May 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

NGPC rejects Amazon applications
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2014

May 18, 2014

https://new.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-05… Alan

2 1

Resolutions from the ICANN Board's new gTLD Program Committee meeting on 14 May 2014
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 18, 2014

May 18, 2014

Dear ALAC, The items on .amazon and review mechanism for inconsistent expert determination on string confusion objection may be of interest. Where there is no resolution taken is due to the need for more discussion. Attached doc provides a better overview of the NGPC decisions from its meeting on Wednesday May 14th. Best regards, Rinalia > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-14may14… > > > > 1.Consent Agenda: > > a. Approval of Minutes > > Resolved (2014.05.14.NG01), the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) approves the minutes of the 22 March, 26 March and 3-4 April 2014 NGPC meetings. > > > > 2. Main Agenda: > > a. Remaining Items from Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires, and Singapore GAC Advice > > Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"). > > Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué"). > > Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires and issued a Communiqué on 20 November 2013 ("Buenos Aires Communiqué"). > > Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore and issued a Communiqué on 27 March 2014, which was amended on 16 April 2014 ("Singapore Communiqué"). > > Whereas, the NGPC adopted scorecards to respond to certain items of the GAC's advice, which were adopted on 4 June 2013, 10 September 2013, 28 September 2013 and 5 February 2014. > > Whereas, the NGPC has developed another iteration of the scorecard to respond to certain remaining items of GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué, the Durban Communiqué, the Buenos Aires Communiqué, and new advice in the Singapore Communiqué. > > Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. > > Resolved (2014.05.14.NG02), the NGPC adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice (Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore): Actions and Updates" (14 May 2014), attached as Annex 1 [ http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1…] to this Resolution, in response to open items of Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore GAC advice as presented in the scorecard. > > > b. GAC Advice on .AMAZON (and related IDNs) > > Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 ("Durban Communiqué"). > > Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in its Durban Communiqué that the GAC reached "consensus on GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook on the following applications: [t]he application for .amazon (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5591)." This item of GAC advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-07-18-Obj-Amazon. > > Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. > > Resolved (2014.05.14.NG03), the NGPC accepts the GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-07-18-Obj-Amazon, and directs the President and CEO, or his designee, that the applications for .AMAZON (application number 1-1315-58086) and related IDNs in Japanese (application number 1-1318-83995) and Chinese (application number 1-1318-5581) filed by Amazon EU S.à r.l. should not proceed. By adopting the GAC advice, the NGPC notes that the decision is without prejudice to the continuing efforts by Amazon EU S.à r.l. and members of the GAC to pursue dialogue on the relevant issues. > > > > c. Perceived Inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations – Review Mechanism > > No resolution taken. > > > d. New gTLD Auction Rules > > No resolution taken. > > > e. New gTLD Program Financial Update > > Item not considered. > > > Published on 16 May 2014 >

1 0

Fwd: On the ALS application of ISOC Venezuela - ISOC LAC chapters
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 16, 2014

