January 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

This questionnaire with its answers reiterates the ALAC's WHOIS positions expressed at multiple times and in many places in this one place. It gets my support. Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go. -Carlton Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a Thick > Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements made it clear > that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we had not specifically > addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG. > > A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/**kIVZAg<https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg> > . > > Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I have > said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, but quick > action would be appreciated. > > A copy is also attached here for your convenience. > > Alan > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy >

1 0

Revision of IGO/INGO Protections statement
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

After reviewing the paper submitted by Jovan Kurbalija (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2013/002781.html) I have made a number of revisions to the draft ALAC statement at https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. The changes cover the following issues: 1. Make it explicit that we want IGOs and INGOs to be given special protection only after a careful evaluation of their specific issues and needs. This was already implied by our specifying that they had to demonstrate need and to meet a number of other criteria. 2. We had already said that some of the suggested IOC protections were over broad because they propose a world-wide Internet blocking of a name that might have previously been protected in a only small number of countries. A new paragraph generalized that to IGOs pointing out that an IGO can exist with only three countries signing a treaty, and that is not sufficient for requesting global protection. 3. Jovan's paper had reasonably included that a rationale for requesting protection could be that some entity could do an organization great harm and thus endanger the public interest by using their name in a domain name. We had only included user-related issues, so I added this one as well. It is not likely to have many real applications, but is a reasonable addition. The rest of the statement, in my opinion, is generally in line with Jovan's recommendations. If others feel differently, please let us know your concerns. Due to time constraints, I have not reviewed these changes with Evan, but have no doubt he will speak up if he has a problem with any of them. A Redline PDF is attached to the Wiki page so you can see the exact changes. One more thing that I have thought of doing but would welcome input on, is to add a preamble saying that these "special protections" are in effect global blocking of specific names, a concept that ICANN and the Internet has generally avoided, and specifically has refused when requested by the IP and Business communities. If ICANN if going to offer such protections to IGOs and INGOs, we need to make sure that there are real harms if we do not do so, and that the protections will in fact prohibit such harms. As it stands now, we have little evidence of such harms, particularly for IGOs, and we have little evidence that protecting exact matches only will be of significant help. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 10, 2013

Jan. 10, 2013

I certainly support the official adoption of Jovan's excellent paper as the ALAC Framework on the Protection of IGO and INGO names. And, Jovan, a teacher can preach if you do what the Kennedy school folks do. Alternate between 'preaching' and working with the 'Administration.' You could designate one as 'sabatical.' :) Best regards, Rinalia Rinalia Abdul Rahim sent via galaxy tab On 10 Jan 2013 03:35, "Jovan Kurbalija" <jovank(a)diplomacy.edu> wrote: > Thank you Rinalia, > > Dear ALAC-members, > > I hope that my input will be useful in preparing ALAC's position on this > issue. Here are a few comments: > > - the input uses rather restrictive legal approach aims at reducing > exceptions (RCRC/IOC) and synchornising the IGO/INGO's policy with both > international public law and ICANN's overall policy. This approach could > provide elements for a reasonable compromise with a solid legal basis. > > - one can anticipate a broader legal argumentation supporting public > interest function of IGOs as the reason for providing special protection. > This argumentation could be based on international customary law supported > by the formulation in the Paris convention on IPR and a few court cases > such as the ICJ's Reparation case. This hypothetical approach has quite a > few weaknesses, which I elaborate in the academic paper (to be published in > March 2013). > > - My contribution is made in personal capacity. DiploFoundation, as a > capacity-building institution, does not engage in policy deliberations. "A > teacher cannot be a preacher" even if teacher supports a good cause. > > Please let me know if I can be of any additional help. > > Best regards, Jovan > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear ALAC colleagues, >> >> Please find attached a paper contribution by Dr. Jovan Kurbalija of >> DiploFoundation, which is intended to provide an input to the ALAC’s >> discussion on the protection of names of international inter-governmental >> organisations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organisations >> (INGOs). The ALAC Excom had agreed to solicit Dr. Kurbalija's input on >> this topic to help inform ALAC interventions. >> >> Dr. Kurbalija is copied on this mail in case you wish to have some >> interaction with him regarding the topic. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: >> >>> The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that >>> ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special >>> protections of IGO/INGO names. >>> >>> Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and >>> possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at >>> https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. Input was requested to be >>> submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting >>> it in a bit later. >>> >>> Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive >>> and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to >>> positions previously taken by the ALAC. >>> >>> I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal >>> ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to >>> ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC >>> feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki. >>> >>> A copy is attached here for your convenience. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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… >>> >> >> > > > -- > > *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* > > Director, DiploFoundation > > Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *|** *Switzerland > > *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.* +41 (0) 797884226 > > *Email: *jovank(a)diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija > > > > *The latest from Diplo:* today – this week – this month<http://www.diplomacy.edu/currently> > *l* Evolution of diplomacy and technology (2013 calendar, articles and > webinars) <http://www.diplomacy.edu/2013/evolution> *l** *Wisdom and > empathy in diplomacy<http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/wisdom-and-empathy-diplomacy> > > * *

