November 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Nomination for ALT
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Nov. 18, 2013

Nov. 18, 2013

I AM HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE NOMINATION OF ME TO THE ALT TEAM HOLLY

2 1

For my Asia-Pacific Colleagues
by Garth Bruen Nov. 18, 2013

Nov. 18, 2013

If you all have a moment I would like to brief you on an issue specific to your region. Should only take 5 minutes.

3 3

Re: [ALAC] [EURO-Discuss] [lac-discuss-en] NOW OPEN: 2013 ALAC ALT and Liaison Nominations
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Nov. 18, 2013

Nov. 18, 2013

Dear All, I accept my nomination and I thank everyone for their support. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Miguel Perez Subias <mps(a)aui.es> wrote: > HI , > > > I second and endorse these nominations. > > Miguel Perez Subias > President > Spanish Internet Users Association www.aui.es > skype: miguel.perez.subias > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >> >wrote: >> >> > According to the RoP, there are a total of five ALAC Leadership Team >> (ALT) >> > positions, one from each of the five regions, and Olivier from EURALO is >> > already in the position of Chair. I also note that there is a minor >> issue >> > in the call for nominations in that under the new RoP, we no longer >> have a >> > rapporteur and it should be vice-chairs instead of vice-presidents. >> > >> > I nominate the following for the ALT: >> > >> > Tijani Ben Jemaa (AFRALO) - Vice-chair >> > Evan Leibovitch (NARALO) - Vice-chair >> > Holly Raiche (APRALO) >> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh (LACRALO) >> > >> > I of course support the nomination of Maureen Hilyard as ccNSO Liaison, >> > and I nominate Julie Hammer as SSAC Liaison >> > >> > Last year I agreed to serve as GNSO Liaison with the understanding that >> we >> > would consciously get more people involved in GNSO activities. That has >> not >> > happened to any great extent. As such, if the ALAC desires, I am >> willing to >> > continue to serve in this capacity, but with the understanding that we >> take >> > posative action to get someone else into the role as quickly as >> possible. >> > >> > Alan >> > >> > >> > At 11/11/2013 04:22 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: >> > >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, the 2013 call >> for >> >> nomination of ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) members and ALAC Liaisons is >> now >> >> open. >> >> >> >> ALT: >> >> >> >> The available positions are for the following ALT Members: >> >> >> >> · Vice-President (2 positions) >> >> >> >> · Rapporteur (1 position) >> >> >> >> · Regional Representative (1 position) >> >> >> >> Proposed ALT Schedule: >> >> >> >> · Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November >> >> >> >> · Nominees acceptance period: 18 November - 20 November >> >> >> >> · ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November >> >> >> >> All terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. >> >> >> >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection >> Workspace< >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ >> >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for >> important >> >> information on the ALT requirements and responsibility >> >> >> >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the >> 2013 >> >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community.>> >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ >> >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large >> >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Only members of the ALAC after >> >> the close of the 2013 AGM are eligible for these positions. Only >> sitting >> >> ALAC Members are eligible and entitled to vote. >> >> >> >> Terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. >> >> >> >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection >> Workspace< >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ >> >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for >> important >> >> information on the ALT requirements and responsibilities. >> >> >> >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the >> 2013 >> >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community.>> >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ >> >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large >> >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. >> >> >> >> Liaisons: >> >> >> >> The available positions are for the following liaisons: >> >> * ALAC Liaison to the GNSO >> >> * ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO >> >> * ALAC Liaison to .MOBI >> >> * ALAC Liaison to the SSAC >> >> >> >> Proposed Liaison Schedule: >> >> Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November >> >> ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November >> >> >> >> All terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. >> >> >> >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection >> Workspace< >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ >> >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for >> important >> >> information on the ALAC Liaisons requirements and responsibilities. >> >> >> >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the >> 2013 >> >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community.>> >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ >> >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large >> >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >> >> Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:>> >> staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > lac-discuss-en mailing list >> > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >

1 0

Request for Compliance Follow Up
by Garth Bruen Nov. 17, 2013

Nov. 17, 2013

Olivier, The comments by Compliance in the earlier session contradict claims made by a registrant. The full document in question can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u0fko3z74d6q051/ICANN_complaint_Dropbox.pdf. The registrant's domain was taken in an unauthorized transfer and the response from ICANN Compliance (in part) was: "please note that claims of domain hijacking are not within ICANN's contractual authority to address. ICANN is not a government agency, but rather a private sector, not-for-profit organization with limited technical responsibility for coordinating the unique assignment of Internet domain names and IP addresses." I am completely befuddled by the Compliance response in today's session which insisted they investigate all complaints, but the response above to the registrant merely says "we don't do that." I would like an official response (in writing is preferred) for whenever our next meeting is scheduled, as recommended by Compliance. The response to this affects the way millions of domain registrants will view ICANN's management in terms of consumer trust. Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Blog: http://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/cac/alliance/blog.aspx?ident=garth Twitter: @Knujon "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale" -Polybius