May 16, 2014

Dear all, Please be so kind to find the message from Alejandro Pisanty below. You may use your favourite translate tool re: Spanish -> English translation. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: On the ALS application of ISOC Venezuela - ISOC LAC chapters Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:21:37 -0500 From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> To: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com>, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin(a)ttcsweb.org>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> Olivier, Fatima, Dev, Leon, Alberto, Humberto, the following communication has been agreed upon by 7 ISOC Chapters of Latin America and the Caribbean, all of them ALS's and LACRALO members, in support of the ISOC Venezuela application. We stand ready to discuss further information and criteria if needed: "Posicion sobre la acreditación de ISOC Venezuela como ALS en ALAC >> >> De nuestra mayor consideración: >> >> Los capítulos de ISOC abajo firmantes expresan su respaldo a la >> postulación como miembro ALS del Capitulo de ISOC Venezuela al ALAC, >> basados en los criterios establecidos por el ALAC, que son: >> >> "• Comprometerse a respaldar la participación informada en la ICANN >> de los usuarios individuales. Esto se llevará a cabo por medio de >> la distribución de información a los miembros >> individuales/constituyentes sobre las actividades y hechos relevantes >> de la ICANN, ofreciendo mecanismos vía Internet para que los miembros >> individuales/constituyentes puedan intercambiar ideas sobre una o más >> de estas actividades o hechos, y participen en el desarrollo, la >> discusión y las decisiones de políticas relevantes a la ICANN. >> • Organizarse de tal modo que la participación de usuarios >> individuales, quienes son ciudadanos o residentes de países de la >> región geográfica en la cual tenga su sede esa ALS, será predominante >> en las operaciones de la ALS. La ALS puede permitir la >> participación adicional de otros que compartan los intereses de los >> usuarios individuales de esa región. >> • Ser autosuficiente (no depender de la ICANN para financiamiento). >> • Anunciar en Internet (en el sitio Web del Comité At-Large - ALAC o >> en algún otro sitio) información actual y accesible al público >> acerca de las metas, la estructura, la descripción de los grupos >> constituyentes/miembros, mecanismos de trabajo, liderazgo y contactos >> de la ALS. >> • Ayudar a la RALO en la ejecución de sus funciones.” [1] >> >> Al momento, más de 40 capítulos de ISOC alrededor del mundo son ALS >> certificadas, con diferente tipología de membresia; Siendo que ISOC >> Argentina, ISOC Mexico, ISOC Peru, ISOC Ecuador, ISOC Trinidad y >> Tobago e ISOC Costa Rica, ya son miembros del ALAC, y por ende del >> LACRALO, en el mismo principio anterior debería ser aceptada la >> solicitud de ISOC Venezuela por compartir estructura, principios, >> fines y objetivos similares a los otros capítulos que actualmente >> forman parte de ALAC. >> >> Es importante señalar que los criterios de acreditación para la >> conformación de un capítulo de ISOC son similares a los del ALAC, por >> lo cual un capitulo ser un capitulo ISOC garantiza el cumplimiento de >> dichos criterios [2]. >> >> De igual modo sobre la relevancia de ISOC Venezuela, y de su >> membrecia, diversos miembros de ISOC VE han contribuido a >> la información útil para todos con mediciones de tráfico de las que >> no sería posible disponer de otra manera, conjuntando así >> competencia tecnológica y visión de servicio a los usuarios >> >> Siendo los criterios expuestos los que determinan la admisión de una >> organización como ALS, el Capitulo ISOC Venezuela cumple con >> los mismos, y en irrestricto respeto del principio de igualdad y no >> discriminación su aplicación debe ser aceptada. >> >> Atentamente, >> >> ISOC Argentina >> ISOC Costa Rica >> ISOC Ecuador >> ISOC Mexico >> ISOC Paraguay >> ISOC Peru >> ISOC Trinidad y Tobago" >> >> Yours, Alejandro Pisanty -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 0

Schedule for Thursday during the London ICANN meeting
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2014

May 14, 2014

Don't think I saw this circulated. If it was, I apologize for the duplicate. Alan From: http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/thursday-in-london/ Thursday In London by Steve Crocker on May 12, 2014 When we last met in Singapore, the NTIA announcement on transitioning stewardship of the IANA functions was still very fresh and we adjusted our meeting schedules to begin constructive discussions in response. The processes governing these discussions are now in motion, and we want to support them with open dialogue with as many stakeholders as possible. For ICANN 50 in London, we will carve out a substantial amount of quality time to continue meaningful dialogue on both the transition of the IANA stewardship process and the ICANN Accountability process at the stages those processes will be in late June. We also want to support these processes as much as possible by maximizing remote participation from around the world. To the latter, we are exploring the possibility of setting up a series of remote hubs similar to what was used last month during NETmundial and to great acclaim. As for the schedule, we are reshuffling the planned Thursday, June 26 agenda for this meeting only. Here is the expected schedule: â¾8:00a 10a: Complete all group sessions â¾10a 12p: ICANN Accountability Forum â¾12p 1p: Lunch â¾1p 3:30p: IANA Stewardship Transition Forum â¾4p 6p: Public Forum â¾6p 7p: Board Meeting â¾7p : Cocktails I hope that two hours for the Public Forum during this particular meeting will be adequate as discussions on the transition and on accountability would likely, under normal circumstances, take up a good chunk of that time. Shortening the Public Forum was not an easy decision. I, and Iâm sure I speak for the other Board members, always look forward to the abundance of input the community shares and the passion by which you can do so at the end of a long week. However, some sort of change was necessary this time, and we consulted with the leaders of the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations to choose this approach. The feedback was remarkably supportive. My hope is that this change in the meeting schedule, and again for this meeting only, is made with enough notice so that we all can adjust accordingly. The meetings team will do its best to identify alternative slots for any Thursday session disrupted by this change in schedule. Thanks for your attention to this and I look forward to seeing you in London.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw through. Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these issues. It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least. One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy service. Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make an additional statement to the WG? Alan At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear All, > >BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues raised >by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. >See >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-en.pdf > >Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular registrar >appear to have been included in the breach notice, including the systemic >Whois inaccuracy complaints. > >Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Fwd: [soac-chairs] FW: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