1 0

Fwd: Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

As you will see from the following message, the Whois-WG has not yet commented on this draft statement, but due to the tight timing, I am sending it to the entire ALAC as well. Alan >To: Whois-WG <whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Thick Whois > >ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a >Thick Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements >made it clear that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we >had not specifically addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG. > >A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg. > >Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I >have said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, >but quick action would be appreciated. > >A copy is also attached here for your convenience. > >Alan

2 1

Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special protections of IGO/INGO names. Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with getting it in a bit later. Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC. I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki. A copy is attached here for your convenience.

6 8

ALAC Statement on the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone - Second Public Comment Draft
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Dear ALAC and IDN WG, Edmon and I have prepared a draft statement in response to: At-Large IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop <https://community.icann.org/x/7YxEAg>and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels – Second Public Comment Draft Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/7YxEAg> ? Please provide your comments on the wiki so that all input are captured in one place. The link above will take you to the wiki as well as this one - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38046957. Text pasted below for your information. Best regards, Rinalia DRAFT 8 Jan 2013 *ALAC Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels – Second Public Comment Draft* *Acknowledgment of Project 2.1 Team Achievement*** The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the IDN Variant TLD Program Project 2.1 Team for its efforts and contributions in establishing vital procedures that will enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs toward enhancing multilingualism and cultural diversity on the Internet. We appreciate the Project Team’s openness to input and we are pleased to see the incorporation of some of our suggestions in the revised “Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels.”** *The 2-Panel Process and Effective Outreach* * * We reiterate our support for the 2-panel process in the development of the Label Generation Rules for the root zone, which allows different IDN language and script communities to form and move at their own pace in implementing IDN Variant TLDs. For effective outreach to various language and script communities that may be interested in forming Generation Panels, we call on ICANN to ensure that all announcements and reports related to the implementation of IDN Variant TLD be published in multiple languages, particularly the languages addressed by the Variant Case Studies and the ones recommended for prioritization in the Procedure Document.** *Limited Supply of Global Experts for the Integration Panel* * * We note with concern that the supply of experts for the Integration Panel is limited. This limitation is problematic for the following reasons: (a) It makes it challenging to ensure diverse cultural backgrounds among the panel members; (b) It places the continuity of the Label Generation Rules process at risk where communities that enter the process late may be affected adversely; (c) It allows for the possibility of process capture by a few experts. We urge ICANN to ensure the sustainability of the Label Generation Rules process for the global language and script communities, who are at different levels of readiness to develop Label Generation Rules for their specific script, writing system and language. We recommend that ICANN undertake strategies to secure a steady supply of expertise (which may include the provision of appropriate incentives as well as capacity building) while placing appropriate term limits that safeguard the process against capture. *Governance Oversight and the Public Comments Process* * * We recognize that the Integration Panel requires independence to carry out its task. We wish to stress that this independence needs to be accompanied with high standards of transparency and strong accountability measures. The Procedure Document specifies the ICANN Public Comments as the primary governance oversight mechanism for the decisions of the Integration Panel. This mechanism has certain weaknesses: (1) It has no review process; (2) It does not include an appeal process for the decisions of the Integration Panel; and (3) The challenges associated with the Public Comments process still apply (e.g., participation of relevant stakeholders, sufficient comment period, etc.). It is imperative that ICANN address the weaknesses of the proposed mechanism to support a transparent and accountable process of developing Label Generation Rules for the root. The Procedure Document points out the following: “There is an argument that could be made that the population of the root LGR is making policy. In which case, the current policy-making procedures in the ccNSO and gNSO could be used.” Unless there is a compelling reason as to why the Label Generation Rules process should be independent of the oversight mechanisms of the ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs), the ALAC advises the ICANN Board to authorize the respective SOs (i.e., GNSO and ccNSO) to oversee the implementation of the proposed mechanism. The appropriate governance oversight measures should include periodic reviews, high standards of transparency and accountability structures worthy of the ICANN bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. Furthermore, special emphasis on the effective engagement and participation of affected linguistic communities would be crucial throughout the LGR process. *Enabling Policies* Given the prioritization of IDNs in the new gTLD process, the ALAC strongly advises the ICANN board and community to begin addressing the policies required to render the procedures for IDN Variant TLD delegation operational on an urgent basis. Statistics from the Interim Report of the IDN Program Project 6 on User Experience highlights that almost 20% of user queries could be directed towards an IDN Variant TLD. This means that without the delegation of the IDN Variant TLD, almost 20% of users would have a negative experience. Without having the requisite enabling policies in place to support the roll out of the new gTLDs, the prioritization of IDNs would in fact significantly hurt consumer trust and serve as a disservice to the IDN community. *Communicating Convergence Effectively* The Procedure Document indicates that, “the mechanism is not the last stage in making determinations about IDN labels for the root. Rather, its output is to be consumed by other ICANN procedures that actually determine whether a particular label is allocated to someone, and whether it is delegated in the root.” We request that ICANN clarify how the various procedures and processes interface, interact or converge against an estimated timeline for the benefit of the community. END

