August 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Rights versus benefits
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 14, 2013

Aug. 14, 2013

Hello all, One of the things that I noticed in the last Registrar Accreditation Agreement -- snuck in at the last moment, so I didn't notice it before it was presented at Durban -- was the replacement of the term "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" with "Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities" in some but not all cases. Indeed, it looked like a very sloppy search-and-replace effort because the word "rights" was removed in some places but not others in what appears as random fashion. Given that the ALAC did not have an opportunity to discuss this during the Durban meeting, I raised it in an individual capacity during the Durban Public Forum (see page 97 of the Forum transcript<http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/transcript-public-forum-18jul…> ). When asked, Fadi spent what seemed quite a long time (not reflected in the transcript) conferring silently with his staff (including legal staff), after which he promised to "look into it". I would like to ask Olivier and/or At-Large staff to please follow up on this. I think that the community is owed an explanation of how the term "registrant benefits and responsibilities" ever crept into ICANN lingo; I don't ever recall it ever being used in a policy context. Thank you, -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Rights versus benefits
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 13, 2013

Aug. 13, 2013

Hi Evan (and everyone) Actually, that document was on my list of issues that still need addressing. We were not consulted about it, and I have not had a chance to go through to see in detail what is there - and what should be there. My impression is that all that was done was to take the obligations registrars have under the RAA and turn them into the one page document called Rights - or Benefits. In fact, since that is all the document is, it really is a light of what a registrant has a right to expect. Holly On Wed 14/08/13 5:07 AM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: Hello all, One of the things that I noticed in the last Registrar Accreditation Agreement -- snuck in at the last moment, so I didn't notice it before it was presented at Durban -- was the replacement of the term "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" with "Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities" in some but not all cases. Indeed, it looked like a very sloppy search-and-replace effort because the word "rights" was removed in some places but not others in what appears as random fashion. Given that the ALAC did not have an opportunity to discuss this during the Durban meeting, I raised it in an individual capacity during the Durban Public Forum (see page 97 of the Forum transcript [1]; ). When asked, Fadi spent what seemed quite a long time (not reflected in the transcript) conferring silently with his staff (including legal staff), after which he promised to "look into it". I would like to ask Olivier and/or At-Large staff to please follow up on this. I think that the community is owed an explanation of how the term "registrant benefits and responsibilities" ever crept into ICANN lingo; I don't ever recall it ever being used in a policy context. Thank you, -- 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 [2] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [4]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fdurban4… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [4] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Revised RPM Requirements include At-large Proposals to handle IDN variants issues
by Hong Xue Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Dear All, ICANN just published the Revised RPM Requirements. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/rpm-requirements-06aug13-en.htm It is impressive that ICANN finally responded to the at-large community's persistent requests on handling IDN variants involved in the RPMs, both for implementation of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes in new gTLDs, Many things were clarified and communicated efficiently through the direct dialogue between ICANN Board, SSAC and effected IDN user community, before and at Durban, under the leadership of ALAC. Although there is still room for improvement regarding these revisions, I believe the positive move deserves our support to make sure they could be finally adopted after the public comments. Please advise whether ALAC would wish to submit a comment, before August 27. Best, Hong -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

4 4

Open Call for Participation in the Task Force on Arabic Script IDNs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached an Open Call for Participation in the Task Force on Arabic Script IDNs. The Task Force is an initiative of the Middle East Strategy Working Group (MESWG). Those interested are encouraged to apply especially if your community uses the Arabic script. Best regards, Rinalia *Extract from the attachment (please view the document for more information) * The Task Force will focus on technical issues and solutions related to Arabic script IDNs to promote Arabic IDNs definition, secure deployment and ease of use for the community. *Scope of Work * • Arabic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone • Second level LGRs for the Arabic script • Arabic script Internationalized Registration Data Protocol and Practice • Universal acceptability of Arabic script IDNs and variants • Technical challenges around registration of Arabic IDNs and variants • Operational software for Arabic script IDN registry and registrar operations • DNS security matters specifically related to Arabic IDNs and variants • Technical training material around Arabic script IDNs *Task Force Membership* The task force will consist of a diverse set of interested individuals from a diverse set of interests, e.g. Registries, Registrars, Community, Academia, DNS experts, IDNA experts, Unicode, Law enforcement, DNS security, Policy makers, etc. All the materials prepared through the task force will be openly available for use by the community. *Interested individuals are invited to join the task force on voluntary basis by emailing their CV and Statement of Interest (SOI) to tf-aidn-admin(a)meswg.org, which will be publicly archived for information purposes, and then signing up at http://lists.meswg.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-aidn.* *Initial Timelines* 5th August, 2013: Open Call for Task Force Members 20th August, 2013: MESWG to announce Task Force of Arabic Script IDNs (TF-AIDN) 1st Sept, 2013: Initiate Work Item(s) END

