December 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
by José Francisco Arce Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Dear Olivier, all This is a quick question. Is At-large community thinking in participate? Who, How, when? In whick working group? I know Fatima Cambronero is maybe the person who is most involved. Maybe you can find the way to involved At-large in aWG. Kind Regards Jose Arce.- > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > De: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca(a)cafonso.ca> > Fecha: dic 21, 2013 1:37 PM > Asunto: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > Para: <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu> > Cc: > > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > >

2 1

Draft motion on DSSA report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 22, 2013

Dec. 22, 2013

As requested at the last ALAC meeting, I have drafted a motion for ALAC approval on the DSSA report. It is based on the motion approved by the GNSO, and adds a note of regret regarding the recommendation to not proceed with the phase 2 activities. It can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/szWfAg.

2 1

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Publishes Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013
by Holly Raiche Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

And for those who haven't read it, page 30 has a lovely picture of Rinalia and JJ Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Date: 19 December 2013 2:15:19 PM AEDT > To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Publishes Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013 > > > > [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18dec13-en.htm > > ________________________________ > ICANN Publishes Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013 > > 18 December 2013 > > The 2013 Annual Report for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been published online today. > > The report highlights the organization's achievements and progress from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013, including: > > * Continued accountability and transparency efforts. > * Opened new offices to increase ICANN's internationalization. > * Completed evaluation of more than a thousand new gTLDs and preparations to place them in the root. > * Finalized new Registrar Accreditation Agreement. > * Establishment of Trademark Clearinghouse. > > Further content includes: > > * Audited financial statements for fiscal year 2013. > * Biographical details on each of the Board of Directors. > * Messages from the CEO and Chairman. > > The complete annual report is available online at: http://www.icann.org/en/about/annual-report/annual-report-2013-en.pdf [PDF, 6.69 MB] > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Registrants and the transfer process
by Holly Raiche Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Hi Everyone Where the ITRP D working group is up to is gathering scenarios where the registrant has lost their domain name. By way of background, in the earlier working group (IRTP C), the possibility of the registrant being able to access the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy dispute mechanism. But for this working group, allowing registrant access to the process is seen to be too hard. But the WG agrees that there must be redress for registrants who have (wrongly) had their domain name transferred away. Some of the scenarios are really not - at their base - an ICANN issue. (the admin contact quits/is fired, and then cancels the name, takes it with him/her, or the web designer gets the site up and running and then doesn't give the name to the person who hired him/her.) But there are many scenarios that do amount to a breach of the RAA/policy. The WG's view at this stage is to have the registrant be able to go to Compliance for enforcement of the transfer rules if the rules/policy has not been followed. What Compliance has done for the group is forward the many situations which will be considered as a breach of the RAA/policy and for which ICANN should be able to order a transfer back of the name to the registrant. Does anyone have any real life scenarios that I can take to the group when it reconvenes in January so that the WG can 'road test' how various scenarios would be played out - i.e., in what circumstances the registrant, with ICANN help, can recover a name transferred away from them that should not, under ICANN rules, not have been transferred. Holly

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Confidentiality
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Dear Roberto, apologies for this - you must have been muted because I did not hear you. Your comments are well received and I note your last point regarding confidentiality and the hypothesis of having BCEC members share information. The discussion is open. Kind regards, Olivier On 17/12/2013 17:19, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > > I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments > from Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back > to my meeting, where I am right now. > > I would like to go on record saying that: > > · I share completely what Tijani has said -- as a matter of > fact we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. > The wider the number of people that have access to a piece of > information, the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from > that on the step to the information being public is very small. > > · BCEC has taken the issue of confidentiality very seriously, > I have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel > and then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all, > before giving access to confidential material. > > · If the principle of access to the current Board member > evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid > question, brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters > also not have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You > see that, step by step, we can undermine completely the > confidentiality, and therefore the trust in the process. > > · The ALAC can decide to open up to a larger audience but I > would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a > non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I > would also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel. > > · The hypothesis of having BCEC members to informally share > information with the regional voters is in open violation of the > confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members. > > Thanks, > > Roberto > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Possible ALAC Advice to the Board regarding the GNSO IGO/INGO PDP Report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

