L for the applied > for gTLD string "book" on July 26 2012. > > InternetNZ's comment was posted to the At-Large new gTLD Applications > Dashboard Workspace at > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG > > Several comments from At-Large, including members of the gTLD RG were > received and posted on the wiki page at > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG > including a condensed version of InternetNZ's comment by gTLD RG > members Eduardo Diaz and Yrjo Lansipuro. > > The comments by InternetNZ and others raises concerns regarding the > availability of 2nd level domains under generic TLDs. Whether domains > under such proposed generic TLDs should be available or "open" to the > wider public or "closed" to the applicants applying for the proposed > gTLD. > > Because such concepts are outside the scope of the application for > ".book" by Amazon EU s.a.r.l, the gTLD RG on its conference call on > Monday August 6 2012 (https://community.icann.org/x/iAUeAg) decided > not to submit a comment on this application to the ALAC for possible > submission to ICANN's new gTLD comment forum before the close of the > Application Comment Period. > > However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd > level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts > individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues > raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group > (https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible > policy recommendations. > > > Kind Regards, > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > Chair, gTLD Review Group > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 2

ELECTION CALL for ALAC Officers to serve from 22 October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 8, 2012

Oct. 8, 2012

Dear All, According to Rule 2.1 of the ALAC Internal Rules of Procedure <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27854147/AL-2007-1-1-Rev11…> the ALAC will elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur. Rule. 2.2 states that all officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN. Rule 9.1 states that the election call will be sent by the current ALAC Chair. In keeping with these rules, this message serves as the election call for the ALAC Officers to serve as members of the ALAC Executive Committee from 22 October 2012 to the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2013. The election schedule is as follows: *_Election Schedule_* *_ _* * 17 September 2012 Election Call /(sent to lists.)/ * 1 October 2012 Deadline for Officer Nominations /(to be sent to lists.)/ * 3 October 2012 Chair to post to the public ALAC list an "election summary" message /(sent to lists.)/ * 4-11 October 2012 Nominations are discussed * 8 October 2012 Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination /(sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of the At-Large Wiki.)/ * 14 October 2012 Start of AGM * 18 October 2012 Closure of AGM * 18 October 2012 Start of Election of ALAC Officers by 2013 ALAC immediately after the closure of the AGM (Should a ballot be required) * 22 October 2012 Election Results announced * 22 October 2012 New ALAC Officers take their seats Please note that according to two motions of the ALAC, which were adopted during the 25 November 2008 ALAC Meeting, the ALAC Officers consisting of a Chair, two Vice-Chairs, and a Rapporteur shall represent different ICANN Geographic Regions. A 2012-2013 ALAC Officer Election wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/pocoAg> has been created that includes the following: * The election schedule as above; * An election schedule with the Rules of Procedure explanations; * ALAC officer criteria; and * Nominations for ALAC officers. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

10 14

Fwd: Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2012

Oct. 2, 2012

At the last GNSO Council meeting, the Whois Review Team issue was discussed, specifically the inability of the GNSO Council to submit a single statement addressing the Board's question on advice on how to address the 16 Recommendations due to the wide range of views held by the various SGs and Constituencies. I made a comment that I found it rather unfortunate that a statement could not be submitted, even if it was just a summary of the various views held. That suggestion was accepted and I am attaching a draft of the positions held. As an aside, one of the replies to my suggestion was that the GNSO did not need to oversee such a summary, but rather ICANN staff could have done it and just given it to the Board. I was very taken aback by this, because as some of you may remember, there has been a LOT of discussion about staff taking GNSO reports and statements (and those of other groups such as the ALAC), summarizing them (and perhaps emphasizing some aspects over others) and giving them to the Board. The gist of this discussion is that staff should not be summarizing (and perhaps editorializing), but rather the Board should see the SO/AC position. So this suggestion was almost a wish to return to the bad old days. I did point out that it was fine for policy staff to be involved in such a condensation of positions, but that the GNSO. The attached paper is the result. Alan >From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:11:21 -0700 >Subject: [council] Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart > >Dear All, > >Please find attached for your review & revision, a chart that >summarizes the various views of the SG/C with respect to each of >the WHOIS RT Final Report's Recommendations. > >The information included in the Chart was obtained from statements >made on email lists & formal statements that were submitted. Please >review them carefully to make sure that the description accurately >captures the sentiment of your SG/C. > >I would appreciate receiving any comments or updates by COB 2 October, 2012. > >All the best, > >Margie > >________ > >Margie Milam >Senior Policy Counselor >ICANN >________

5 10

Fwd: ALAC Position on RC/IOC Compromise Recommendation
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