1 0

Comments about Gareth Shearman
by Garth Bruen Nov. 16, 2013

Nov. 16, 2013

Hello all, As some of you know I am collecting stories about Gareth for a collaborative piece on CircleID to commemorate his time in At-Large. If any of you have any thoughts to share from working with him in the ALAC please tell me in person this week or forward them via email. When I have put everything together I will send a draft to the group for review before posting. Thank you. ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Blog: http://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/cac/alliance/blog.aspx?ident=garth Twitter: @Knujon "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale" -Polybius

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 16, 2013

Nov. 16, 2013

And a newer version correcting two grammar problems (thanks to Evan for catching them). Alan At 14/11/2013 01:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I have replaced the sentence in question with: > >>The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >>support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent >>set of policies. Although each individual Recommendation received >>sufficient support, the net result is a set of Recommendations may >>be incomplete and perhaps even conflicting. > >and a footnote: > >>As an example, there may be cases where a strong protection is not >>recommended, but the recommendations may be silent on weaker forms >>of protection. > > >aLAN > > > >At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >>One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. >> >>"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >>implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >>consistent set of policies." >> >>I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >>group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >>that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >>together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >>cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >>contradict each other. >> >>In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >>clearer and more direct to the point. >> >>"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >>support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent >>set of policies" >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

I have replaced the sentence in question with: >The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies. Although each individual Recommendation received >sufficient support, the net result is a set of Recommendations may >be incomplete and perhaps even conflicting. and a footnote: >As an example, there may be cases where a strong protection is not >recommended, but the recommendations may be silent on weaker forms >of protection. aLAN At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. > >"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >consistent set of policies." > >I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >contradict each other. > >In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >clearer and more direct to the point. > >"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies" > > > >Thanks, > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

Good. Thanks. We may want to take it one step further and include part of your explanation in the text. I will give it a try tomorrow. Alan At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. > >"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >consistent set of policies." > >I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >contradict each other. > >In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >clearer and more direct to the point. > >"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies" > > > >Thanks, > >- Evan

1 0

Policy & Implementation Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

I have posted my first draft of a statement to the GNSO P&I WG at https://community.icann.org/x/-hSMAg. Substantive comments welcome, preferably on the wiki. I'm sure there are plenty of typos, so let me know about those as well (either on the wiki or via e-mail). I think that optimally, we should have sufficient discussion on this in BA to have a statement to send to the WG once the meeting is over. Alan

1 0

Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

The final report has been drafted and can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf. There were significant changes from the earlier draft, but mostly in format and clarity. As a result, several of the comments that we made on the draft version are no longer applicable. I am attaching a copy of the revised statement that I propose to submit for inclusion in the report. For ease of access for those travelling, I am also appending the text to this e-mail. There were NO substantive changes made to this statement from the version approved by the ALAC (as a comment on the draft report). Only those parts no longer applicable were deleted. Those included: - removal of the list of specific ALAC positions, since they are now included in the body of the report; - removal of the reference to some items being classed as having strong divergence where there was really a consensus NOT to do them (the report now says that). To be considered by the GNSO in its meeting next Wednesday, the minority statement needs to be submitted by Friday. Unless I hear any concern with this being done, I will submit it by that deadline. If there is a problem meeting the deadline, we can still submit it before it goes to the Board, but the GNSO will not have the benefit of having it in the version they consider (presuming a decision is taken next week and it is not deferred). Alan ========================== ALAC Minority Statement on the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP The ALAC has made a number of statements on the protection of IGO and INGO names, and has participated actively in all GNSO activities related to this topic. Our views on specific outcomes of this PDP are reflected in the Final Report. Given the wide range of views expressed in this report, and noting that nothing presented has received the unanimous support of the PDP Working Group, the ALAC would like to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the Recommendations as well as identify the principles that have guided its positions. The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of Recommendations some reflecting a WG Consensus (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) some with an even weaker level of support. Not a single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full Consensus), a level of support that is more typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many of the recommendations originally considered by the WG and strongly supported by some, the overall participant views were Divergent. If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies. The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting blocking-level protections may prohibit other reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not satisfied that the exception procedure options outlined in the report could meet the targets that the ALAC believes are mandatory. This being the case, it may be important to consider the principles that guided the ALAC in our participation in the activities that led to this report, and that the ALAC believes should guide ICANN in considering any special protections. 1. ICANN should grant special protection to organizations that further the public interest and in particular, those with a strong track record of humanitarian activities. However, such protections should only be granted where there is a history or reasonable expectation that the lack of protections would lead to the misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance. 2. Such protections, when granted, should not unreasonably impinge on the ability of others with a valid right to use the protected string from registering such names for uses which do not negatively impact the protected organization nor use the protected name with the intent to deceive users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote 1] 3. The procedures used to grant the protection exceptions identified in number 2 must be both inexpensive and fast. 4. No top level protections are necessary. Existing or new objection processes are sufficient. Footnote 1: Although not a gTLD registration, cern.ca is a good example. The Centre d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec has no connection or even a vague relationship with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a prime example of a new registration that might not be allowed under the proposed rules even though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a logical registration for Olympic Paints.

2 1