When we approved our statement on the IGO/INGO PDP Report, we allowed the possibility that the final minority statement could also be sent as Advice to the Board. Should you or the ALAC decide to do so, I would suggest the following text (plus whatever embellishments you may feel necessary). ============= The ALAC wishes to call the Boards attention to a statement that the ALAC has made with relation to the Final Report of the GNSO Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process. Body (minus title) of the ALAC Minority Statement found at pages 12-13 of http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-e…

1 0

Request for ALAC to take action
by Garth Bruen Dec. 12, 2013

Dec. 12, 2013

Dear Olivier and Colleagues, I am requesting that the Chair take action on the attached item. To summarize a contracted party to ICANN is employing an proven invalid privacy service for its registrants. This is not my research alone but has been validated and confirmed by journalists at the Washington Post (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/how-violent-porn-sites-man age-to-hide-information-that-should-be-public/2013/12/06/e0861378-3773-11e3- ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story_4.html). The registrar in question has been aware of the issue for over 2 years. Because of the scale of the issue and in the interests of transparency I am requesting this be logged as an official ALAC matter with At-Large staff and be forwarded to ICANN Compliance by the ALAC Chair for investigation. Please contact me with any questions. -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

Consolations about Nelson Mandela's passing away
by Wolf Ludwig Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

Hello, this may not be the right place / list but I just realized with deep sorrow that Nelson Mandela passed away today -- after everything he left behind for us and the world: his wisdom, visions, integrity, honesty, sense of freedom and justice, reconciliation (after 27 years in prison) and much more. His dreams and visions about equality and justice will be always valid, even in the digital age regarding rights and principles. There is hardly anybody in contemporary history I admired more! And who, if not him, will rest in peace? I share all consolations with our friends from AFRALO and beyond. Kind regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

7 6

Fwd: A follow-up from the ALAC and LACRALO about the Brasil Conference and 1net
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 8, 2013

Dec. 8, 2013

FYI -- after some discussion with the ALAC Leadership Team and seeing the continuous discussion on the /1net mailing list, I have sent the following enquiry to Adiel Akplogan, AFRINIC CEO and Fadi Chehadé, ICANN CEO. Best regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: A follow-up from the ALAC and LACRALO about the Brasil Conference and 1net Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 00:50:02 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, "Adiel A. Akplogan" <adiel(a)afrinic.net> CC: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Rodrigo de la Parra <rodrigo.delaparra(a)icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> ALAC Correspondence: AL-ALAC-CO-1213-1-00-EN Dear Fadi, Dear Adiel, in my capacity as ALAC Chair, I am following up on the ICANN week's announcements and progress in Buenos Aires with several requests for clarification, prompted by the At-Large Community. Please find attached a Statement from our Latin America & Caribbean Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO) region published in Buenos Aires on 21 November 2013 asking for several points of clarification regarding /1net and proposing their help in developing the agenda in the region. Within the past few days, it appears that the process by which the /1net initiative is being implemented, has started with a designation of the people that will make up several organising committees in the run-up to the Brazil conference. Several of my colleagues are voicing concerns that other parts of ICANN are negotiating a position on the committees irrespective of the wider ICANN issue. I would therefore like to make sure the participation of the At-Large Community is not overlooked at the table and would therefore seek your advice on how to go about making sure that this is not the case. I remind you that the ALAC supported the Montevideo Statement and the proposed Brazil meeting *before* the Bali IGF (See ALAC Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-1013-02-00-EN attached to this email) so this has been on our radar for a long time. I look forward to your kind reply to transmit to the At-Large Community. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 3

