May 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] RoP Adjunct Document 04 - At-Large Structure Framework
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2013

May 14, 2013

At 14/05/2013 12:07 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Excellent, as usual. Thanks Rinalia. >A suggestion and questions: > >1. I would suggest that you separate the "de-certification" process >under its own header. I believe this will make it more apparent >that we have a process in place for this scenario. I will check if such a change will trigger a need to go past the Board again. >2. Is the de-certification process sufficient to address the >voluntary dissolution of ALSes? > >I ask this question because there is an emerging case where an ALS >is voluntarily seeking to dissolve itself and correspondingly >de-list and de-accredit itself - not for "bad" reasons that imply >misconduct, but rather because the founder/s or members no longer >wish to sustain the entity. Can you indicate whether you think that >under the current framework this situation can be addressed under >de-certification? If yes, I think an addition is needed to deal >with voluntary cases of ALS dissolution. At the moment, the >de-certification intent seems to be focused on what I believe to be >a "punitive" reaction to some type of misconduct (just my subjective >reading of it based on the example provided). We are actually in the midst of such a case. In my judgement (what may or may not be worth anything), if someone representing an ALS asks for decertification, then we can comply with the need to "warn them" by simply replying that we wil lbe going forward with the decertification. I am sure that if we put the time into it, there are other changes that we feel would be prudent in addition to addressing the case you mention, but all THIS document is doing is taking out current Board-approved rules and "inserting" them into the RoP (a situation that the ICANN Bylaws called for which we never did. Should we want to change them in the future, we have that option. But since these are the rules we are currently operating under, I see no reason to require that they be changed before we can proceed with the rest of the RoP. At best, since it will include full-blown discussion and ultimately Board approval, we are talking many months if not more. >3. How do we ensure that the due diligence process really does >involve triangulation of sources? > >There is the real possibility that due diligence draws only from the >same source/s of information provided by applicants, which weakens >the basis of decision-making. I understand the complexity and >challenges of real word gathering of information, but I wonder if >there is a way that we can encourage serious efforts at >triangulation despite the challenges of cost, time, finding credible >alternate sources of information, etc. As above. I think that when (and I say when not if) we go through a process of verifying that all of our ALSs are in fact real and functioning, we will learn a bunch about how might improve the original certification process. Alan >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I submit the attached document for approval of the ALAC. > >This document is one that is required for the new ALAC Rules of >Procedure to be put into effect. > >The document is largely drawn from ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm, >the current source of ALS processes. The only changes are: > >1. Document the dates of the ICNN Boaard resolutions on which the >rules/process is based. > >2. Change the tense of the 2nd paragraph to reflect ongoing >operation instead of future plans (for example, replacing "The >At-Large Structures are in the process of organising..." with >"At-Large Structures are organised...". > >3. Slight re-wording of the last paragraph to remove the personal >form ("You may..."). > >4. Correcting a number of typos and missing punctuation. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >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

ALAC Statement on Final RAA 2013
by Carlton Samuels May 14, 2013

May 14, 2013

We finally have a draft statement on the wiki. We encourage you all to take a look and make comments: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Final+2… Best, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2013

