March 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

Fwd: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print
by Evan Leibovitch April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: 27 March 2013 01:15 Subject: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu It was revealed today during ICANN's new gtld webinar that ICANN is in fact creating rights to much more than the TM+50 derivations of that mark in its trademark clearinghouse. The fine print of this new right reads closer to "trademark + 50 derivations of that mark *for each trademark label".* So for example, for big brand companies like Apple, who will have a trademark registration in 30 countries for the word IPOD, ICANN will be assigning each of those separate registrations for the same trademark a new "trademark label", and *each trademark label* will be allowed to block registrations of the trademark +50 derivations. So in the Apple/IPOD example, Apple will be able block registrations for the TM + 1500 derivations of that mark (30 countries x 50 derivations = 1500). And ICANN staff confirmed that this is how staff's policy is designed to work on the webinar today. So this very practical example shows how half-baked staff's proposal truly is. Had the community ever been allowed to develop this proposal, these little "oopsies" could have been avoided. Of course it isn't an "oopsy" for the TM lobbyists who created the proposal - its a gigantic windfall of rights that exist no where in law, obtained no community consensus, and chill the speech of thousands of other lawful uses of a word. This very important distinction between a trademark and trademark label shows how big brands will in fact be able to block thousands of unrelated, lawful expression in the DNS. But ICANN promised that it won't be creating new rights with its policies, so I guess we don't have to worry and should trust them.... Sigh, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 1

Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2013

March 31, 2013

Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement was required. Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my to follow up on it. I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory. The DRP can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. The statement can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than those I would normally draft. Alan ======================== ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments. Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be "enforced by ICANN" (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced" included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact meant, "by ICANN". As it stands, the process: - Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently; - Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the violation; - May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so. Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid. Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP. There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is delegated. This hope has not been satisfied.

3 3

Fwd: [governance] WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 30, 2013

March 30, 2013

FYI - forwarded from the IGF Governance list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:51:22 +0200 From: Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob(a)gmail.com> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> WIPO Reports Another Record In Cybersquatting Disputes In 2012 Published on 28 March 2013 @ 8:24 pm Print This Post <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/28/wipo-reports-another-record-in-cybersqua…> Print This Post <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/28/wipo-reports-another-record-in-cybersqua…> By William New <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>, Intellectual Property Watch It was another record year in 2012 for cybersquatting cases filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Centre. In addition, WIPO announced results of a survey that show that its mediation services could benefit parties to technology-related disputes. Trademark holders filed 2,884 cases covering 5,084 internet domain names at the WIPO centre, a 4.5 percent increase over 2011, the previous record year, according to a press release. WIPO is one of the global locations for filing cases under the 1999 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Cases involved generic top-level domains (gTLDs like .com), and country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs like .ch for Switzerland). Cases filed at WIPO in 2012 were decided by 341 panellists from 48 countries, with proceedings in 13 different languages, the top five being English, Spanish, Chinese, French and Dutch. The top three areas of activity last year were retail, fashion and banking/finance. Some 75 percent of all cases were in the .com domain. One in five cases were settled, and in 91 percent of cases, evidence of cybersquatting was found. WIPO said it also has begun to see disputes filed in relation to the new gTLDs being launched at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). As of 13 March, there were 71 cases filed under the Legal Rights Objections procedure. The WIPO centre also offers services for technology and other intellectual property disputes, under mediation, arbitration and expedited arbitration rules. As of December 2012, there had been nearly 300 cases filed under these rules over the past five years. Examples of areas of case filings include: patent infringement, patent licences, information technology transactions, distribution agreements for pharmaceutical and consumer products, copyright issues, research and development agreements, and media-related agreements. Survey: Tech Disputes Could Benefit from ADR WIPO today also announced the results of a survey of users of alternative dispute resolution methods for technology-related disputes. With nearly 400 respondents from more than 60 countries, it found that parties to technology agreements are concerned about the cost and time of resolving formal disputes, making WIPO’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services more attractive. “While court litigation remains the default path, survey responses indicate that ADR offers attractive options in terms of cost and time, as well as enforceability, quality of outcome, and confidentiality,” WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said in the release. Related Articles: * WIPO Holds Annual Arbitration Workshop Off-Site For First Time <http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/10/17/wipo-holds-annual-arbitration-workshop-o…> * European Patent Office Reports Record Patent Filings In 2012 <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/06/european-patent-office-reports-record-pa…> * WIPO Reports Robust Growth In Demand For IP Rights In 2012 <http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/03/19/wipo-reports-robust-growth-in-demand-for…> /William New may be reached at wnew(a)ip-watch.ch <mailto:wnew@ip-watch.ch>./