2 1

POLICY VERSUS IMPLEMENTATION DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Certainly of interest. Alan >From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:22:35 -0800 >Subject: [council] POLICY VERSUS IMPLEMENTATION > DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION > > >Dear GNSO Council Members: > >As mentioned previously, I would like to share >with you a staff paper concerning the topic of >policy vs. implementation which outlines a draft >framework for community discussion. In addition, >the paper aims to identify a number of >principles, questions as well as possible >improvements that will hopefully facilitate >further consideration of this issue. > >In addition to sharing this with you, we are >also planning to circulate this to the other >ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory >Committees for their consideration. Further to >any steps the GNSO may want to take in relation >to this issue, our idea would be to solicit >volunteers from the different SO/ACs to set up a >small organizing committee to plan a session in >Beijing on this topic so further consideration >can be given to possible next steps and/or recommendations. > >If you have any comments and/or questions, >please feel free to share those with the list. >This topic is also expected to be on the agenda >for the next GNSO Council meeting. > >Best regards, > >David > >-- >David A. Olive >Vice President, Policy Development Support >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 >Washington, D.C. 20005 >Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

At 08/01/2013 11:31 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 2013-01-08 9:42 PM, "Carlton Samuels" ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I share Alan's perspectives here. > >OK, I understand and am willing to concede the point to Alan. But >I'm unsure of one thing... > > > I think the Board well understand why the ALAC and others > advocate the distinctions we offer. But the nature of the politics > - and likely concerns re optics - have served to stiffen the > Board's resolve to stay the course. > >It was my takeaway that the optics of blending the IOC and RCRC >would be a net negative. The GAC internal politics might be sated >but the public would simply see ICANN being gamed (again) by special >interests. > >On the other hand, maybe this is as it should be... continuing to >feed my expectations that the TLD expansion will be a public debacle >and most of these hard-fought protections simply won't matter. > >- Evan I have my own take on the IOC issue (specifically that the cost of defending domain names is a small part of its overall budgets, and not of great import in the larger scale of things). But I suspect that throughout the rest of the world, the position that the GAC has taken on the IOC may be an easier sell. So whether this will tarnish ICANN or not, I really don't know. If I would have to make a bet on it, I would say those in the know would acknowledge that this is a card that the GAC played well, and would be hard to defeat, but those out of the ICANN loop really won;t notice or care. Whether the TLD expansion will be a debacle or not, remains to be seen.. My guess is that there will be some very successful ones, many that will survive if only because they are brand tlds, and many that will indeed be a debacle. But regardless, the only impact of any special protections will be a bit of saved money for those who get them IF they are really being preyed upon. And a bit of user protection to the extent that those sites have user interactions that were being intercepted. Since we are not talking about strings-contained-in protection, I think the latter will be a small part of it all. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