May 13, 2013

Note that the TMCH has two separate components. The backend and the interface with registries is, I believe, a single database and is being run under contract to ICANN by IBM. The interface to TM holders and the validation service is contracted to Deloitte. The design explicitly allows for distributed user interfaces and validation services to ensure proper handling of different languages, scripts and TM law. Alan At 23/04/2013 07:17 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Also agree with Yaovi on removing the word "centralized" >And thanks to Hong and Rinala for the work done on this statement. > >Dev Anand > >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > +1 > > > > In any case, the opening of offices in Turkey and Singapore makes it hard > > to argue that ICANN isn't at least making an attempt to decentralize. > > > > (Please don't see my relative silence as lack of interest, but rather lack > > of depth in the issue) > > > > - Evan > > > > > > On 23 April 2013 14:19, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> In the statement we can read : > >> "... we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is centralized, > >> inflexible and unfriendly to variants. " > >> > >> My question : Is is not possible to have a model that is centralized and > >> taking into account IDN variant issues? > >> If so my recommendation is to remove the word "Centralized" in the > >> sentence above. > >> > >> > >> Yaovi > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> De : JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > >> À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> Cc : apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; No name < > >> idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ALAC Working List < > >> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Envoyé le : Dimanche 21 avril 2013 4h11 > >> Objet : Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants > >> > >> > >> *Dear Rinalia,* > >> * > >> * > >> *you've done a very thorough job, thank you. * > >> *Below, my **suggested modifications in red.* > >> * > >> * > >> *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants > >> * > >> > >> The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> Protection Mechanism Requirements published > on April 6, 2013. We view the > >> model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> variants; thus implemented, the model would clearly run against the public > >> interest in the pertinent > >> user communities.* > >> * > >> > >> *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > >> Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> Despite > >> concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name matching requirements of the TMCH > >> still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> variants. Variant matching is critical in certain languages and > >> particularly in Chinese. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly generate only one trademark record. > >> The > >> new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> eligible for trademark protection. This leaves the traditional word-mark > >> equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> traditional writings of the word-mark are deemed identical by Chinese > >> communities worldwide (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both > >> writings), > >> ruling out the un-registered writing by not > allowing variant matching would > >> make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese > trademarks, and would result in > >> an unfair penalty against users of Chinese. > >> > >> *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > >> Trademarks have a very important function in safeguarding the public > >> interest by > >> identifying the source of goods and services. > >> > >> *The rest seems fine.* > >> * > >> * > >> *Best regards,* > >> *Jean-Jacques.* > >> > >> > >> 2013/4/20 Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> > >> > >> > Dear Members of the IDN WG, APRALO and ALAC Colleagues, > >> > > >> > I have revised the proposed " *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on > >> Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse and IDN Variants*" based on Hong's draft, input received > >> in > >> > Beijing and my own consultation with IDN Variant experts. > >> > > >> > Please review and comment on the draft on > the wiki for tracking purposes. > >> > The wiki page for the draft is here - > >> > > >> > > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Advice+to+the+ICANN+… > >> > > >> > Once the text is deemed satisfactory, it will be forwarded to the ALAC > >> for > >> > a vote. Please try your best to respond with comments by Friday April > >> > 26th. > >> > > >> > Text pasted below for rapid review. The final version will be proofread > >> > and > >> > a summary of recommendations will be produced as part of the final > >> version > >> > (as per our norm in giving advice to the Board). > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Rinalia > >> > > >> > *ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN > >> > Variants > >> > * > >> > > >> > The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is deeply concerned by the > >> > implementation model outlined in the Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights > >> > Protection Mechanism Requirements published on April 6, 2013. We view > >> the > >> > model to be deficient in that it overlooks the critical issue of IDN > >> > variants, which would seriously impact the public interest in the > >> pertinent > >> > user communities. > >> > > >> > We wish to highlight two areas of particular concern in the Trademark > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH) requirements: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > *(1) Domain Name Matching* > >> > > >> > Language communities have requested that TMCH services factor IDN-script > >> > trademarks involving variants and that ICANN consider adopting > >> > community-based solutions to address this issue since October 2011. > >> > Despite > >> > concerns raised by language community experts in the TMCH Implementation > >> > Assistance Group (IAG), the domain name > matching requirements of the TMCH > >> > still does not take into account trademarks in IDN scripts involving > >> > variants. Variant matching is critical for certain languages and > >> > particularly for the Chinese language. To illustrate, when a trademark > >> > holder registers a simplified Chinese word-mark and not its traditional > >> > equivalent, the TMCH will accordingly > generate only one trademark record. > >> > The > >> > new gTLD registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark > >> > claims for trademarks recorded in the TMCH. Without variant matching > >> > requirements in place, only that registered simplified word-mark will be > >> > eligible for trademark protection. This > leaves the traditional word-mark > >> > equivalent open for cybersquatting. Given that both simplified and > >> > traditional writings of the word-mark are > deemed identical by the Chinese > >> > community (and by norm few trademarks are registered in both writings), > >> > ruling out the un-registered writing by not allowing variant matching > >> would > >> > make the TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. > >> > > >> > > >> > *(2) Domain Name Bundling* > >> > > >> > The TMCH requirements specifically prohibit any registry from > >> implementing > >> > variant or bundling rules and allocating domain names under such > >> variant > >> > or bundling rules prior to the conclusion > of the Sunrise Period. Such a > >> > restriction would exclude the accommodation of any solution for IDN > >> > trademarks involving variants during the > sunrise period at the TLD level, > >> > even though registries may be willing to address the variants through > >> their > >> > own registration management and at their own expense. > >> > > >> > *A More Open and Flexible TMCH Model* > >> > > >> > Trademarks have a very important function of safeguarding the public > >> > interest by > >> > identifying the source of goods and services. If left unaddressed, the > >> > deficiencies of the TMCH model design may likely cause serious public > >> > confusion and result in market chaos. In principle, the At-Large > >> community > >> > does not support over-extensive trademark protection measures. However, > >> we > >> > do strongly believe that ICANN should treat all trademarks equally, > >> > irrespective of the characters of the > trademarks, and that users from all > >> > language communities should be protected from confusion equally. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In September 2012, the ALAC statement on > the TMCH called for a more open > >> > and flexible model that can address our communitys concerns regarding > >> the > >> > limitations of a uniform model, which would be applied to all gTLD > >> > registries irrespective of their differences and competencies. We > >> believe > >> > that new gTLD registries require a more open and flexible TMCH model to > >> be > >> > successful and we strongly urge ICANN to move away from a model that is > >> > centralized, inflexible and unfriendly to variants. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In light of the considerations above, the ALAC urges the ICANN Board to > >> > call for a more open and flexible TMCH model. Towards this end, we urge > >> > the Board to support a community-based, bottom-up solution for TMCH > >> > implementation and to ensure that the IDN variant issue is addressed > >> before > >> > the TMCH begin providing services to the new gTLD registries. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > We understand that addressing the IDN Variant issue in a holistic way > >> > requires the development of Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Root > >> Zone, > >> > which experts and Staff have projected to > require a minimum of 12 months. > >> > We > >> > appreciate that the LGR development requires conscientious effort to > >> > maintain the security and stability of the Internet, but we are also > >> > mindful that the business and practical requirements of new gTLD > >> > applicants, especially from developing economies, call for urgent > >> > implementation. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > To expedite the development of appropriate > solutions, the ALAC recommends > >> > that the Board request from the ICANN CEO an interim mechanism that can > >> > yield such solutions efficiently and on an urgent basis. This may > >> require > >> > additional Staff with the appropriate linguistic capabilities working in > >> > tandem with community members with relevant expertise. It may also > >> require > >> > a consideration of expediting the LGR process for the Han script. We > >> > understand that in the general case, the handling of variants is a > >> complex > >> > issue. However, for variant cases that are well defined and understood, > >> > such as the case of the Han script, ICANN should proceed on a fast-track > >> > basis to include variant support in the TMCH in time to accommodate the > >> > delegation of the appropriate TLDs. > >> > > >> > END > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > IDN-WG mailing list > >> > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > >> > > >> > IDN WG Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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… > >_______________________________________________ >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