1 0

Urgent - ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, There are urgent emerging issues related to the new gTLD string contention that the EXCOMM believes warrant an ALAC intervention. With the support of Evan, I have taken the liberty of drafting an ALAC response for your immediate input. We need to submit the statements by the second week of August (latest) to have the possibility of an ICANN response before community priority evaluation begins. Please do try your best to provide comments for improvements or endorsements if you like the text/intent via the wiki page indicated by Thursday (8 August 2013). Policy Development wiki page links and statement text pasted below for your quick review. If the wiki link is not active, kindly copy and paste the URL for activation. Thank you! Best regards, Rinalia *1. ALAC Statement on Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention* WIKI page for your comments: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+PREFERE… *DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS IN STRING CONTENTION* The ALAC notes that due to strict eligibility criteria, some of the new gTLD applications intended for communities and with wide public/grassroots support were not submitted as community applications. These applications are currently in contention with those that are fully commercial (i.e., driven purely by financial gain). We firmly believe that applications with demonstrable support, appropriate safeguards and emphasis on community service over revenue maximization should be accorded preferential treatment in the new gTLD string contention resolution process. We thus support the position of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as per the GAC Communiqué dated 18 July 2013 and call on ICANN to review all 688 applications currently in contention and provide preferential treatment to applications that meet the specification described above. END *2. ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation* WIKI page for your comments: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+COMMUNI… *DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY EXPERTISE IN COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVALUATION* The ALAC has concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in panels that evaluate new gTLD community applications in string contention processes. We believe that the evaluations have significant implications for community applications and require sufficient and relevant community-related expertise in panels that evaluate the applications. In providing this advice we draw from the learning provided by the failure of the new gTLD Applicant Support Program. *Community Priority Evaluation * Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook specifies that the Community Priority Evaluation is applicable only for community-based applicants. The evaluation is an independent analysis (i.e., not dependent on prior applicant review results) and that any community application that passes the Evaluation will “eliminate all directly contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be.” Furthermore, community applications that fail the Evaluation will proceed into auction involving all contending parties where they may be at a disadvantage against fully commercial applications. As per the new gTLD Program Timeline indicated at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/timelines, we note that the string contention resolution process will begin in September 2013. We also note that the Economist Intelligence Unit and InterConnect Communications have been appointed as service providers for the Community Priority Evaluation Panel (see new gTLD Program Update at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in 2011). We have concerns that these entities may have a natural familiarity and pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications emphasizing community service over revenue-maximization. The ALAC thus calls for community-related expertise in the Community Priority Evaluation Panel and stands ready to offer appropriate and un-conflicted ICANN community volunteers to serve as panel members or advisors. END