Re: [ALAC] Consolations about Nelson Mandela's passing away
by Fatimata Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

yes, indeed, Madiba is one but Long Life his Spirit. His wisdom will remain with humanity for ever. See one of his lessons for a good coach and a true leader ( humility)... "It is wise to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea." - Nelson Mandela Fatimata Seye Sylla Sent from my iPad On 6 déc. 2013, at 01:16, "Tijani BENJEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > Thank you very much Wolf, > > > > All Africa mourns Mandela ... > > All Africa is in mourning. > > Mandela was the militancy, the sacrifice, the wisdom, the tolerance, and the > forgiveness ..... > > How much we need Mandela today!!! > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Wolf Ludwig > Envoyé : vendredi 6 décembre 2013 00:26 > À : ALAC Working List > Objet : [ALAC] Consolations about Nelson Mandela's passing away > > > > Hello, > > > > this may not be the right place / list but I just realized with deep sorrow > that Nelson Mandela passed away today -- after everything he left behind for > us and the world: his wisdom, visions, integrity, honesty, sense of freedom > and justice, reconciliation (after 27 years in prison) and much more. His > dreams and visions about equality and justice will be always valid, even in > the digital age regarding rights and principles. There is hardly anybody in > contemporary history I admired more! And who, if not him, will rest in > peace? > > > > I share all consolations with our friends from AFRALO and beyond. > > > > Kind regards, > > Wolf > > > > EuroDIG Secretariat > > http://www.eurodig.org/ > > mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > > > > EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > > http://euralo.org > > > > Profile on LinkedIn > > http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC 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+(ALA > C) > > _______________________________________________ > 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…

4 3

Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group: LACRALO Statement
by Fatima Cambronero Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear Rinalia and all, LACRALO have discussed the Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding the Technical Liaison Group and we have prepared a statement which I included in the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Bylaws+… We hope ALAC can discuss this draft and can adopt it as ALAC statement. I am available to clarify any doubt. Thank you. Best Regards, Fatima -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/

4 4

Fwd: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear all, FYI -- just to keep you updated, after the ALAC met with the NCSG, Evan Leibovitch announced during the public forum the creation of a joint effort by both communities to work together to prepare for the Brazil meeting etc. David Olive picked this up and discussed it with the ALAC Leadership Team on the Friday of the ICANN week. He then shared the fact that this effort was open for every SO/AC to join, on the SO/AC Leadership mailing list. The responses were quick to ask "how do we join this?" and from here onwards, Rafik & I have worked with several people to get the train rolling. The update below will give you an idea where we are at the moment. I am not sure whether this was the original intent since I recall that we probably thought during the ALAC/NCSG meeting that things would start small & grow slowly once we had a few position papers on the WIKI but I guess that with the Brazil meeting only a few months away and with the Festive Season about to arrive, many felt we needed to act quickly. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [soac-discussion] Internet Governance CWG Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:50:18 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org <soac-discussion(a)icann.org> CC: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org>, "Tracy Hackshaw (Tracy.Hackshaw(a)gov.tt)" <Tracy.Hackshaw(a)gov.tt>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Hello all, just a quick update since the last emails on this thread. Last week's action items were: On 29/11/2013 01:26, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Right now, practical matters shows a need to: > 1. populate the common WIKI space which has been created by Staff on > https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/ICANN+Community+Preparation+for+t… > 2. create at least 1 mailing list for discussion so as to free the > SOAC mailing list from discussion about this matter and not need to CC > more and more people > 3. consider creating a 2nd mailing list for the coordinators, should > there be at least one from each SO/AC/SG This is just to let you know that things are taking shape. Sally Costerton's GSE department is working on allocating Staff support for this effort. The WIKI space referenced above will be open for all with a log-in to be able to use. I gather that it will soon take shape with help from Staff & members of the community. 2 mailing lists are being created by Staff. One mailing list will be open to all wishing to take part in the CCWG. Completely open etc. One mailing list will be closed & used for admin purposes solely by the coordinators & future chairs of this CCWG. I have suggested this model as it is the one that was used by the DSSA WG. Populating the open mailing list ASAP will allow us to take the discussion over to it, rather than crowding the SOAC leadership mailing list & having a longer and longer CC' list. Rummaging through the recent threads, I have seen interest from: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC - facilitator Rafik Dammak NCSG - facilitator David Olive Staff Olof Nordling Staff Theresa Swinehart Staff Heidi Ullrich Staff Jonathan Robinson GNSO - RySG Avri Doria GNSO - NCSG Mikey O'Connor GNSO - ISPCP William Drake NCUC Cintra Sooknanan NPOC Louis Lee ASO AC Adiel A. Akplogan ASO NRO Heather Dryden GAC Tracy Hackshaw GAC Patrik Fältström SSAC Robert Guerra SSAC Evan Leibovitch ALAC León Felipe Sánchez ALAC Holly Raiche ALAC Stéphane van Gelder NomCom I have transmitted full details for the above names to the Staff member in charge of starting the mailing list. Please forgive me if I have not included your name on this list - this is hastily created from rummaging through the email thread in my mailbox that's a needle in a haystack. Self-subscription will be possible once the mailing list is up & running. Mikey O'Connor has very kindly volunteered to start work on a charter already. Rafik & I really hope that things can get in full swing before the end of the week. I realise there's going to be a lot of questioning about "what? another mailing list? for what?" Once the dust settles, I think we'll have a better idea. That's all for today. Kindest regards, Olivier