9 17

Agenda for ICANN new gTLD Pgm Comm meeting in Amsterdam - 18 May 2013
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-18may13-en.h… 18 May 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: * Resolution on Reconsideration Requests 13-1 and 13-2 13-1: Reconsideration of SARP rejection for applicant support (Ummah Digital, Katim Seringe Touray) 13-2: Reconsideration of change of TLD string .IDN to .INTERNET; and reconsideration of the SARP rejection for applicant support. (Nameshop, SivasubramanianMuthusamy) Note: Both requests have been considered and rejected by the BCG - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration * Resolution(s) on GAC Advice * Info Paper on Dot-less Domains (if time permits) * Info Paper on non-delegated TLDS (if time permits) * Info Paper on GNSO/ALAC Recommendations for New gTLD Program Metrics (if time permits) * AOB

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting 18 May 2013 in Amsterdam
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-18may13-en.htm 18 May 2013 Consent Agenda: * Minutes of 11 April 2013 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board * Delegation of BGC authority (pending BGC recommendation) * Re-delegation Request for .ID, representing Indonesia Main Agenda: * ACDR Proposal to be a UDRP Provider * SSAC Advisory on Internal Name Certificates * Any Other Business * Executive Session

1 0

new gTLD update
by Alan Greenberg May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

I didn't attend the May 9th Webinar, but the presentation alone is quite interesting. http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro May 11, 2013

