June 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

At-Large Community Views Requested on Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

Dear Members of the At-Large Community and IDN Working Group, Your views are kindly requested on the JIG Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. Specifically, 1. Should the general recommendations of the report be supported? 2. Are there specific issues of concern within the report that should be raised? If you have views, please share them via the At-Large Policy Development workspace by 7 July 2013. At-Large Policy Development workspace link: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Draft+Final+Repo… * Informational Resurces* Full Report Link: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13-en.pd…, 135 KB] [Extract on General Recommendations] 1. IDN TLD operators (including IDN ccTLD, IDN gTLD and IDN gTLDAccredited Registrars) are recommended to support Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs in their own systems. Part of this recommendation is that ICANN's IDN Guidelines be updated to include provisions for IDN TLD registries and registrars to support the Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs within their own systems (i.e. for registration systems and services to accept name server records, child hosts, contact information with IDN TLDs) 2. ICANN should allocate specific resources for the advocacy of Universal Acceptance beyond the development of informational materials and toolkits. 3. ICANN should develop of informative reference materials for new IDN TLDs (including gTLD and ccTLD) to handle issues of Universal Acceptance 4. ICANN initiates efforts, lead by staff, with participation from the community, for further studies to investigate the scope of the issue and what other services or actions could be taken by ICANN to support the Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs beyond outreach and awareness campaigns Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:32 AM Subject: [ALAC-Announce] FW: ICANN News Alert -- Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> [http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25jun13-en.htm ________________________________ Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs 25 June 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 25 June 2013 Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains * Policy Processes * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): The joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN working Group (JIG) seeks input from the community on its draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. The draft includes recommendations to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for further action to resolve policy and other relating to the universal acceptance of IDN TLDs The Working expects to finalize and publish its Final Report, and submit their report, after taking into account the comments received. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun1… This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto: matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] < http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription < http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=91… > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

2 3

Fwd: Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting
by Alan Greenberg June 30, 2013

June 30, 2013

In relation to my last note, I find this rather interesting, and something that the ALAC may want to think about. Specifically should we request a similar Bylaw revision for our formal advice. Perhaps this is something we want to put on the ALAC-Board meeting agenda. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "GNSO Council (council(a)gnso.icann.org)" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >CC: 'Glen de Saint Géry' <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Revised Rationale for >Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request & > Proposed Motion for Durban Council Meeting >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:43:39 +0000 > >Although I am sure that some on the Council will >still disagree with the new rationale posted at ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…, >I believe the rationale is much more consistent >with, and recognizes, the value of the >multi-stakeholder model. The tone has been >softened considerably and is much more >respectful, in my opinion. In addition, the >rationale upon my quick read seems to be >technically correct. I am grateful to the Board >Governance Committee for having taken some of >our comments very seriously and for making the >appropriate changes to the rationale. > >The one item I would still like to see addressed >by the Council (other than the Policy v. >Implementation discussions within the GNSO >Working Group process) is formalizing the >requirement through a proposed Bylaws Amendment >requiring consultation of the GNSO if the Board >proposes to take an action that is inconsistent >with a policy or statement of the GNSO. I >intend to draft that motion for the Councils consideration in Durban. > >To give all of the constituencies ample time to >review the motion prior to Durban, although I am >sure some will seek to defer the motion, >claiming insufficient time to review, I am >attaching this proposed resolution for >consideration in Durban. I am happy to take comments, edits or suggestions: > > >WHEREAS, the ICANN Bylaws currently >state: There shall be a policy-development body >known as the Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible >for developing and recommending to the ICANN >Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains; > >WHEREAS, the Board Governance Committee has >recognized in Reconsideration Request 13-3 that >As of now, there is no defined policy or >process within ICANN that requires Board or >staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the >Board or staff is acting in contravention to a >statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the PDP; and > >WHEREAS, the GNSO Council believes that such a >defined policy or process is now needed. >RESOLVED: The GNSO Council recommends that the >ICANN Bylaws be amended to include language >requiring a formal consultation process in the >event that the ICANN Board determines to take an >action that is not consistent with GNSO policies >or recommendations. Such process shall require >the ICANN Board to state the reasons why it >decided not to follow GNSO recommendations or >policies, and be followed in a timely manner, >with a consultation in which the GNSO and the >ICANN Board attempt in good faith to find a >mutually acceptable solution. If no such >solution can be found, the ICANN Board will >state in its final decision the reasons why the >GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed. > >FURTHER RESOLVED that the GNSO recommends the >above to apply whether or not the policy >development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. > > > > >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 >

