September 2013 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Correction: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 30, 2013

Sept. 30, 2013

You know what -- you're right! I thought it was actually differently worded because of its filename. NGPC definitely confused. In any case, I have asked for a response on the other Statement. Kind regards, Olivier On 21/09/2013 19:07, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Olivier, > > The attached file is exactly the same as the previous one > > Tijani > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ > Crepin-Leblond > Envoyé : samedi 21 septembre 2013 23:10 > À : ALAC Working List > Objet : [ALAC] Fwd: Correction: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community > Applications > > Dear ALAC, > > please be so kind to find attached the response from the Chair of the NGPC > to my earlier reply. > I have since replied that our Statement on "Community Expertise in Community > Priority Evaluation" (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN) still stands and we look > forward to a response from the NGPC on this matter. > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Correction: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community > Applications > Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 08:40:39 -0700 > From: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)*.org> > To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com> > > > > Dear Olivier, > Please ignore the previous email. I sent you the wrong attachment. > Please find attached the correct response from the NGPC. > Thanks > Cherine > > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> > Date: Saturday, 21 September 2013 14:24 > To: Cherine Mohsen Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org > <mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>> > Cc: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com <mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>>, > Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org <mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large > Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Olivier MJ > Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> > Subject: Re: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications > > Dear Cherine, > > thank you very much for your kind reply which I will forward to the ALAC for > their information. > > I should point out that the NGPC might be confused in their response > regarding (1) "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" > (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN). This Statement, attached, was actually sent to > you and the NGPC. It was not sent to the Panel Firm. > > The Statement which the ALAC has sent to the Panel Firm is another Statement > entitled "ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation > (CPE) Guidelines Update from ICANN" (AL-ALAC-ST-0913-01-00-EN). I enclose a > copy of it here for your information - and you will notice it looks at the > subject from an entirely different angle. > > On behalf of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee, we look forward to the > NGPC's response on the ALAC's "Community Expertise in Community Priority > Evaluation" Statement. > > Best regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > On 21/09/2013 08:29, Cherine Chalaby wrote: >> Dear Olivier, >> >> >> >> On behalf of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I thank you for >> providing the two recent ALAC Statements regarding: (1) Community >> Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation; and (2) Preferential >> Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention. The NGPC >> appreciates the attention the ALAC has given to these two topics and >> has reviewed the statements carefully. The NGPC understands that >> additional detail regarding these topics may be sent to it in the near >> future. >> >> >> Please find attached the full response of the NGPC to the ALAC Statements. >> >> All the best, >> >> Cherine > > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 5

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Objections] First Community objections results and determinations being published by the ICC
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 26, 2013

Sept. 26, 2013

Thanks, Dev. This is exactly the kins of problem we don't want to have with the CPE by not having properly trained evaluators regarding "community". No reason why the NGPC can't understand why we are concerned after receiving this type of correspondence. Rinalia On Sep 26, 2013 10:17 PM, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Letter to Cherine Chalaby, Fadi Chehade, Christine Willet (ICANN) from > Shweta Sahjwani (Radix Registry), Jay Westerdal (Fegistry, LLC.) > criticising ICC Panel's decisions regarding .gay, .architect, and .fly > (more with the latter two) > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/sahjwani-westerdal-to-chalaby-e… > > > Dev Anand > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > wrote: > > > > On 10/09/2013 17:38, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > >> - objection against .gay dismissed (8 page determination) > >> - objection against .architect is successful (60 page determination) > >> - objection against .fly dismissed (21 page determination) > > I am amazed about the variety of report lengths. 8 pages vs. 60 pages. > Wow! > > > > Olivier > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-objections mailing list > > ALAC-objections(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-objections > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-objections mailing list > ALAC-objections(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-objections >

4 4

Fwd: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 26, 2013

Sept. 26, 2013

FYI -- as a follow-up to Evan's request on the ALAC list, as well as the Action Item assigned to me during the ALAC call. I'll let you know of replies. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:33:18 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org> CC: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN Dear Fadi, I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban: Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87: EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and "responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it crept into the RAA. STEVE CROCKER: Management response here? FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the distinction between the two. That's all I can say. --- end of transcript --- The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore writing to you to ask for this clarification. It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section 9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68. Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' Rights and a Registrants' Benefits. But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a list of Registrants' Rights. Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this Agreement, located at: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.htm)" On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants’ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." and: "3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants’ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the distinction between the two. Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed? Warmest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

Motions to approve RoP Adjunct Documents 03.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2013

Sept. 25, 2013

I am attaching ALAC Rules of Procedure Adjunct Document 03 entitled At-Large Board Member Selection Implementation. This document records the history and process of the 2010 At-Large Director Selection (ICANN Board seat 15) as required by the RoP, notes the changes made since that time, and identifies further issues to be addressed in the forthcoming selection. It has been reviewed and vetted by Cheryl, who oversaw all aspects of the 2010 selection, and will provide the background needed by those who will take responsibility for the 2013/14 process. I submit the following motion. Once seconded, I request that the Chair initiate an online vote. This is the final document needed under the new RoP and once approved, the new RoP immediately come into effect. Alan ===================== Whereas the ALAC approved a revised Rules of Procedure on 03 April 2013 and to become effective several associated documents also need to be approved by the ALAC; It is resolved that the ALAC approves the ALAC Rules of Procedure Adjunct Document 03 - At-Large Board Member Selection Implementation dated 2013-09-25. The document is linked at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rules+of+Procedure.