Still do not agree. With respect to the GNSO, your opinion is not technically correct, in that the GNSO has never had that question on the table. The GNSO (correctly) delegated the question to a DT which chose not to pursue that due to lack of interest among its members. I was the only one to raise it with no other real support. The present PDP WG *IS* considering this as one of the possibilities and the questions being answered specifically give an opening for us to answer in the way we did. To dream that this set of answers is going to come to the attention of the Board really has no basis. They have remanded the subject to the GNSO (and taken flack from the GAC as a result). There is already enough controversy about whether the GAC has an advisory role to play over the GNSO and its working groups, which is, I think hurting the working relationship between the two. I don't think it serves any good purpose to have that kind of antagonism aimed at ALAC as well. Perhaps others can weigh in on this. Alan At 07/01/2013 11:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Here is my rationale. > >In continuing to advocate the separation of the RCRC and IOC, we are >answering an unasked (or, to be specific, assumed already answered) >question. This statement takes the opportunity of the WG >solicitation to again advise the whole community of what we see to >(still) be a critical mistake. In that sense, I see this as *both* >Board advice and response to the WG. > >IMO the GNSO has generally seen the splitting of the IOC and RCRC >issues as either out of scope or pointless in the face of Board >pressure. Thus the audience for continued advocacy on this matter >remains the Board, and as such this submission is reasonably stated >as advice while it also answers the WG's questions. > >Stating the position as advice also emphasises our continuing alarm >over an issue that the Board believes to be settled with community consent. > >- Evan (via mobile) >On 2013-01-08 10:10 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out >thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the >way to some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in >the WG, I don't think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG >(as if we were an external "expert" brought in to advise). When we >at some later time we comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we >actually get that far) when the Board puts the recommendation out >for public comment, they we can play a advisory role. > >Alan > >At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>One thing I just noticed. >> >>Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not >>belief - we should change all instances of "believes" to "advises". >> >>- Evan (via mobile) >>On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed. Alan >>At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >> >I have read the document and agree with it. >> > >> >By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It >> >should be "the" ALAC is particularly...". >> > >> >-ed >> > >> >On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels >> ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> > > I read the submissions in their entirety. So far as I see, >> they conform to >> > > previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all >> of which had >> > > my support. My positions remain, unchanged. >> > > >> > > I do not think these positions require a formal vote. >> > > >> > > -Carlton >> > > >> > > ============================== >> > > Carlton A Samuels >> > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> > > ============================= >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg >> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >> > > >wrote: >> > > >> > > > The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has >> requested that >> > > ACs >> > > > and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special >> > > > protections of IGO/INGO names. >> > > > >> > > > Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and >> > > > possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at >> > > > >> <https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg>https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg< >> >> > > https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>. >> > > > Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but >> there should >> > > be >> > > > no problem with getting it in a bit later. >> > > > >> > > > Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were >> substantive >> > > > and the document has his support. We both believe that it >> conforms well >> > > to >> > > > positions previously taken by the ALAC. >> > > > >> > > > I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to >> a formal ALAC >> > > > vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to >> > > ensure >> > > > that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC >> > > feelings. >> > > > So please post your comments to the Wiki. >> > > > >> > > > A copy is attached here for your convenience. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > 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… >> >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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… >> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >> >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >> >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >> >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received >> this email by >> >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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… >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >>

4 3

Re: [ALAC] Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 8, 2013

Jan. 8, 2013

Not really sure about that. This is a reply to the PDP WG giving out thoughts on the various questions they are asking to help guide the way to some outcome. As one of many stakeholders participating in the WG, I don't think we really have an "advisory" role to the WG (as if we were an external "expert" brought in to advise). When we at some later time we comment on the outcome of the PDP (if we actually get that far) when the Board puts the recommendation out for public comment, they we can play a advisory role. Alan At 07/01/2013 11:25 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >One thing I just noticed. > >Given the nature of the document - one of explicit advice, not >belief - we should change all instances of "believes" to "advises". > >- Evan (via mobile) >On 2013-01-08 4:32 AM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks on both counts. Typo fixed. Alan > >At 07/01/2013 04:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: > >I have read the document and agree with it. > > > >By the way, there is a small typo in the last sentence in question 4. It > >should be "the" ALAC is particularly...". > > > >-ed > > > >On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Carlton Samuels > ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > I read the submissions in their entirety. So far as I see, > they conform to > > > previously public positions taken by the ALAC in context, all > of which had > > > my support. My positions remain, unchanged. > > > > > > I do not think these positions require a formal vote. > > > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > > Carlton A Samuels > > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested that > > > ACs > > > > and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to special > > > > protections of IGO/INGO names. > > > > > > > > Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and > > > > possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at > > > > > <https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg>https://community.icann.org/x/**5IFQAg< > > > https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg>. > > > > Input was requested to be submitted by 08 January 2013, but > there should > > > be > > > > no problem with getting it in a bit later. > > > > > > > > Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were > substantive > > > > and the document has his support. We both believe that it conforms well > > > to > > > > positions previously taken by the ALAC. > > > > > > > > I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a > formal ALAC > > > > vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do need to > > > ensure > > > > that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to general ALAC > > > feelings. > > > > So please post your comments to the Wiki. > > > > > > > > A copy is attached here for your convenience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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… > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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… > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by > >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. > >_______________________________________________ > >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…

2 1