1 1

First draft of ALAC RAA Statement
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

I have posted a first draft. It is not the short and concise statement I envisioned, because as I strted to write it, I realized that if the ALAC wanted to impact the outcome, we needed to identify, to the extent possible, WHY we supported or rejected any of the particular sections that are currently in dispute. I attempted to do this to the best of my ability, with the understanding that in some cases, I simply do not completely understand the motivation ofr the different positions. In such cases, I just said that. If anyone else understand better than I, please speak up. The draft can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/xZRwAg. Look for the red pointer to the PDF version to locate the start of the draft. All of the documents it refers to are pointed to in the box just above the draft. I am also attaching a PDF version here for your convenience. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread. I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process. Alan At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement >with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the >work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* >have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin >meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter >to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list... > ><snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is >responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD >deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment >on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in >processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when >they do (rarely) come to pass... > >Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and >occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work >at all. > >CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> >*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr > > >On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it > > here - with some explanations. > > > > "In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of > > the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested > > Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent > > "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each > > such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with > > information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, > > if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection > > has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result > > of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will > > find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be > > submitted to the Board." > > > > Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and > > responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or > > affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or > > delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of > > new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which > > Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary > > to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this > > dashboard. > > > > Best regards, > > Oksana > > > > > > > > 2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>: > > > Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO > > > that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with > > > out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a > > > single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder > > > whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) > > > is more than wishful thinking > > > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > >> Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the > > >> IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( > > >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) > > >> and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> > > >> ). > > >> > > >> Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the > > statement > > >> is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( > > >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg< > > https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> > > >> ). > > >> > > >> The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am > > guessing > > >> that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it > > is > > >> essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly. > > >> > > >> I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your > > convenience. > > >> > > >> I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be > > followed. > > >> > > >> Alan > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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… > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Evan Leibovitch > > > Toronto Canada > > > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > > Tw: el56 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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… > > >_______________________________________________ >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 4

Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

Attached please find the Draft Rules of Procedure for discussion at the 26 March 2013 ALAC meeting. Also attached is a redline version showing most of the changes from the RoP discussed at the 19 March 2013 meeting. In addition to the changes detailed below, there are two sets of changes what do not show in the redline: - A number of corrections to cross-references within the document. - The movement of what was "10.3 Meeting Rules" to "10. Rules of the ALAC". This change was not shown in the redline version since the move caused all of the following paragraph numbers to be changed, making the document quite confusing. Changes showing in the redline version: 1. Clarifying the status of individual members within At-large. 1.2 clarification of rules used. 2. Add definition of Super-majority and capitalize it where used within the document. 5.2 and other places: Define AAGM on first usage, and us it instead of AGM within the document (some occurrences previously said AGM). 5.6 Made reference to privileges associated only with the "ALAC Chair" clearer. 5.13 Replaced reference to Ombudsman with an alternative phrase taken from the ICANN Bylaws. 5.14 Added condition that only those who have at least one other ALAC member supporting them can be named Chair. 10.1 The section on rules was moved because it did not apply only to meetings. The addition of "or activities" acknowledges this. 11.4.2 Add a word that had inadvertently been omitted. 11.4.4 Removal of a redundant phrase. 11.2.3 Addition of rule to allow more stringent rules for motion adoption. The draft RoP can also be found at https://community.icann.org/x/VoYi. Alan