FYI. This ties in with our support for the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on the IANA issue. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [soac-chairs] FW: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:25:41 +0100 From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Reply-To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info Organization: Afilias To: <soac-chairs(a)icann.org> All, As discussed today. Jonathan *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] *Sent:* 08 May 2014 22:45 *To:* 'ianatransition(a)icann.org' *Subject:* Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group Dear ICANN, Please find the following comments regarding an emerging plan for a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) intended to make a substantive contribution to the /the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions./These comments are respectfully submitted for and on behalf of the GNSO Council. Since well prior to the "/Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions/", there has been significant discussion on the substantial issues associated with the transition from NTIA. Some of this discussion has focussed on the prospect of the formation, chartering and working of a Cross-Community Working Group to deal with the key elements of this process. For the avoidance of doubt, the current CWG on Internet Governance has made it clear that its scope will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, an initial proposal for a charter of such a CWG was circulated in the community and this has received some iterations and developments since. It is far from the finished article and nor should it be, since the drafting of a such charter should be the first task of the CWG. Nevertheless, at its meeting today, the GNSO Council agreed to submit the early draft charter to this call for public input in order to commit to record both the early draft charter as a potential starting point and the intention to move forward with the bottom-up formation of a CWG in collaboration with others in the ICANN community. Accordingly, the draft charter is attached to this submission. An additional key point to note is that existing ICANN Community processes and relationships should be used to facilitate this effort as much as possible. This will minimise the need to create new processes and should generally enhance efficiency of the work. Notwithstanding this, modifications can be expected to be needed in order to facilitate and encourage participation by those from outside of the ICANN Community. The use of a CWG with a community defined scope, reflected in a well-defined charter provides the prospect of truly bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process to deal with this critical set of issues. Such a process may well integrate with the ICANN /Draft Proposal/(to be modified in response to this public comment) and we trust that the prospect of a CWG will be recognised by all for its potential value and legitimacy as a bottom-up, community led initiative proposed in good faith and which can be assisted and supported by ICANN as envisaged in the NTIA announcement. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair, ICANN GNSO Council

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] The Problem of IDNs
by Rafid A. Fatani May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Thank you Rinalia and all, To carry on from Edmons comment, I think the advocacy side of this argument is crucial in order for this agenda item to be handled at the right level. I also agree that this is and should rightfully be attached to the universal acceptance issue. I think Leon point with the RALO's is a valid one, but let's not delude ourselves here, much bigger influencing and marketing forces are required if we are serious about this. So maybe a good starting point to the 'moving forward' discussion needs to take place at ATLAS II - Can this be part of the formal agenda, or is it too late now? Raf On 12 May 2014, at 06:26, Edmon <edmon(a)isoc.hk> wrote: > I think it is very important for ICANN to take the issue of "Universal Acceptance of IDN" seriously and take a central role in the coordination and facilitation of bringing together the stakeholders so that the issue can be addressed. > > The issue in my mind is 2 fold, including 1. a technical side and 2. an advocacy side > > After many years of discussion, I strongly believe ICANN is the right forum and place for this coordination and gathering of stakeholders to take place, even as ICANN itself nor its immediate community can "solve" the issue. > > Following from the JIG Final Report on the issue, of which of course I was very much involved, I hope that ICANN could make this a strategic item, at the level (at least) of advocating for IPv6 and DNSSEC. > > Also, we must start with our own community, the registries and registrars and make sure we have those systems for which ICANN policies can directly influence to be fully IDN aware so that users can not only register IDNs but use them at least to setup nameservers, dns hosting, web hosting and emails. > > In my mind, the ideal approach ICANN could take would be to convene a community wide steering group that would include participants from all organs of ICANN, including ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC, RSSAC in fact ASO as well, but not stop there, ICANN should also help invite participants from other parts of the Internet community including application level organizations e.g. WITSA, as well as W3C, IETF, etc. > > The group should work with an ICANN staff team to produce: > 1. A set of best practices for IDN Acceptance in systems (based on and consolidating from the experience already in the community) > 2. Set of measurements of IDN Acceptance (so we can continue to track and measure our progress) > 3. Continued study measuring IDN Acceptance on the internet (including domain registries and registrars) > > The group does not need to meet all the time like GNSO working groups, we just need to meet maybe 2-3 times a year and keep track of the progress and to make sure we move forward methodically. Such meetings could ideally coincide with ICANN meetings, again where we would invite other parts of the internet community to join. > > Well... the above is my wish :-D > ICANN board seems have not considered the JIG report yet and am not sure what their schedule or priority level is on the issue... Though, here at the APTLD meetings, I heard encouraging presentation from Ed Lewis of ICANN that finally there is a change in the attitude of ICANN staff that ICANN has a role to play in this. > > In any case, as mentioned briefly in Singapore, I think maybe ALAC can take the lead on forming that community wide steering group... > > Edmon > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- >> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:36 AM >> To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> Cc: Carlton Samuels; No name; ALAC Working List; Don Hollander; apralo >> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs >> >> Hi, Leon. >> >> A cross-RALO collaboration would be excellent if there is interest in the respective >> RALOs to take on this issue. In the past, RALOs have had different prioritization >> for IDN related issues. I think some awareness-raising is needed among RALOs >> to help them understand the nature of the problem. It is a problem of relevance to >> users worldwide. >> >> A webinar before ATLAS II in London and / or discussion during ATLAS II in >> London would be a good opportunity to do it. Would you be willing to help >> shepherd process (i.e., make sure a discussion happens on the topic)? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:12 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < >> leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> >>> Good information. Thanks Rinalia! >>> >>> I might be stating the obvious, however, this is not a problem that is >>> exclusive to the AP region but to the rest of the regions as well. I >>> see it as a chance to advance in a cross-regional effort in order to >>> create awareness and engage different users and technical communities >>> towards addressing the issue. >>> >>> Could we think of ways in which we could collaborate across RALOs to >>> help solve the problem? Maybe a cross-regional workshop at some forum? >>> >>> What are your thoughts? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> El 09/05/2014, a las 10:07, Carlton Samuels >>> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >>> escribió: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application >>>>> level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs >>>>> is >>> arguably a >>>>> success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in >>> seeing >>>>> IDNs succeed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe. But if ICANN were to understand that the application issues >>> impacts >>>> not just the health but a 'stable, secure.....' ecosystem then ICANN >>> would >>>> be well-advised to find a corner and get to working. >>>> >>>> In this era of roiled sensibilities and sensitivities ICANN no >>>> longer has the luxury of being Potiphar's wife; make a claim to be above >> reproach. >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing, Rinalia. Much obliged. >>>> >>>> -Carlton >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================== >>>> Carlton A Samuels >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >>>> ============================= >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3931/7441 - Release Date: 05/05/14 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.