May 11, 2013

This is really excellent KT if you could pick this up and liaise with Eric. You can also get Staff to assist with either setting up a webinar or a call to perhaps tease out the issues. If you would like assistance or support from the ALAC in this area, let us know. I agree with Rinalia's suggestions and think this would be awesome for you and others who may be interested in APRALO to pick up. Sent from my iPad On May 10, 2013, at 12:27 PM, "NZMIS Chairperson" <chairperson(a)nzmis.maori.nz> wrote: > Hi Rinala et all, > > > > This is a positive step forward with so many Indigenous Peoples being > effected whom have no voice. > > > > Eric Brunner-Williams from NARLO is a leader in this area who was also > prominently featured in the research. I am certainly keen to initiate and > contribute for APRALO and do what ever else I can to assist. > > > > Cheers, > > Karaitiana Taiuru > > > > > > > > From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013 11:29 a.m. > To: NZMIS Chairperson > Cc: ALAC Working List; apralo; Holly Raiche > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: > Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain > > > > Hi, KT. > > The unrecognized/under-recognized IP of special groups including those of > indigenous communities was one of the 4 initial issue areas that I > identified for the APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing - we > did not have sufficient capacity to deal with the issue then. > > I am really glad that you are bringing this issue up now and it would be > fantastic if the region mobilizes and takes the leadership on it. But we > need a driver for the issue and I am hoping that you would be willing to > take the lead (eg, initiating consultations, drafting statements if > applicable or contributing relevant sections in statements drafted by others > in the ALAC and in APRALO, etc). I would be happy to discuss a strategy for > mobilization on this with you if you would find it useful. > > And yes, I agree that IP and IP related to IDNs are angles that the region > can pursue the issue. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > > On May 10, 2013 6:52 AM, "NZMIS Chairperson" <chairperson(a)nzmis.maori.nz> > wrote: > > Thanks Holly, > > The link may spilt in email, so a copy and paste of the end part. I will try > it on a new line though. > http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d > <http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid=803> > &tabid=803 > > A recorded history of the development of the Internet is a major issue in > many countries, because as you say, it is in peoples heads and personal > emails. > > I am hoping there is enough interest within the RALO's to re investigate > some of these issues raised here, of Indigenous Peoples Intellectual > Property and sovereign nations. I suspect the IP could fit in well or > alongside the IP of IDN's? > > Regards, > Karaitiana Taiuru > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] > Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013 10:21 a.m. > To: NZMIS Chairperson > Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: > Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain > > Hi KT - and others > > First - the link to the actual research doesn't work. Could you check it > please? > > But the background does make Yan's research look very interesting. And what > she is saying is so true for this area. For much of the Internet, including > ICANN, the knowledge is not in libraries (including online libraries) or in > journals It is on websites, it is in the heads of the people who are > involved - which makes it both more challenging and interesting. > > Holly > > > On 09/05/2013, at 6:13 PM, NZMIS Chairperson wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> >> >> As representative groups of Internet users, and as many of us are >> discussing how best to represent our communities; you may be >> interested in this students award winning research on ICANN, GTLD's >> and Indigenous Domain Names, Intellectual Property etc., all of which >> impact all regions in the world. Perhaps some of the concerns can be > raised again in ALAC? >> >> >> >> Background: >> http://www.law.asu.edu/News/CollegeofLawNews.aspx?NewsId=4454 >> >> >> >> Research: >> http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d >> <http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d > <http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid> > &tabid >> =803> >> &tabid=803 >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Karaitiana Taiuru >> >> Web: <http://www.taiuru.maori.nz> http://www.taiuru.maori.nz >> >> Skype/MSN/Google/Twitter/LinkedIn: ktaiuru >> >> Ph: +64 21 0707507 <tel:%2B64%2021%200707507> >> >> >> >> PO Box 10286 >> >> Christchurch 8145 >> >> Aotearoa/New Zealand >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain
by Holly Raiche May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013

Hi KT - and others First - the link to the actual research doesn't work. Could you check it please? But the background does make Yan's research look very interesting. And what she is saying is so true for this area. For much of the Internet, including ICANN, the knowledge is not in libraries (including online libraries) or in journals It is on websites, it is in the heads of the people who are involved - which makes it both more challenging and interesting. Holly On 09/05/2013, at 6:13 PM, NZMIS Chairperson wrote: > Greetings, > > > > As representative groups of Internet users, and as many of us are discussing > how best to represent our communities; you may be interested in this > students award winning research on ICANN, GTLD's and Indigenous Domain > Names, Intellectual Property etc., all of which impact all regions in the > world. Perhaps some of the concerns can be raised again in ALAC? > > > > Background: http://www.law.asu.edu/News/CollegeofLawNews.aspx?NewsId=4454 > > > > Research: http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d > <http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid=803> > &tabid=803 > > > > Regards, > > Karaitiana Taiuru > > Web: <http://www.taiuru.maori.nz> http://www.taiuru.maori.nz > > Skype/MSN/Google/Twitter/LinkedIn: ktaiuru > > Ph: +64 21 0707507 > > > > PO Box 10286 > > Christchurch 8145 > > Aotearoa/New Zealand > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013