3 2

New gTLD Program Committee - 25 June 2013
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

The NGPC has been busy - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13…. Lots of interesting stuff including reference to an automated Whois verification tool that will be run by ICANN! Actually taking responsibility for this instead of just presuming it is someone else's job. Although this was clearly underway when the ALAC submitted its comments on the GAC Safeguards, this is completely in line with our concern about imposing new and onerous responsibilities on the new registries, and ICANN doing whatever possible itself to reduce such new requirements on registries. Also note the proposed use of Mandatory Public Interest Commitments for all new TLDs. Interesting concept. Now, we just need to see how these PICs will actually be enforced. Alan

2 1

Revised Rationale for Rejection of NCSG Reconsideration Request
by Alan Greenberg June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

I call your attention to <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat…. I find this revised version far more palatable. I particularly note: "... we have no intention of our Recommendation being seen as against the on-going, community-wide discussion about policy and implementation. Further, it is important to note that this Recommendation should not be construed as discounting the importance of consulting with community members. Community consultation is at the heart of the multistakeholder model, and is critical whether the community is acting as a policy development body or during the implementation of policy." This matches my belief that the current Policy vs Implementation discussion may be important, but whatever the dividing line, it does not remove the need for community involvement as long as decisions are being made which substantively affect us. Alan

1 0

Fwd: [council] Agenda ICANN Board meeting - 27 June 2013
by Alan Greenberg June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-27jun13-en.htm Agenda for ICANN Special Board Meeting 27 June 2013 Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes of the 18 May Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board Redelegation of .ID Redelegation of .EE Delegation of .ÍÏÎ Appointment of Ben Butler to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee Officer Appointment Recommendation Main Agenda: AROS Contract Agreement Approval (pending BFC approval) Approval of 2013 RAA Update to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation

1 0

Agenda for Board Governance Committee meeting on 25 June 2013
by Alan Greenberg June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-bgc-25jun13-en.htm *Reconsideration Request 13-3

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD Program Committee meeting on 25 June 2013
by Alan Greenberg June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-25jun13-en.h… Agenda | New gTLD Program Committee 25 June 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes of 4 June 2013 Main Agenda: * Safeguards Applicable to all New gTLDs * Category 2 Safeguard Advice re Exclusive Registry Access * Singular & Plural Versions of the Same String as a TLD * IGO Protection * ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants * AOB

1 0

Re: [ALAC] BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3
by Alan Greenberg June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