1 0

The Problem of IDNs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Colleagues, This is the link to a recent APTLD Report on a survey involving ccTLDs regarding use of IDNs - http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p…. It has statistics from the Asia Pacific and European regions. End user awareness is scored lowest and there is feedback on barriers that limit broad adoption by end users. At the basic level, the problem is that IDNs are not available for use in email, browsers and other applications used by users. Efforts to address the problem are distributed among many parties and they are un-coordinated. There has been some discussions at ICANN on what needs to be done and the role of ICANN. The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed. Various suggestions have been made on ICANN's role including convene meetings on the topic, raise awareness about the problem through communications channels, gather and centralize information on efforts underway to inform the community, and coordinate the disparate efforts of un-connected parties, etc. *If there are thoughts on what the role of ICANN should be vis-a-vis the role of the community to address the problem of IDN adoption (as part of solving the Universal Acceptance problem), please share.* *APRALO and APTLD: Perhaps a collaboration on way forward to enhance end user awareness and encourage applications developers to meet the market demand? * Best regards, Rinalia <http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p…>

4 4

WG: [IAMCR] PINGO
by Wolf Ludwig May 11, 2014

May 11, 2014

Hello, let me forward this excellent analyses from Wolfgang Kleinwächter on the NetMundial outcomes reflected in a broader holistic context. This paper could serve as sort of “must read” for participants joining ATLAS II next month in London. Enjoy! Best, Wolf Kleinwächter, Wolfgang sent Sun, 11 May 2014 10:48: >Hi, > >here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sao Paulo Declaration. > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_… > >wolfgang > > > > >-- >International Association for Media and Communication Research | http://www.iamcr.org > >Join IAMCR | http://www.iamcr.org/join >IAMCR 2014 | http://iamcr2014.org/ >IAMCR on Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.org >IAMCR 2014 on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/events/173780362805985/ >@IAMCRtweets on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets > >Announcements mailing list information and policies: http://iamcr.org/mailman/listinfo/announcements_iamcr.org >Unsubscribe: http://iamcr.org/mailman/options/announcements_iamcr.org > EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw through. Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these issues. It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least. One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy service. Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make an additional statement to the WG? Alan At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear All, > >BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues raised >by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. >See >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-en.pdf > >Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular registrar >appear to have been included in the breach notice, including the systemic >Whois inaccuracy complaints. > >Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2