April 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Final GAC Communique - Beijing
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Final GAC Communique - Beijing Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:54:25 -0700 From: Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org> To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Please find attached the final GAC Communique from Beijing. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 USA Ph. +1 310 302 7552

1 0

Share Taxi early morning?
by Wolf Ludwig April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Hello, it's almost over again -- snivel ... Fouad and I realized that we have to leave early tomorrow (Friday) morning to the airport. As our flights are scheduled for around 7:00 AM, we have to leave the hotel here around 4:00 AM (a real nightmare) ... counting on 1 hr to the airport ... Anybody else from the ALAC crowd who needs to join us and want to share a taxi with us? Let me take the opportunity to say thanks and good bye to all of you (or at least those I won't cross at the Wrap-up Cocktail ;-) Wish you save flights and relaxed returns! Best, 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

3 2

Revised statement on the PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

The original draft and discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. Thanks to Rinalia and Evan for a great revision (which I have slightly tweaked here). ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure The ALAC is deeply troubled/concerned by the proposed enforcement mechanism for the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments, which appears to be ineffectual by design. Although described as a Dispute Resolution Procedure, the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) was introduced to the community as a process that could be enforced by ICANN (<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) Many in our community were led to believe that enforced by ICANN meant that the PIC process would include an ICANN Compliance connection and that ICANN itself would carry out the enforcement. As the PIC is currently presented, the process: * Requires possibly significant fees with magnitudes that are currently unknown; * Requires that the complainant demonstrates measurable harm due to the violation; * May be filed by ICANN, but without any obligation for it to do so. Given that no exception is noted in the PIC process, ICANN could presumably only file an objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurably harmed. This situation recalls the sad period when ICANN applied RAA sanctions only when it was not paid. The UDRP, where decisions are outsourced like those of the proposed PICDRP, was deliberately designed to operate independently the opposite of "by ICANN" as claimed by ICANN for the PIC. And unlike trademark claimants using the UDRP, members of the public should not be expected to have financial or even direct interest in order to complain when PICs are not being fulfilled. The ALAC believes that ICANN made a serious mistake in not requiring all new gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises in the form of contractual compliance. We expected that the PIC, despite being a late addition to the application process, would be used as a crucial mechanism to uphold the interest of the public and the end user. As proposed, the PIC implementation is weak with features that actively discourage and penalize complainants. The PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure as it is currently presented provides little leverage for the Global Public Interest and it is therefore unacceptable. We firmly believe that ICANN must bestow upon the PIC process the true force of responsible and competent enforcement.

2 1

Possible joint ALAC-NCSG statement at Open Forum
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