Hi, KT. The unrecognized/under-recognized IP of special groups including those of indigenous communities was one of the 4 initial issue areas that I identified for the APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing - we did not have sufficient capacity to deal with the issue then. I am really glad that you are bringing this issue up now and it would be fantastic if the region mobilizes and takes the leadership on it. But we need a driver for the issue and I am hoping that you would be willing to take the lead (eg, initiating consultations, drafting statements if applicable or contributing relevant sections in statements drafted by others in the ALAC and in APRALO, etc). I would be happy to discuss a strategy for mobilization on this with you if you would find it useful. And yes, I agree that IP and IP related to IDNs are angles that the region can pursue the issue. Best regards, Rinalia On May 10, 2013 6:52 AM, "NZMIS Chairperson" <chairperson(a)nzmis.maori.nz> wrote: > Thanks Holly, > > The link may spilt in email, so a copy and paste of the end part. I will > try > it on a new line though. > http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid=803 > > A recorded history of the development of the Internet is a major issue in > many countries, because as you say, it is in peoples heads and personal > emails. > > I am hoping there is enough interest within the RALO's to re investigate > some of these issues raised here, of Indigenous Peoples Intellectual > Property and sovereign nations. I suspect the IP could fit in well or > alongside the IP of IDN's? > > Regards, > Karaitiana Taiuru > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] > Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013 10:21 a.m. > To: NZMIS Chairperson > Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] Uncharted Domains and the New Land Rush: > Indigenous Rights to Top-Level Domain > > Hi KT - and others > > First - the link to the actual research doesn't work. Could you check it > please? > > But the background does make Yan's research look very interesting. And > what > she is saying is so true for this area. For much of the Internet, > including > ICANN, the knowledge is not in libraries (including online libraries) or in > journals It is on websites, it is in the heads of the people who are > involved - which makes it both more challenging and interesting. > > Holly > > > On 09/05/2013, at 6:13 PM, NZMIS Chairperson wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > As representative groups of Internet users, and as many of us are > > discussing how best to represent our communities; you may be > > interested in this students award winning research on ICANN, GTLD's > > and Indigenous Domain Names, Intellectual Property etc., all of which > > impact all regions in the world. Perhaps some of the concerns can be > raised again in ALAC? > > > > > > > > Background: > > http://www.law.asu.edu/News/CollegeofLawNews.aspx?NewsId=4454 > > > > > > > > Research: > > http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d > > <http://www.law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=67fmPnuMWEY%3d&tabid > > =803> > > &tabid=803 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Karaitiana Taiuru > > > > Web: <http://www.taiuru.maori.nz> http://www.taiuru.maori.nz > > > > Skype/MSN/Google/Twitter/LinkedIn: ktaiuru > > > > Ph: +64 21 0707507 > > > > > > > > PO Box 10286 > > > > Christchurch 8145 > > > > Aotearoa/New Zealand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] APRALO elections- the way forward
by Silvia Vivanco May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013

