February 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Prague Schedule / Tuesday 16 October 2012
by At-Large Staff July 17, 2013

July 17, 2013

Dear All, Please find hereafter the At-Large schedule for tomorrow, Tuesday 16 October 2012 with all remote participation details listed on the ICANN Schedule: Wiki Agenda page: http://tinyurl.com/9h95fo6 ICANN Schedule: http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule Meeting Room Map: http://toronto45.icann.org/files/meetings/toronto2012/45-Toronto-VenueMap-3O ct12.png * 07:00 - 08:00 NARALO Capacity Building Session 2 Regatta Room http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34285 * 08:00 - 09:00 Joint NARALO / Fellows Meeting 2 Frontenac http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34283 * 08:30 09:30: Meeting with ICANN Board Metro East http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34289 * 10:00 - 11:00: At-Large Capacity Building: Next Steps Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34307 * 11:00 13:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 1 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34313 13:00 - 14:00 LUNCH break * 14:00 16:00: ALAC Policy Discussion Part 2 Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34327 * 16:00 - 17:00: Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Working Group Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34353 * 17:00 18:00: At-Large Outreach Sub-Committee Meeting Regatta http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34361 General Meetings: Please refer to full Schedule: http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 14

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Evan has kindly pointed out that in my last sentence before my signature, it should have been "... ADDED in the last sentence." Alan (trying to extract his foot from his mouth, and hoping to teach his fingers how to select the correct keys) At 28/02/2013 01:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been >suggested. They are shown on the wiki at >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: >==== >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for >lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the >public interest. >==== >The changes were: >- "unlimited" added in the first sentence. >- "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of >paragraph 2. >- "as long as it can be established that they serve the public >interest" assed in the last sentence. > >Alan > >At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to > >create a new version. > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing > >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > earlier versions. > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > >Alan > > > >================================= > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the > >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard > >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models > >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An > >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at > >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is > >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. > >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread > >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a > >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to > >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should > >not be excluded. > >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been suggested. They are shown on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: ==== On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable. Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated. In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the public interest. ==== The changes were: - "unlimited" added in the first sentence. - "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of paragraph 2. - "as long as it can be established that they serve the public interest" assed in the last sentence. Alan At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to >create a new version. > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >see here, please speak up quickly. > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > >Alan > >================================= > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should >not be excluded.

1 0

Fwd: Invitation to March 4, 2013 Community Consultation on Proposed Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear all, please be so kind to find the enclosed invitation. I am pleased to note that our community is invited to attend the teleconference and have forwarded this message both to the ALAC list but also to our Registrant Rights mailing list. Warmest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation to March 4, 2013 Community Consultation on Proposed Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:46:36 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com> Hi Olivier, I hope you're doing well. Attached is an invitation to the Monday, March 4 community consultation teleconference on the proposed changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. You and any interested ALAC member are welcome to participate and/or listen in. Please feel free to circulate this to the ALAC list. Best regards, Keith Verisign *Keith Drazek* Director of Policy kdrazek(a)Verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@Verisign.com> m: +1-571-377-9182 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/> Verisign^(TM)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Isn't that what we are saying in the summary paragraph? Alan At 28/02/2013 10:01 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Why not just "We are wary that depending on the business model that >is activated, closed generics may not advance the public >interest. However, from the evidence of existing business >frameworks like Facebook and some blog platforms, innovations yet >unknown may in fact deliver public benefits. Absent hard evidence, >we are therefore unwilling to support a blanket disapproval of the category." > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we >hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific >wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or >more self-consistent? > >In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening >sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that >unlimited closed generics provide public benefit." > >Alan > > >At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >>The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at >>the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement >>itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up >>the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. >> >>I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that >>closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, >>at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the >>existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! >> >>The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe >>that closed generics provide public benefit". >> >>Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative >>business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public >>interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names >>available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over >>them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog >>hosting sites." >> >>This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". >>"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence >>now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration >>of the fist paragraph. >> >>-Carlton >> >>============================== >>Carlton A Samuels >>Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >>============================= >> >> >>On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >>generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >>been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >>the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >>with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >>discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >>moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >>both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create >>a new version. >>I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, >>and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >>suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >>be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. >>What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >>Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with >>earlier versions. >>The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >>completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >>vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >>see here, please speak up quickly. >>This new statement is also posted on the wiki - >><https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. >>Alan >>================================= >>On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >>public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >>representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >>lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >>believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >>public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >>beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >>being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. >>However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >>found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >>would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might >>allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >>a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >>but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >>used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >>made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >>that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >>other forms of sub-domain allocation. >>Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >>some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >>computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >>might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >>California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >>orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >>countries) might well be considered unacceptable. >>Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >>review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >>allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >>change that model once the TLD is delegated. >>In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >>generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >>supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >>both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >>ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >>be excluded. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or more self-consistent? In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed generics provide public benefit." Alan At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at >the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement >itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up >the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. > >I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that >closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, >at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the >existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! > >The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe >that closed generics provide public benefit". > >Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative >business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public >interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names >available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. >This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites." > >This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". >"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence >now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration >of the fist paragraph. > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create >a new version. > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, >and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you >see here, please speak up quickly. > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - ><https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > >Alan > >================================= > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions >would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not >be excluded. > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Both good. Thanks. Alan At 28/02/2013 09:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Alan, > >A suggestion to address Carlton's concern (not a full solution, but >a partial one): > >"We can foresee There may be innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest." > >Also, another suggestion for the final sentence in last >paragraph: "Such uses should not be excluded as long as it can be >established that they serve the public interest." > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we >hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific >wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or >more self-consistent? > >In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening >sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited >closed generics provide public benefit." > >Alan > >At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at > >the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement > >itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up > >the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. > > > >I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that > >closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, > >at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the > >existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! > > > >The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe > >that closed generics provide public benefit". > > > >Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative > >business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public > >interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names > >available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. > >This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites." > > > >This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". > >"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence > >now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration > >of the fist paragraph. > > > >-Carlton > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg > ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create > >a new version. > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, > >and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > earlier versions. > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > ><<https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/ > x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > >Alan > > > >================================= > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > >would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might > >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > >be excluded. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.ica > nn.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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com > mittee+(ALAC)>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… >

1 0

Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:39:02 -0500 >Subject: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation >Teleconference on Monday, > March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes > >Dear Councilors, > >I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from >your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and >the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open >consultation with the community. > > >**** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement >Modifications***** > >The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant >Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide >consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC. > >On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants >spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new >introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute >material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final >New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a >brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments >(PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry >agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed >the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a >host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes >document. >(<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…) > > >The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final >Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it >should be withdrawn in its entirety and the previously agreed-to >version in the Applicant Guidebook should be used. We oppose certain >proposed amendments, and believe that other provisions need further >thought and refinement. We are equally concerned about the timeline >ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of these >proposals, and the mechanism by which ICANN proposes to adopt and >implement the changes. > >The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve sufficient >time and consideration to ensure that new gTLDs are offered in a >secure and stable manner and are successful in fostering innovation >via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders >in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. > >The RySG's full public comments are available here: >(<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html) > >ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends >on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20, >2013. In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this >short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide >consultation to discuss the proposed agreement modifications. The >meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We >cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN >Board and the ICANN staff to attend this consultation. > >Please open the attachment to find the Adobe connect link and >teleconference details. > >Best regards, > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

1 0

Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create a new version. I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you see here, please speak up quickly. This new statement is also posted on the wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. Alan ================================= On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable. Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated. In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded.

2 1

Comments of Transliteration Contact -WHOIS - Data
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 19, 2013

Feb. 19, 2013

We are totally dependent on our IDN experts to help us here. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0