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 5, 2013

Dec. 5, 2013

Excellent discussion on this thread. Eduardo Diaz has raised an important gap about the interpretation of RFC1591 (based on a real case), which puts into question whether or not the IANA Operator is empowered to act in cases where there is a request to revocate from a local government (backed by local law), but where there are no operational problems and no substantial misbehavior on the part of the ccTLD Operator. The gap is a valid one, and since there is concern in our community about this issue, I suggest that it be flagged as a gap in the ALAC statement to the ccNSO on revocation that requires a resolution (irrespective of the status of discussions between the GAC and the ccNSO). Hong Xue has raised an important issue on establishing a requirement for the IANA Operator to consult with local government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. I generally think this is good practice that our community can advocate for. Noting that trust in governments can vary depending on context, I would like to ask: Are there any concerns about this? If not, I would propose adding this requirement into the ALAC statement as well. Best regards, Rinalia On Dec 5, 2013 8:24 AM, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, whether the IANA operator should, in any case, follow the > competent authority's decision, has been raised by GAC when ccNSO > presented its report on "revocation". So far both sides have yet to > work out a solution to coherently interpret how to make sure the > revocation by IANA according to the RFC 1591 consistent with the GAC > Principles. Roughly, revocation is deemed a narrow conception that > does not involve "re-delegation", which is in the sovereignty of the > government of the ccTLD territory. Then we could run into a puzzling > situation in which a revoked ccTLD operator may be re-delegated back > by the government. Who then should have the final say in this regard? > Could the (disputed) ccTLD manager appeal to the ICANN Board or sue > ICANN to the court of CA? > > To avoid the above conflict of "enforcement", I mentioned on > confluence wiki that IANA operator would better consult the local > government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. > Otherwise, the IANA's revocation decision would either be backfired at > the ccTLD territory or cycling back and forth without finality. > > > Hong > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eduardo Diaz > <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As a matter of practical matter the IANA operator should follow the > > government mandate regardless of "colouration". Otherwise who is the > judge? > > > > -ed > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Carlton Samuels > > <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> On principle yes, I could agree with Eduardo. But as a practical matter, > >> 'colouration' of the government will always be an issue. > >> > >> So then as a practical matter, I am loathe to believe that a request > -for > >> example - from one of the little fellas or one of those places where the > >> cult of personality is the supreme law..or where they count the votes > >> before they are cast....should be both compelling and binding. > >> > >> -Carlton > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> ============================= > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Keith, > >> > > >> > Please have a look at Eduardo's response (forwarded below), which is > >> guided > >> > by a real case. > >> > > >> > Can you kindly venture into the shades of nuance to address the > >> situation > >> > that he has highlighted? > >> > > >> > I think this discussion will be useful for the ALAC in considering its > >> > input on revocation. > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Rinalia > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > From: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > >> > Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM > >> > Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation > >> > To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > Cc: > >> > > >> > Rinalia: > >> > > > >> > > Governments may be treated as another stakeholder as far as the > >> RFC-1591 > >> > > is concerned but a government with a mandate, e.g. a "local law", to > >> > > revocate, should have more weight and standing than any other > >> > stakeholder. > >> > > So the question still stands: if a government requests a revocation > >> > without > >> > > reaching a consent with the ccTLD manager, will the IANA operator > send > >> it > >> > > back to be resolved locally? If so, the ccTLD manager has the last > >> > saying > >> > > in the whole process. The applicability of "local law" in the RFC > 1591 > >> > > should be clearly interpreted by the framework to cover cases like > >> these. > >> > > > >> > > -ed > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >> > > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Ed, > >> > >> > >> > >> what do you think? > >> > >> > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > >> From: "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> > >> > >> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM > >> > >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation > >> > >> To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Working > >> > List" > >> > >> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Rinalia, all, > >> > >> > >> > >> We have discussed the concept of Governments vs other parties who > >> seek a > >> > >> revocation, and see no reason to differentiate governments from any > >> > other > >> > >> stakeholder group in this regard. In terms of the policies > outlined in > >> > >> RFC1591, governments are not accorded any special status, but > >> references > >> > >> are made to the applicability of "local law" instead. > >> > >> > >> > >> The shades of nuance of the difference, or sameness of this could > take > >> > >> quite some debate - which I am happy to entertain if you think it > >> > useful. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> > >> > >> Keith > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 22/11/2013 6:55 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Keith, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for jumping in on this issue. Can you clarify on > whether > >> the > >> > >>> WG discussed in any way how revocation should be handled if it is > >> > >>> requested by governments and if there are special criteria that > would > >> > >>> apply in such cases? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 22, 2013 1:46 AM, "Keith Davidson" < > keith(a)internetnz.net.nz > >> > >>> <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Just as an aside, I am the Chair of the Working Group that > >> drafted > >> > >>> the Revocation document as part of the overall Framework of > >> > >>> Interpretation working group in ICANN, so if there are issues > or > >> > >>> clarifications required on this, I would be happy to discuss > with > >> > >>> folks on this list. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Cheers > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Keith > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 22/11/2013 2:09 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear Sala, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There is time for input, but the urgency level must be > >> > >>> maintained as the > >> > >>> ALAC is scheduled to vote on the statement on 12th > December. > >> I > >> > >>> recognize > >> > >>> that the issue affects many interested parties, which is > why > >> I > >> > >>> sent out a > >> > >>> second call for comments recently. I look forward to more > >> > input > >> > >>> on the > >> > >>> important topic of revocation from the community with > >> Maureen's > >> > >>> mobilization and coordination. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for your help. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 21, 2013 8:48 PM, "Sala T" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu > >> > >>> <mailto:sala@pasifikanexus.nu>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear Rinalia, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you for this. Since this first came out, I had > sent > >> > it > >> > >>> to the region > >> > >>> and also to the Regulators, ccTLD managers and > Government > >> > >>> Policy makers. I > >> > >>> had a meeting with Pacific Regional Regulators > Resource > >> > >>> Center which is a > >> > >>> unit comprising all the Regulators and Policy makers. > >> Some > >> > >>> of them are also > >> > >>> members of ALSes in the Pacific. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There was overwhelming response that they were busy > with > >> > >>> Plenipotentiary > >> > >>> preparations. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I will be having another meeting with some of them for > >> the > >> > >>> purpose of > >> > >>> feeding into the process and hopefully by > crowd-sourcing > >> > >>> where there are > >> > >>> geographical challenges. I will work with Maureen to > feed > >> > >>> this into the > >> > >>> wiki etc. This may involve having a specific webinar > and > >> > >>> will brief Maureen > >> > >>> and get her to take the lead on this as she is ALAC > and > >> > >>> ccNSO liaison. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Please give us time to put submissions in. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best Regards, > >> > >>> Sala > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim > < > >> > >>> > >> > >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com > >> > >>> <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dear At-Large Colleagues, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The ALAC is preparing a statement on the topic of > >> ccTLD > >> > >>> "revocation", > >> > >>> > >> > >>> which > >> > >>> > >> > >>> refers to a process where the IANA Operator > rescinds > >> > the > >> > >>> responsibility > >> > >>> > >> > >>> for > >> > >>> > >> > >>> the management of a ccTLD from the manager. In > such > >> a > >> > >>> situation, a > >> > >>> > >> > >>> country > >> > >>> > >> > >>> code Top Level Domain will be re-delegated without > >> the > >> > >>> consent of the > >> > >>> incumbent ccTLD manager in cases where there are > >> > >>> “persistent problems > >> > >>> > >> > >>> with > >> > >>> > >> > >>> the operations of the domain” and where there > >> continues > >> > >>> to be > >> > >>> > >> > >>> “substantial > >> > >>> > >> > >>> misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite > >> the > >> > >>> IANA Operator’s > >> > >>> > >> > >>> best > >> > >>> > >> > >>> efforts to stop the misconduct. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A draft statement has been prepared and is > available > >> > for > >> > >>> your > >> > >>> > >> > >>> input/comment > >> > >>> > >> > >>> on the following wikipage: > >> > >>> https://community.icann.org/__ > >> > >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=__43980716 > >> > >>> > >> > >>> <https://community.icann.org/ > >> > >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43980716> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If you have thoughts or opinions on this topic, > >> please > >> > >>> do provide your > >> > >>> input/comments on the wikipage. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thank you. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rinalia > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__ > >> > >>> org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> > >> > >>> < > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac- > >> > >>> discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann. > >> > __org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list > >> > >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org > >> > >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann. > >> __org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss > >> > >>> > >> > >>> < > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > *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 > >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > > >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> > ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *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. > > _______________________________________________ > > APAC-Discuss mailing list > > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