3 3

Re: [ALAC] Urgent - ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

Hi, Tijani. I agree that the criteria would be crucial for the first statement to avoid gaming. We can certainly flag the importance of having appropriate criteria in place. There are options in terms of how to handle or rank community-related applications. It will involve some value judgement on what is important or valued where communities are concerned and it won't please everyone. But let's go into that when ICANN demonstrates that it is ready and willing to give preferential treatment to applications related to communities. On the language of the second statement, Olivier usually vets all ALAC statements. I trust that his mastery of English will improve whatever it is that needs improving. Best regards, Rinalia On Aug 5, 2013 12:53 PM, "Tijani BENJEMAA" <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > Good morning Rinalia,**** > > ** ** > > For the first statement, I fully support it in principle. But as I said in > a previous discussion on this issue, I’m a little bit concerned about > gaming. It’s true that the AGB criteria for the community application are > very tight, but who will decide if the application that doesn’t fit the > community criteria has a community support??? Where you will put the limit? > **** > > During the elaboration of the JAS recommendations, some told me that > Verisign (for example) can bring the proof of community support for its > application, and yet, it is purely commercial.**** > > ** ** > > So, I support the concept assuming there are clear criteria for any > prioritized application on the basis of community support.**** > > ** ** > > You will tell me this statement doesn’t go to the details; I agree, but we > can add a word of reserve (pending definition of clear criteria).**** > > ** ** > > As for the second statement regarding the panels, I support it. I’m not an > English speaker, but I find that the language needs to be improved. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > **** > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director**** > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)**** > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605**** > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114**** > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376**** > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: > alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Rinalia Abdul Rahim > Envoyé : dimanche 4 août 2013 16:16 > À : ALAC Working List > Cc : ICANN At-Large Staff > Objet : [ALAC] Urgent - ALAC Statements on Community Applications > > ** ** > > Dear ALAC Colleagues,**** > > ** ** > > There are urgent emerging issues related to the new gTLD string contention > **** > > that the EXCOMM believes warrant an ALAC intervention. With the support of > **** > > Evan, I have taken the liberty of drafting an ALAC response for your**** > > immediate input. We need to submit the statements by the second week of** > ** > > August (latest) to have the possibility of an ICANN response before**** > > community priority evaluation begins. Please do try your best to provide* > *** > > comments for improvements or endorsements if you like the text/intent via* > *** > > the wiki page indicated by Thursday (8 August 2013).**** > > ** ** > > Policy Development wiki page links and statement text pasted below for your > **** > > quick review. If the wiki link is not active, kindly copy and paste the** > ** > > URL for activation.**** > > ** ** > > Thank you!**** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > Rinalia**** > > ** ** > > *1. ALAC Statement on Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in > **** > > String Contention***** > > ** ** > > WIKI page for your comments:**** > > > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+PREFERE… > **** > > ** ** > > *DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR COMMUNITY APPLICATIONS > **** > > IN STRING CONTENTION***** > > ** ** > > The ALAC notes that due to strict eligibility criteria, some of the new*** > * > > gTLD applications intended for communities and with wide public/grassroots > **** > > support were not submitted as community applications. These applications* > *** > > are currently in contention with those that are fully commercial (i.e.,*** > * > > driven purely by financial gain).**** > > ** ** > > We firmly believe that applications with demonstrable support, appropriate > **** > > safeguards and emphasis on community service over revenue maximization**** > > should be accorded preferential treatment in the new gTLD string contention > **** > > resolution process. We thus support the position of the Governmental**** > > Advisory Committee (GAC) as per the GAC Communiqué dated 18 July 2013 and* > *** > > call on ICANN to review all 688 applications currently in contention and** > ** > > provide preferential treatment to applications that meet the specification > **** > > described above.**** > > ** ** > > END**** > > ** ** > > *2. ALAC Statement on Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation* > **** > > ** ** > > WIKI page for your comments:**** > > > https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+COMMUNI… > **** > > ** ** > > *DRAFT ALAC STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY EXPERTISE IN COMMUNITY PRIORITY**** > > EVALUATION***** > > ** ** > > The ALAC has concerns about the sufficiency of community expertise in**** > > panels that evaluate new gTLD community applications in string contention* > *** > > processes.**** > > ** ** > > We believe that the evaluations have significant implications for community > **** > > applications and require sufficient and relevant community-related**** > > expertise in panels that evaluate the applications. In providing this**** > > advice we draw from the learning provided by the failure of the new gTLD** > ** > > Applicant Support Program.**** > > ** ** > > *Community Priority Evaluation ***** > > ** ** > > Module 4 of the Applicant Guidebook specifies that the Community Priority* > *** > > Evaluation is applicable only for community-based applicants. The**** > > evaluation is an independent analysis (i.e., not dependent on prior**** > > applicant review results) and that any community application that passes** > ** > > the Evaluation will “eliminate all directly contending standard**** > > applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be.”**** > > Furthermore, community applications that fail the Evaluation will proceed* > *** > > into auction involving all contending parties where they may be at a**** > > disadvantage against fully commercial applications.**** > > ** ** > > As per the new gTLD Program Timeline indicated at**** > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/timelines, we note that the*** > * > > string contention resolution process will begin in September 2013. We also > **** > > note that the Economist Intelligence Unit and InterConnect Communications* > *** > > have been appointed as service providers for the Community Priority**** > > Evaluation Panel (see new gTLD Program Update at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in > **** > > 2011).**** > > ** ** > > We have concerns that these entities may have a natural familiarity and*** > * > > pre-disposition toward business that may discriminate against applications > **** > > emphasizing community service over revenue-maximization.**** > > ** ** > > The ALAC thus calls for community-related expertise in the Community**** > > Priority Evaluation Panel and stands ready to offer appropriate and**** > > un-conflicted ICANN community volunteers to serve as panel members or**** > > advisors.**** > > ** ** > > END**** > > _______________________________________________**** > > 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… > **** >

1 0