I was asked to summarize the ALAC position on the Drafting Team's compromise position and present it here for your information. Alan >To: gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Position on RC/IOC Compromise Recommendation > >As requested yesterday. > >The ALAC has discussed the compromise recommendation proposed by the >RC/IOC DT via e-mail over the last week, generating more traffic on >a single topic than I can recall in recent history. The issue was >also discussed at length during the ALAC Teleconference on 25 September, 2012. > >The was a strong consensus or perhaps unanimity that in the >long-term issue (that is past new gTLD round 1), the issue should be >addressed by a PDP. > >The positions regarding temporary protections pending the outcome of >a PDP were far more varied. Virtually all ALAC members who voiced an >opinion felt that the RC and the IOC should never have been dealt >with as a single issue, but rather should have been subject to >separate evaluations and recommendations. Specifically, there was a >strong belief that humanitarian organizations might deserve a >different level of protection than other types of organizations. >Some ALAC members expressed the view that on balance, no interim >protection should be offered. Others felt that there was sufficient >merit in granting the RC protection that the proposed compromise >position should be supported. > >A formal vote was taken and the outcome was that the ALAC did >support the recommendations. > >Alan

1 0

The threat to TLD expansion nobody talks about
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 27, 2012

Sept. 27, 2012

Hello all, While those inside the ICANN bubble (myself among them, on occasion) rant and rave about the the rollout and the very nature of the ICANN new gTLD program, most are ignoring the possibility that much of the expansion will simply be .... irrelevant. Consider one more recent example, the move by the city of New York to use QR codes on public notices: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/09/open-data-day-new-york-… While this is far from a universal act, the city's government has shown that one can reach municipal information easily without knowing _any_ domain name(*). This sends a signal to businesses and others that New Yorkers will be QR-code-savvy, which reduces the need to have easily remembered domain names. More specifically, the .nyc TLD is being undermined before it even launches. Domain names are simply *a* method people use to get to Internet resources. QR codes, URL shorteners, organizational pages on social media sites and especially the various kinds of search engines have enabled Internet users to get around the various problems within the current state of domain names. As public trust in the DNS further declines with an explosion of park pages and defensive registrations, such alternatives will only increase in popularity. It's important to keep this in perspective. As we go through the inevitable fights over Red Cross names, "private" TLDs, registrant accountability, the lack of ccTLD standards, etc, etc, it's useful to remember that Internet users have a unique perspective on the arguments inside the bubble. Anything ICANN does that is spectacularly stupid will be worked around. And if ICANN fails to address the decline in public trust (that the ALAC has been pointing out on a regular basis, on many issues), the public will simply look faster at other paths to what they want from the Internet. (As we hear more comments about the entry of companies such as Amazon and Google into TLD space -- generally decrying their unconventional plans -- I wonder how many consider that these companies are likely more trusted than anyone in the current domain industry. It's no wonder that most of the complaints about the newcomers are coming from those inside the bubble.) - Evan (*) Yes, yes, I know that QR codes require URLs that generally require the DNS as well. However, every QR code on earth - no need an easily remembered domain -- could be serviced within existing TLDs using second and even third level domains.

2 1

Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report back to the DT at its meeting the following day. I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…. The proposal has two parts and is as follows. >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. > >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends >the following: > >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. > >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: > >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international >organizations. > >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. > >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as >possible on this position. > >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note >that the work that has already been done on this issue should >facilitate the process. I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have qualified it above. The rationale is as follows: - in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. - If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this protection, the names can easily be released at that time. - In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to both organizations. - The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection that they would prefer. Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid position that no additional protections should be granted, it is likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit.