2 1

Fwd: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 4, 2013

Dec. 4, 2013

Dear Keith, Please have a look at Eduardo's response (forwarded below), which is guided by a real case. Can you kindly venture into the shades of nuance to address the situation that he has highlighted? I think this discussion will be useful for the ALAC in considering its input on revocation. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: Rinalia: > > Governments may be treated as another stakeholder as far as the RFC-1591 > is concerned but a government with a mandate, e.g. a "local law", to > revocate, should have more weight and standing than any other stakeholder. > So the question still stands: if a government requests a revocation without > reaching a consent with the ccTLD manager, will the IANA operator send it > back to be resolved locally? If so, the ccTLD manager has the last saying > in the whole process. The applicability of "local law" in the RFC 1591 > should be clearly interpreted by the framework to cover cases like these. > > -ed > > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ed, >> >> what do you think? >> >> Rinalia >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz> >> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation >> To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Working List" >> <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> Hi Rinalia, all, >> >> We have discussed the concept of Governments vs other parties who seek a >> revocation, and see no reason to differentiate governments from any other >> stakeholder group in this regard. In terms of the policies outlined in >> RFC1591, governments are not accorded any special status, but references >> are made to the applicability of "local law" instead. >> >> The shades of nuance of the difference, or sameness of this could take >> quite some debate - which I am happy to entertain if you think it useful. >> >> Cheers >> >> Keith >> >> >> On 22/11/2013 6:55 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >> >>> Keith, >>> >>> Thank you for jumping in on this issue. Can you clarify on whether the >>> WG discussed in any way how revocation should be handled if it is >>> requested by governments and if there are special criteria that would >>> apply in such cases? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> >>> On Nov 22, 2013 1:46 AM, "Keith Davidson" <keith(a)internetnz.net.nz >>> <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: >>> >>> Just as an aside, I am the Chair of the Working Group that drafted >>> the Revocation document as part of the overall Framework of >>> Interpretation working group in ICANN, so if there are issues or >>> clarifications required on this, I would be happy to discuss with >>> folks on this list. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> On 22/11/2013 2:09 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala, >>> >>> There is time for input, but the urgency level must be >>> maintained as the >>> ALAC is scheduled to vote on the statement on 12th December. I >>> recognize >>> that the issue affects many interested parties, which is why I >>> sent out a >>> second call for comments recently. I look forward to more input >>> on the >>> important topic of revocation from the community with Maureen's >>> mobilization and coordination. >>> >>> Thank you for your help. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> >>> On Nov 21, 2013 8:48 PM, "Sala T" <sala(a)pasifikanexus.nu >>> <mailto:sala@pasifikanexus.nu>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Rinalia, >>> >>> Thank you for this. Since this first came out, I had sent it >>> to the region >>> and also to the Regulators, ccTLD managers and Government >>> Policy makers. I >>> had a meeting with Pacific Regional Regulators Resource >>> Center which is a >>> unit comprising all the Regulators and Policy makers. Some >>> of them are also >>> members of ALSes in the Pacific. >>> >>> There was overwhelming response that they were busy with >>> Plenipotentiary >>> preparations. >>> >>> I will be having another meeting with some of them for the >>> purpose of >>> feeding into the process and hopefully by crowd-sourcing >>> where there are >>> geographical challenges. I will work with Maureen to feed >>> this into the >>> wiki etc. This may involve having a specific webinar and >>> will brief Maureen >>> and get her to take the lead on this as she is ALAC and >>> ccNSO liaison. >>> >>> Please give us time to put submissions in. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>> >>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear At-Large Colleagues, >>> >>> The ALAC is preparing a statement on the topic of ccTLD >>> "revocation", >>> >>> which >>> >>> refers to a process where the IANA Operator rescinds the >>> responsibility >>> >>> for >>> >>> the management of a ccTLD from the manager. In such a >>> situation, a >>> >>> country >>> >>> code Top Level Domain will be re-delegated without the >>> consent of the >>> incumbent ccTLD manager in cases where there are >>> “persistent problems >>> >>> with >>> >>> the operations of the domain” and where there continues >>> to be >>> >>> “substantial >>> >>> misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite the >>> IANA Operator’s >>> >>> best >>> >>> efforts to stop the misconduct. >>> >>> A draft statement has been prepared and is available for >>> your >>> >>> input/comment >>> >>> on the following wikipage: >>> https://community.icann.org/__ >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=__43980716 >>> >>> <https://community.icann.org/ >>> pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43980716> >>> >>> If you have thoughts or opinions on this topic, please >>> do provide your >>> input/comments on the wikipage. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Rinalia >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__ >>> org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac- >>> discuss> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> >>> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> APAC-Discuss mailing list >>> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.__icann.org >>> <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss >>> >>> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss> >>> >>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >>> >>> > > > -- > *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. >