Dear Cheryl, Holly, et all Regarding the question why the ALAC election page has not been further updated. I have stopped doing so, as formally speaking I believe that the nomination period has been "suspended" , until the poll closes and we know the way forward. In fact I am noting the names in a notepad and will add them once we formally "re-start" the ALAC selection process or start a new one. I hope this approach is useful, kindly let me know if you agree or you would like staff to implement another approach Silvia Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011 From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 2:44 AM To: Holly Raiche Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; ALAC Working List; APRALO Subject: Re: [ALAC] APRALO elections Holly re some of the points you make below regarding the call for nominations for an APRALO Representative to the ALAC for end 2013-2015... Couple of things... In no particular order... There is more than 1 nominee for the role already Mareen has been nominated and seconded so is at least running against Fouads self nomination received... Why the page has not been updated yet however is a damn good question as I saw a note to list from our staff stating it would be. :-(:-(:-( And as there has been NO formal interuption, withdrawal or suspension of the call that duly began on May 3rd it is in my view still proceeding as per its advertised schedule so nominees and aspirants for the role might wish to note that... We are indeed running a poll IF it results in a desire to interupt/restart the process begun and continuing then sure we restart with new schedule and questions re standing and treatment of npminations already duly received etc., were already raised by me but yet to be discussed or responded to... If a NO vote to the poll prevails then nothong has changed to the existong call for nominations schedule and we still remain open for nominations until the proposed date so I disagree with the proposal to start over in that circumstance... The nominations under the current process still runs to 23rd May so there is ample time for people to apply post poll IF it gets a No vote (as I trust it will) CLO from my Mobile phone On 09/05/2013 3:57 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Hi Everyone I appreciate the confusion people are feeling, and views about what is or is not proceeding. The election timetable for APRALO officers has not been changed. Silvia's link below takes you to the page with the nominees and a timetable. As you can see, nominations are now closed and the elections will be held from May 17 to June 7. Please note, the candidates for the VC position include YJ, Siranush and Satish. Maureen has withdrawn. > > The APRALO Wiki page created for the Chair and Vice Chair election can be found in the main APRALO WIKI under : > ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APRALO INFORMATION > § 2013 APRALO Elections Workspace- Nominations now open through 3 May 2013! What has changed is the timetable for the elections for an APRALO representative to ALAC. The notice - below - explains where we are up to - which is taking a poll of ARPALO ALSs as to whether to continue the current process or to delay it, allowing time for the provision of information on ALAC. Right now, there is only one nominee, and I think it is fair to say that there would be more if the discussion on whether to hold the nominations had not begun. Whether KT is right legally, he is right that, whatever the outcome of the poll, we should start afresh on nominations for the ALAC position to ensure that everyone who wants to nominate has had an opportunity to do so. To do otherwise would not be fair to all. So please think through both whether you want to hold the nominations for the ALAC position sooner than 27 May, or whether we should wait until there has been an opportunity for people who may want to nominate to have information on what it means to be a member of ALAC. Thanks Holly Dear All, On behalf of APRALO leadership, a poll pertaining to the schedule of the selection process for the 2013-2015 APRALO representative to the ALAC, whose term will begin at the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting (AGM) scheduled for 17-21 November 2013 will be beginning shortly. This position is currently held by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro. Two arguments have been presented for consideration: (1) Proceed with the process as scheduled - The selection process for the 2013-2015 APRALO representative to the ALAC should start immediately in order to have the optimal transition of role between the existing and replacement of our representatives on the ALAC in time for the AGM. (2) Delay the process until a webinar on the ALAC role has been held - The process should be delayed until a webinar is held as the role requires a certain level of awareness-raising and exchanges in terms of performance expectations, required skill and knowledge sets, workload coping mechanisms, etc. The webinar should happen prior to the nomination process so that interested individuals and voters have a good understanding of what is required. THEREFORE, a poll is being opened to determine which path APRALO would take. The question of the poll (to be sent by staff shortly) is: "It has been proposed by an ALS Member that the current selection schedule for the APRALO ALAC Representative 2013-2015 be re-scheduled to the following to accommodate a webinar on the ALAC role. APRALO Representative to the ALAC 2013-2015 Selection Schedule: May 27th - At-Large Staff and APRALO's Chair announce selections and call for nominations. May 27th - June 14th June - Nomination period (nominations accepted for 3 weeks). June 21st - Deadline for nomination acceptances (nominees must accept nominations no later than seven days after the nomination period ends on June 14th). June 28h - July 5th - Elections (If required, elections will begin no later than one week after the deadline for nomination acceptances and end no later than two weeks after that deadline). 2013 AGM [ 17th - 21st November ] - Newly elected APRALO ALAC representative shall be seated on the ALAC at the close of the 2013 AGM on Thursday, 21st November 2013. Note: With the re-scheduling as indicated above, a webinar will be organized between now and the 27th May 2013 on the ALAC role for APRALO. Do you agree that the call for the APRALO Representative 2013-2015 selection schedule be re-scheduled to start on May 27th and end on July 12th 2013? Yes No Abstain" > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@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…

3 4