11 29

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Sala, can you please tell us exactly when you made you contribution and was it a "Comment" or a change to the body text of the page? The page history does not show you editing the page. I di not know how one looks at the history of comments being added. Matt???? Alan At 25/09/2012 12:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >I have one simple question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed >from the Wiki? ><https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg>https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg > >The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO >IOC/RC Draft Team. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection >is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not >afford to not participate actively to try to get more. > >Alan > >At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two > >and only two organizations already have base level protections at > >the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate > >in a PDP that might give them less. > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Here are some figures that may be of interest for our discussion tomorrow. Avri had replied to my question about the basis fir her belief that the IGO PDP would be done before new gTLD delegation. She did not copy the ALAC, but has said it was an accidental omission and I am including her reply below. Current estimates that I have heard indicate that the first TLD agreements may be signed in the latter half of next year and be read for Sunrise soon thereafter (allowing trademark owners to protect their names) and general registration soon after. Avri's estimate is just a bit longer. Note however, that Sunrise and registration can start before the names enter the root. It is estimated that the absolute shortest time a PDP could take is 191 days (about 6 /12 months) from the time the Final Issue Report is released until the time the recommendations got to the Board). That presumes that all deliberations take place during the same 5 weeks that SG have to submit statements on their opinions (allowing no time to take those statements into account), the reports is written in a week, and there are no receiving action from the GNSO or Board. This is for a simple PDP with virtually no discussion needed to resolve the issue. The time from the request of an Issue Report (again with minimal delays) is 263 days or 9 months. The time for a more typical PDP is estimated at 1 year longer. These figures can be found as attachments to http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13099.html. To see what real PDPs have taken, see the other attachment. Note that all of these were done under the old PDP rules which allowed for a significantly shorter process. The shortest ones in recent history took 415 days. One added a clarification sentence to a reason for allowing a Registrar to deny a transfer (http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml) The other, the PDP on Domain Tasting was resolved primarily by private discussions and two registries voluntarily implementing the "solution" which was then echoed by the PDP. There was very little discussion other than to identify an effective way of addressing the problem without unreasonably penalizing Registrars who were not participating in Tasting. The other two, far more substantive, took 2.4 to 3 years (as noted, according to the old, and more streamlined PDP rules). By any measure (if only based on the amount of discussion this issue has raised in the ALAC), the IGO protection issue is not an easy one where all parties will agree quickly. The only possible exception to this is if all parties come to the table believing that no additional protections are needed, and can QUICKLY address all of the process that is being included in the Issue Report. If indeed the PDP completes in record time, then the provisions of the compromise proposal of the RC/IOC DT would never kick in, since they would be replaced by whatever comes out of the PDP. Alan At 24/09/2012 12:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >PDP can be done in 9-12 months. >New TLDs in root, not until end 13, beginning 14. > >At 23/09/2012 09:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Avri, > >Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you >predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by >Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their >sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names? > >Alan > >At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.

4 11

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Sala, one question. You end one paragraph with "It follows that any variations to Registry Agreements require the activation of a Policy Development Process (PDP)." Can you explain how "it follows"? Reserved names are one of the things in signed registry agreements that are subject to Consensus Policy created by a PDP (colloquially called "within the picket fence"), but in this case we are talking about a draft registry agreement that is not yet in force and is explicitly prefixed with the notice that ICANN may make changes prior to it being used. Alan At 23/09/2012 07:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is >the correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft >Submissions but enough to see the rationale of where I basing my arguments. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for >feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show >the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I >argue that the exception that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal >should be further narrowed. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting >protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been >posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed >under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web >site. The specific pointer for this one is ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… >. > >I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final >Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR. > >Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any >GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is >required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in >fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer. > >If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC >and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I >have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at >the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well. > > > >Alan > > > >At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Alan, >> >>I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my >>submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that >>was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request >>for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues >>Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm. >> >>This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback. >> >>Kind Regards >> >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully >>brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. >>The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options >>for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus >>Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be >>discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, >>and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report >>back to the DT at its meeting the following day. >>I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to >>attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. >>Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line >>with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on >>September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft >>proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution >>can be found at >><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12… >>. >>The proposal has two parts and is as follows. >> >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My >> >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue >> >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP >> >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a >> >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council >> >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite >> >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete >> >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this >> >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. >> > >> >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth >> >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends >> >the following: >> > >> >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact >> >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC >> >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the >> >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO >> >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This >> >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and >> >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing >> >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. >> > >> >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: >> > >> >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as >> >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international >> >organizations. >> > >> >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on >> >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and >> >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. >> > >> >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as >> >possible on this position. >> > >> >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note >> >that the work that has already been done on this issue should >> >facilitate the process. >>I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have >>qualified it above. >>The rationale is as follows: >>- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as >>protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be >>done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up >>before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation >>of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the >>UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT >>of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work >>on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue >>would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not >>definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no >>doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. >>- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not >>protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if >>ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be >>protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call >>back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly >>not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been >>impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do >>significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names >>are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this >>protection, the names can easily be released at that time. >>- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the >>case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly >>linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future >>PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to >>both organizations. >>- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given >>that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of >>languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter >>( https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of >>course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection >>that they would prefer. >>Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if >>the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid >>position that no additional protections should be granted, it is >>likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort >>anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit. >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >> > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7grjh421

1 0

The Economist: "Incorporation is a privilege. It should not include anonymity"
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 24, 2012

Sept. 24, 2012

FYI: http://www.economist.com/node/21543164 Maybe it's just me, but this article resonates with me on WHOIS- and DNS-based issues of accountability versus privacy. - Evan

4 3