3 2

Panel overload
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 1, 2013

Dec. 1, 2013

I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this, but I am starting to get dizzy at the sheer number of panels, committees and working groups being formed. - Four original Presidents Strategy Panels. launched at Durban (originally fivem two have been merged) - The co-signers of the Montivideo Declaration - A High Level Panel led by the head of Estonia - An ICANN Cross-community working group on the Brazil meeting (asked for by Fadi at the emergency 7am meeting in Buenos Aires, delivered by a joint ALAC/NCSG effort) That's seven panels, all working independently, and I'm sure I may be missing some others too. And that doesn't even count the work going on within the silos of the other Montivideo signatories (I certainly don't see any attempts at, for instance, bringing together ISOC and ICANN and the RIRs on these matters). There are a lot of big names on these panels, and a lot of credibility -- credibility that, IMO, is at risk if the ongoing work of these panels is as chaotic and ill-conceived as the processes that created them. Outside of the one that was actually initiated by our community, there are only two At-Large members -- Carlton and Edmon -- involved in any of the other groups. This is unfortunate, especially given our early support for the endeavour when most of the rest of ICANN's community waffled or opposed. But even more than the lack of end-user representation, is a feeling that this entire collection of well-meaning groupings and silos have no focus beyond a vague intent to defend ICANN against the encroachment of government control. All of a sudden, questions such as "where is ICANN's civil society?" seem relevant and are being repeately asked. Given that ICANN's multi-stakeholderism is being trotted out as the best defence against such encroachment, it is bewildering that that this model appears to require such a staggering amount of outside help. Where were all these people before? Maybe this chaotic need for external validation itself indicates a problem with the model. All I know right now is that: - It's becoming harder and harder to track all the parallel panels, and what relation they have to each other; - My confidence that this cacophony will produce a coherent defense of the MSM, is diminishing by the day; - ICANN, after years of single focus on expanding gTLDs, has just woken up to a challenge to its very legitimacy that until now has been arrogantly assumed. Its response has been fascinating to experience, if not wholly satisfying. My dizziness is unlikely to abate any time soon. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

6 10