At the ALAC-NCSG meeting on Monday, a decision was taken to attempt to draft a statement on the proposed new rights protection mechanisms (originally the "strawman" proposal) and more specific all the allowing into the TMCH variations of trademarks that had been found to be abusive by a UDRP or Court. A number of drafts were circulated and the statement below was the result: >We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the >creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new >gTLD rights protection mechanisms. Despite assurances that staff >would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects >of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy >development processes. > >While we appreciate staff's admission that this particular proposal >was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the >explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO >Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO >development have been woefully inadequate. Circumvention of the >bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and >redress. We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the >community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process >that ICANN claims to champion. Following this, an extensive discussion was held during the open GNSO meeting. One of the issues that came out of this was that many (but certainly not all) GNSO Council (and presumably GNSO) members feel that the salient issue is not that the Board has chosen to override the majority position of the GNSO that some of the strawman issues were definitely policy, but rather that it was done without at least the courtesy of telling the GNSO that they were planning to do so, explaining the rationale in detail, and giving the GNSO an opportunity to interact with the Board and staff before the definitive decision was taken. I would suggest that this is closer to the message that we want to deliver to the Board. I have told Robin Gross, that we would let her know prior to the Open Forum whether we support the above joint statement or not. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .patagonia
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Dear Sergio, the ALAC Executive Committee had lunch with the GAC Leadership today and we raised the issues of .amazon, .patagonia and .cba At this stage, the ALAC is unable to raise objections since we are past the deadline for filing ALAC objections. The GAC has been considering the list of GTLDs applied for and their work continues throughout the week. Whilst we were not told which strings are currently being considered for objection, since the GAC's work is ongoing, I would remind you and your colleagues that there are several GAC representatives from the countries affected by the above strings and a natural course of action could be for you to write to your representatives. The GAC's work is scheduled to complete by the end of the ICANN week, hence the earlier you write, the better. But keep in mind that the GAC is approaching closure and will not consider new objections, so it really depends on the strings that the GAC has considered so far. I hope this helps in your approach. Best regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/04/2013 08:37, Presidencia Internauta wrote: > Dear Members of ALAC, > > Attached you will find a requirement of three > members of LACRALO order request to ALAC to advise the Board of ICANN > to reject the application for the '.patagonia'. > > Also, during the day we will send a similar request regarding the > domain '. Amazon' > > Thanking you in advance. > **Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > > > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> > > > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819** > **"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano** -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .patagonia
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Dear Sergio, the ALAC ExCom is having a lunch with the GAC leadership today. I will inform them of the initiatives currently taking place. Kind regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/04/2013 08:37, Presidencia Internauta wrote: > Dear Members of ALAC, > > Attached you will find a requirement of three > members of LACRALO order request to ALAC to advise the Board of ICANN > to reject the application for the '.patagonia'. > > Also, during the day we will send a similar request regarding the > domain '. Amazon' > > Thanking you in advance. > **Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > > > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> > > > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819** > **"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano** -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

ALAC Statement on Draft RAA statement
by Alan Greenberg April 7, 2013

April 7, 2013

The final version has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/xZRwAg. The substantive changes made to the previous version are: - The trigger action requiring Registrar action of inaccurate Whois (Section 5 of the Whois Accuracy Specification) has been slightly changed. We are recommending that replacing the "Upon the occurrence of a" with Upon a validated report or discovery of a, or alternately, "Upon learning of a...". - Changing the Registrar Whois Port 43 requirement to require Port 43, but only until there are no longer any Thin registries. Alan

4 4

Preliminary report for meeting of the new gTLD committee on 26 March 2013
by Alan Greenberg April 5, 2013

April 5, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-26mar… 1. Approval to Enter Agreement with IBM for Trademark Clearinghouse Due to a potential for conflict of interest, Thomas Narten was not present for the deliberation of this item. The Committee received an update on the development of the Trademark Clearinghouse as it has been divided into two functions, one to be performed by Deloitte and the other by IBM, which will perform the sunrise and claims work. The Committee also received some detail on the negotiated costs for the IBM work. Staff confirmed that an RFP had been issued prior to the selection of the Trademark Clearinghouse providers. The Committee then took the following action: Whereas, ICANN and IBM have negotiated in good faith the terms for a proposed statement of work for operation of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services offered by the Trademark Clearinghouse. Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has reviewed the terms of the proposed Statement of Work for ICANN. Whereas, approval is required to commit ICANN funds in the amount of USD 4 million. Whereas, execution of the agreement enables continuation of the technical build out to support these services for the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.03.26.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee authorizes the President and CEO to enter into the proposed agreement with IBM. Ten members of the Committee voted in favor of the Resolution. Two members of the Committee were unavailable to vote. The resolution carried. 2. Protections for Names of IGOs The Committee received an update on the status of work regarding the establishment of protections of names of IGOs within the first round of the New gTLD Program, including a brief discussion of the advice from the GAC, issues relating to the protection of common acronyms that are also acronyms of IGOs, and the creation of a ongoing mechanisms that may need to be put in place to address the GAC advice. The Committee agreed that further briefing was necessary, and that it would have a broader discussion of this issue at its meeting during ICANN's Beijing meeting. 3. "Closed" Generics The Committee briefly discussed the issue of "closed" generics and received an update on the work that was requested from staff on this issue, as well as the results of the public comment forum. The Committee agreed that further discussion on this topic would be necessary at its meeting during ICANN's Beijing meeting. The Committee also requested that this topic be on the agenda for the Public Forum in Beijing. 4. Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Negotiations and the Registry Agreement The Committee received an update on the status of the RAA negotiations as well as the status of the Registry Agreement after ICANN posted a version for public comment on 5 February 2013. The President and CEO provided a brief summary of the public comments on the Registry Agreement. The Committee also briefly discussed the Board-approved amendment process as well as proposed changes to that process to respond to community concern. 5. Any Other Business The Committee received a brief update from the President and CEO on the work towards a DNS summit in New York City on 23 April 2013, where the work of taskforces arising out of the CEO Roundtables will be progressed, and, if available and appropriate, a signing ceremony will take place regarding the new Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document within the RAA. The Committee also received a brief update on the status of the Public Interest Commitments documents that were submitted by applicants.