10 29

Re: [ALAC] RAA 3.7.8
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

Sorry, forgot one thing. At 27/03/2013 01:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >At 27/03/2013 12:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>On 27 March 2013 11:47, Garth Bruen at KnujOn >><<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: >> >>Change the WHOIS Accuracy Specification #5 from: >>âUpon the occurrence of a Registered Name Holder's willful provision >>of inaccurate or unreliable WHOIS informationâ >>To: >>âUpon the REPORT OR DISCOVERY of a Registered Name Holder's willful >>provision of inaccurate or unreliable WHOIS informationâ >> >> >> >>Agreed, though I think that "report" is >>sufficient. A discovery that is unreported can't be of much help. > >See my e-mail just sent which explains why I >think that "report" is overly broad. Don't agree about omitting discovery. That covers the case where a registrar "discovers" the problem, likely due to one of the required checks mandated in the earlier sections of the specification. It does not make sense for a registrar to have to report the problem to itself, yet the predicate part of this sentence is what allows the registrar to disable the domain with impunity. Alan >> >>AND modify the contract language of 3.7.8 from: >>"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in >>the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by >>Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. >>In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information >>associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable >>steps to correct that inaccuracy." >>To: >>"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in >>the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by >>Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. >>In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information >>associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable >>steps to correct that inaccuracy AND IF NEEDED CANCEL OR SUSPEND THE >>DOMAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCURACY SPECIFICATION." >> >> >>I'm OK with the intent, but would suggest >>something more explicit, that allows for a period of time to make corrections. >> >> >>"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any >>person of an inaccuracy in the contact >>information associated with a Registered Name >>sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps >>to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the >>event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact >>information associated with a Registered Name >>it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to >>correct that inaccuracy. Domains that maintain >>inaccurate information, after given reasonable >>time to be corrected upon notification, shall >>be cancelled or suspended by the Registrar in >>accordance with the accuracy specification. >> >>Is this any more palatable? > >Whois Accuracy Specification explicitly gives a >15 day window after which te registrar must disable the domain. > >Alan > > >>- Evan

3 4

Final Draft ALAC Rules of Procedure - For Approval
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

Attached please find the final version of the RoP for approval by the ALAC. The changes since the last version distributed (v71) are: - The four changes agreed to during our ALAC teleconference yesterday. - A change to 3.6 to synchronize it with the change we made to section 6 on ALT responsibilities. 3.6 now points to 6.1-6.3 so there is no confusion between the two sections describing the ALT. - Added missing periods and eliminated a few extra spaces where there were two between words. The proposed motion for approval is below. Alan ================ Whereas the current ALAC Rules of Procedure dates back to 2007, at the very start of the formation of the current RALO-based At-Large Community; Whereas experiences of the ensuing six years had shown that an overall review was required; Whereas a project to review and re-write the Rules of Procedure has been underway since April 2012, and that this project has involved extensive study, discussion and drafting by ALAC members and others from all ICANN regions; Resolved that the Draft ALAC Rules of Procedure dated 27 March 2013 (insert URL here) be adopted to replace the current ALAC Rules of Procedure (Document number AL/2007/1/1.Rev 11). The new Rules will take effect as soon as Adjunct Documents RoP-Adjunct-01, RoP-Adjunct-03 and RoP-Adjunct-04 referenced by the proposed Rules of Procedure have been approved by the ALAC.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RAA 3.7.8
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2013

March 27, 2013

At 27/03/2013 12:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 27 March 2013 11:47, Garth Bruen at KnujOn ><<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > >Change the WHOIS Accuracy Specification #5 from: > >âUpon the occurrence of a Registered Name Holder's willful provision >of inaccurate or unreliable WHOIS informationâ > >To: > >âUpon the REPORT OR DISCOVERY of a Registered Name Holder's willful >provision of inaccurate or unreliable WHOIS informationâ > > > >Agreed, though I think that "report" is >sufficient. A discovery that is unreported can't be of much help. See my e-mail just sent which explains why I think that "report" is overly broad. > >AND modify the contract language of 3.7.8 from: > >"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in >the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by >Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. >In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information >associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable >steps to correct that inaccuracy." > >To: > >"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in >the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by >Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. >In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information >associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable >steps to correct that inaccuracy AND IF NEEDED CANCEL OR SUSPEND THE >DOMAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCURACY SPECIFICATION." > > >I'm OK with the intent, but would suggest >something more explicit, that allows for a period of time to make corrections. > > >"...Registrar shall, upon notification by any >person of an inaccuracy in the contact >information associated with a Registered Name >sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to >investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the >event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact >information associated with a Registered Name it >sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to >correct that inaccuracy. Domains that maintain >inaccurate information, after given reasonable >time to be corrected upon notification, shall be >cancelled or suspended by the Registrar in >accordance with the accuracy specification. > >Is this any more palatable? Whois Accuracy Specification explicitly gives a 15 day window after which te registrar must disable the domain. Alan >- Evan

1 0