3 2

Fwd: Correction: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 21, 2013

Sept. 21, 2013

Dear ALAC, please be so kind to find attached the response from the Chair of the NGPC to my earlier reply. I have since replied that our Statement on "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN) still stands and we look forward to a response from the NGPC on this matter. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Correction: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 08:40:39 -0700 From: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)*.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com> Dear Olivier, Please ignore the previous email. I sent you the wrong attachment. Please find attached the correct response from the NGPC. Thanks Cherine From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Date: Saturday, 21 September 2013 14:24 To: Cherine Mohsen Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org <mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>> Cc: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)shinkuro.com <mailto:Steve@shinkuro.com>>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org <mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Subject: Re: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications Dear Cherine, thank you very much for your kind reply which I will forward to the ALAC for their information. I should point out that the NGPC might be confused in their response regarding (1) "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN). This Statement, attached, was actually sent to you and the NGPC. It was not sent to the Panel Firm. The Statement which the ALAC has sent to the Panel Firm is another Statement entitled "ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update from ICANN" (AL-ALAC-ST-0913-01-00-EN). I enclose a copy of it here for your information - and you will notice it looks at the subject from an entirely different angle. On behalf of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee, we look forward to the NGPC's response on the ALAC's "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" Statement. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 21/09/2013 08:29, Cherine Chalaby wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > > > On behalf of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I thank you for > providing the two recent ALAC Statements regarding: (1) Community > Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation; and (2) Preferential > Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention. The NGPC > appreciates the attention the ALAC has given to these two topics and > has reviewed the statements carefully. The NGPC understands that > additional detail regarding these topics may be sent to it in the near > future. > > > Please find attached the full response of the NGPC to the ALAC Statements. > > All the best, > > Cherine

2 1

Fwd: Re: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 21, 2013

Sept. 21, 2013

Dear all, Please be so kind to find my follow-up response below. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:24:08 -0400 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com> To: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)*.org> CC: Steve Crocker <Steve(a)*.com>, Secretary <secretary(a)*.org>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.*.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com> Dear Cherine, thank you very much for your kind reply which I will forward to the ALAC for their information. I should point out that the NGPC might be confused in their response regarding (1) "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" (AL-ALAC-ST-0813-03-00-EN). This Statement, attached, was actually sent to you and the NGPC. It was not sent to the Panel Firm. The Statement which the ALAC has sent to the Panel Firm is another Statement entitled "ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update from ICANN" (AL-ALAC-ST-0913-01-00-EN). I enclose a copy of it here for your information - and you will notice it looks at the subject from an entirely different angle. On behalf of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee, we look forward to the NGPC's response on the ALAC's "Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation" Statement. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 21/09/2013 08:29, Cherine Chalaby wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > > > On behalf of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I thank you for > providing the two recent ALAC Statements regarding: (1) Community > Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation; and (2) Preferential > Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention. The NGPC > appreciates the attention the ALAC has given to these two topics and > has reviewed the statements carefully. The NGPC understands that > additional detail regarding these topics may be sent to it in the near > future. > > > Please find attached the full response of the NGPC to the ALAC Statements. > > All the best, > > Cherine

2 1

Fwd: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 21, 2013

Sept. 21, 2013

FYI. I am also sending a follow-up response in my next message. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 05:29:01 -0700 From: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)*.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)*.com> Dear Olivier, On behalf of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), I thank you for providing the two recent ALAC Statements regarding: (1) Community Expertise in Community Priority Evaluation; and (2) Preferential Treatment for Community Applications in String Contention. The NGPC appreciates the attention the ALAC has given to these two topics and has reviewed the statements carefully. The NGPC understands that additional detail regarding these topics may be sent to it in the near future. Please find attached the full response of the NGPC to the ALAC Statements. All the best, Cherine

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD Program Committee on 28 Sept 2013
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2013

Sept. 21, 2013

This confirms that they will be discussing string similarity. Alan http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-28sep13-en.h… 28 September 2013 Consent Agenda: *Approval of Minutes Main Agenda: * Remaining Items from Beijing and Durban GAC Advice: Updates and Actions * Name Collision Discussion * String Similarity Discussion * AOB

1 0

Agenda for 28 September 2013 Board meeting in Los Angeles
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2013

Sept. 21, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-28sep13-en.htm 28 September 2013 Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Proposed Process for GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charter Amendments 3. Delegation of a ccTLD for Iran in Arabic script 4. GNSO Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Recommendations 5. Clarification Regarding the Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice Metrics for the New gTLD Program per the AoC Review 6. Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Review Implementation (pending SIC approval) Main Agenda 1. Appointment of 2014 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect 2. Treatment of New gTLD Historical Costs (pending BFC recommendation) 3. AOB

1 0

Draft Advice to the Board on Confusingly Similar New gTLD Strings
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 12, 2013

Sept. 12, 2013

Attached and at https://community.icann.org/x/1AuMAg is my first draft on a statement of advice to the ICANN Board on confusingly similar strings. I think that it is likely that the issue of the two conflicting string objection results for .com and .com (pointers below) will be on the agenda of the 27-28 September Board Workshop, so it would be opportune for us to submit this statement prior to then. Please distribute to your RALOs as you see fit. For those interested in the string confusion objections, the full list can be found at the easy-to-locate document - http://images.go.adr.org/Web/AmericanArbitrationAssociation/%7B3d7531bb-c0b… (or if that gets mangled - http://tinyurl.com/StringObjections) The three .com/.cam determinations can be found at: http://images.go.adr.org/Web/AmericanArbitrationAssociation/%7B2e0321f5-da2… http://images.go.adr.org/Web/AmericanArbitrationAssociation/%7B89cde8ce-0b0… http://images.go.adr.org/Web/AmericanArbitrationAssociation/%7Bccb221d7-8f2… Note that the first two determinations that found the strings to be NOT confusingly similar were by the same panelist. The third which found that the exact same strings WERE confusingly similar was by a different panelist. Alan

1 0