1 0

Fwd: GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice to the ICANN Board on controversial or sensitive strings and applications
by Carlton Samuels April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

The GAC has added new categories for which it could and may develop objections. The ones pertaining religious terms and 'strings that have broad multiple uses and meanings' should at least preview some intellectual jujitsu if not entertainment in the attempts to square the circle! Come to think, maybe even grist for more schisms. Here's a doozy. "Strings that represent inherent government functions and/or activities". [Hmmmm....finger to mouth, Minime style...] See the categorisation of the objections already contemplated and/or filed at the end. -Carlton https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee 31 March 2013 GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice to the ICANN Board on controversial or sensitive strings and applications As the New gTLD Program moves forward, the GAC is making preparations for delivering further advice on new gTLDs. This advice constitutes a key element of the overall process as outlined in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). As anticipated, GAC Member Early Warnings were issued on November 20, 2012, and applicants and GAC Members have been exchanging information with the aim of reaching an understanding or agreement on concerns raised, wherever possible. In terms of the next phase, described in module 3.1 of the AG, the GAC as a whole will be discussing its advice on new gTLDs. These sessions are organized into two parts: Part I Safeguard advice on the basis of categories of strings The GAC discussions will proceed on the basis of advice to safeguard categories of strings that raise concerns, or potential concerns, for governments. There are currently nine draft categories of strings proposed for the GAC’s Beijing agenda. Six were identified in the GAC Toronto Communique: Consumer protection Strings that are linked to regulated market sectors, such as the financial, health and charity sectors Competition issues Strings that have broad or multiple uses or meanings, and where one entity is seeking exclusive use Religious terms where the applicant has no, or limited, support from the relevant religious organisations or the religious community. Minimising the need for defensive registrations Protection of geographic names Intellectual property rights particularly in relation to strings aimed at the distribution of music, video and other digital material Three additional categories have now been proposed for consideration: Support for applications submitted by global authorities Corporate Identifier gTLDs Strings that represent inherent government functions and/or activities As the GAC looks at these nine categories, and how they would apply to strings and applications falling under these categories, the number of safeguard categories or titles of the categories could change. Part II GAC advice/objections on specific applications Twenty specific applications have been brought forward by a GAC Member or Members for consideration by the GAC. The GAC Member(s) putting forward these applications have linked them to the following categories: Community name where the applicant does not have support from the community or the government: 1 Consumer protection: 2 Name of an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO): 1 Protection of geographic names: 9 Religious terms: 2 Strings applied for that represent inherent government functions and/or activities: 3 Support for applications submitted by global authorities: 2 The Operating Principles of the GAC outline the consensus-based approach of the Committee and will serve as a key reference for the GAC in its deliberations. The GAC looks forward to the upcoming meetings and holding exchanges with the ICANN Board and community on these and other important matters.

2 2

ICANN Board meeting Agenda for Thursday 11 April 2013
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-11apr13-en.htm Consent Agenda: * Minutes of 28 February 2013 Meeting * RSSAC Bylaws Amendments * Hub office in Istanbul, Turkey * NCSG Decision to Reject PIA-CC Constituency Application * .CAT Cross-Ownership Removal Request * Redelegation of the .GA Domain Main Agenda: * IDN Variant TLD Root LGR Procedure and User Experience Study Recommendations * Any Other Business

1 0