I forward this note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO Council. It raises a number of issues that I think warrant discussion within the ALAC. I will give my veiw on some of these issues in a few days, but wanted to let everyone think about it in parallel. Alan >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] RE: BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 >Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:35:54 +0000 > >Hello All, > >Thank you for the letter from the GNSO Council >regarding Reconsideration Request 13-3. > >Just an update. > >The Board Governance Committee had an extensive >discussion around this topic in its meeting >today. Staff will be reviewing the text of >the rationale following the discussion. The >current plan is for the Board Governance >Committee to meet again on 25 June 2013 to review the rationale. > >In terms of a discussion in Durban, I suggest we >have the discussion around GNSO advice, and >involvement of the GNSO in the implementation of >policies, outside of the context of the wording >of the rationale. I.e. I think we should >discuss this at a broader level - ie what are >the lessons learned from this case - rather than debate the case itself. > >The Board Governance Committee is also having >discussions about the broader topic and would >welcome further discussions in Durban. It is >also a useful topic for the Board as a whole, >and certainly has been a topic of the past two public ICANN meetings. > >As I see it, we have a detailed process in the >bylaws that sets out how the GNSO develops >policy recommendations, and how the Board >approves those recommendations to form ICANN >policy. The GNSO is free to create policy >recommendations using the PDP on any of the new >gTLD topics - including the trademark >clearinghouse. These policy recommendations >may change current policies, or current >implementations of policies (e.g. . various >implementation details of the transfers policy). > >As Jeff and others have pointed out, the bylaws >are less clear on how the Board and staff should >treat advice from the GNSO Council on >implementations of ICANN policies >etc. Presently this is primarily treated via >the various public comment forums but there is >no special standing for the GNSO in those >forums, and through the various meetings between >the Board and the GNSO Council at its public >meetings. There is no defined process at this >point however. In contrast the bylaws do set >out formal processes for responding to GAC >advice which frequently focus on implementation of policies. > >I note that in most of the Board/GNSO Council >meetings - both parties mostly hear the views of >individual members. There is not usually a >discussion on a formal piece of GNSO >Advice. One thing the GAC tends to do, >after meetings between the Board and the GAC, is >formulate its views as the formal GAC Communique >that is assumed to represent a consensus of the >GAC on a particular topic that was >discussed. The Board then has an option to >subsequently meet with the GAC to specifically >go through the GAC Communiqué. I believe this >will happen in Durban with respect to some >points from their Beijing Communiqué. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin >Chair, Board Governance Committee

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Statement to the Board Regarding Security and Stability Implications of New gTLDs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 12, 2013

June 12, 2013

Dear ALAC members, as you know, the ALAC has recently voted to ratify the "ALAC Statement to the Board Regarding Security an Stability Implications of New gTLDs". Prior to sending this to the ICANN Chair of the Board as well as the Chair of the New gTLD Program Committee, ICANN has made an announcement regarding "Security Studies on the Use of Non-Delegated TLDs, and Dotless Names": https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28may13-en.htm With our Statement in hand, I took the opportunity of asking Julie Hammer about the opportunity to have a strongly worded cover letter accompany the ALAC Statement to be sent to the Chairs mentioned above. At the end of last week, I have worked in haste with the Executive Committee as well as our ALAC Liaison to the SSAC, to draft such a letter and with time being of the essence, since our Statement was completed a week earlier, I have sent the Statement plus the strong Cover Letter to the Board Chair, New gTLD Programme Committee Chair, copying the GAC Chair, the ICANN CEO, the SSAC Chair and the ATRT2 Chair. If you believe that we should send an even stronger message, I offer that the ALAC could decide to use parts of the cover letter to generate another ALAC Statement. So far, I have not received a reply from the Board but it is early days to judge response, considering the importance of the message conveyed. May I suggest to see what kind of response we receive to our earlier Statement prior to issuing another Statement? Having been unavailable over the week end, I apologise for the time it took me to forward this to you but in the interest of transparency it is important that you are aware of this concern and of the fact that we are pushing hard to make sure the message is understood and taken into account by ICANN. The Security and Stability of the Internet's domain name identifiers is of utmost importance. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ALAC Statement to the Board Regarding Security and Stability Implications of New gTLDs Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:38:26 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Steve Crocker <steve(a)*.com>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine(a)*.co.uk> CC: Heather.Dryden Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)*.*.ca>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)*.org>, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)*.se>, Brian Cute <bcute(a)*.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)*.*.org> Dear Steve, Dear Cherine, please be so kind to find attached: - a "correspondence" which raises several points which I am sending you with the support of the ALAC Executive Committee; - an ALAC Statement to the Board Regarding Security and Stability Implications of New gTLDs which should be shared with the Board The correspondence serves as a cover letter to the ALAC Statement. In the absence of an actual open public comment process at this point in time, the ALAC is submitting this Statement directly to you, in line with its ability to submit its Advice to the Board at any time. The issue raised in this Statement is of high priority and we therefore look forward to a response from the ICANN Board on the Matter. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 2