July 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

NetMundial Initiative for Internet Governance Cooperation & Development
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

Dear ALAC and At-Large, please be so kind to find attached, a proposal document as of 27 July 2014 regarding the next steps after NetMundial. This is currently being circulated within Civil Society organisations. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 0

Another take on the NTIA departure - anti-trust liability
by Alan Greenberg July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/140730/guested-romano.html

1 0

Accountability Update
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim July 31, 2014

July 31, 2014

ALAC, Attached is a transcript of SO-AC-SG Leaders Call with CEO and Senior Staff on 17 July 2014, which was just released. A brief update was given on accountability WG proposal. Note: - 49 comments received and being analyzed together with feedback from ICANN 50 + anything implicating accountability from the IANA Coordination Group work. - In a follow-up e-mail Theresa Swineheart indicated that staff will post the comments report as soon as they finish with the analysis. - Role and contribution of CWGs discussed and clarified. Read doc for GNSO leaders' exchange with Fadi on CWG. Separate to this, Board will be briefed on 30th July regarding status of the accountability track. Best regards, Rinalia

2 3

Fwd: IANA Functions Stewardship Transition Updates - ICANN
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 19, 2014

July 19, 2014

Dear All, thanks to our representatives Mohamed El Bashir and Jean-Jacques Subrenat, theAt-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Function <https://community.icann.org/x/OYThAg> has been able to make good contributions to the first meeting of the "IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group" - IGC. Please find details of the Coordination Group meeting recordings and transcripts in the message below. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: IANA Functions Stewardship Transition Updates - ICANN Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 02:47:38 +0000 From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> To: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en UPDATE: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Documents * Draft Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-grou…> [PDF, 44 KB] * Statement from the First Meeting of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icg-statement-18jul14-en.…> [PDF, 100 KB] * ICG Letter to GAC Chair, Heather Dryden (18 July 2014) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/icg-to-dryden-18jul14-…> [PDF, 25 KB] On 14 March 2014, the NTIA announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…> its intention to transition its stewardship role of IANA functions, and called upon ICANN to launch and facilitate a process with the community to derive a proposal to transition stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community, meeting the criteria set out by the NTIA. Following community dialogue, the process <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en> for developing a proposal for this transition was posted on 6 June 2014. As a part of this process, an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will be responsible for preparing a transitional proposal respective of the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions. See here for a full list of the ICG Representatives » <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en> The first face-to-face meeting of the ICG was held in London from 08:00-17:00 UTC on 17-18 July at the Hilton London Metropole Hotel <http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/united-kingdom/hilton-london-metropole-LON…>. The meeting was streamed live in seven languages and participation was available through a Virtual Meeting Room. Transcripts of these recordings are available at the resources link below. *See here for more information about the ICG Meeting agenda, transcripts and other resources » <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-resources-2014-07-…>* In addition, the community is encouraged to join the conversation through use of the online discussion forum <http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/> or ICANN's dedicated IANA Transition mailing list <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition> to discuss the transition process. For more information about the ICG and the IANA Function's Stewardship Transition, please visit the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition microsite <https://www.icann.org/stewardship>. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters --Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 Email: david.olive(a)icann.org www.icann.org * *

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 19, 2014

July 19, 2014

Dear all, you will have seen this note in ALAC Announce & noticed the very short time for At-Large input. This is because the Public Comment Period was missed due to a technical problem in the ICANN Web Site upgrade, thus we missed the announcement etc. ICANN Staff in charge of this Public Comment Period have very kindly agreed to give us a few more days in order to include our community's input in the summary of responses they are putting together. Hence a very short turnover time for us and no possibility of an extension whatsoever. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 19/07/2014 00:48, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for > comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Report: Supporting > the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions > <https://community.icann.org/x/mrnhAg> in preparation for the start of > the ALAC ratification process. > > The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public > Comment, can be found on the At-Large Report: Supporting the Domain > Name Industry in Underserved Regions Workspace > <https://community.icann.org/x/mrnhAg>. > > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments > function by *22 July 2014 23:59 UTC*. > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

What happens next re: IANA Stewardship (was: Re: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: Candidate Endorsement: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 15, 2014

July 15, 2014

Dear At-Large members, as you know, the ALAC has endorsed the selection of Mohamed El Bashir and Jean-Jacques Subrenat as its representatives on the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. The Coordination Group will meet in London on Thursday 17 and Friday 18 July 2014. I would like to thank all of the candidates who sent their Expression of Interest to the Selection Committee. The choice was hard to make because all candidates had the qualities we were looking for in candidates - but the selected candidates were the most suitable for the task for various factors. I would also like to thank the members of the Selection Committee ( https://community.icann.org/x/QpDhAg ) for taking the time so soon after an ICANN meeting to read through all of the Expressions of Interest, debate on-line and actively take part in the conference call to make the final selection. Having corresponded with Mohamed and Jean-Jacques since their selection, they are booked to come to London and have read through all of the currently available data to be fully prepared for the two days. They have assured me that they are also reading other (non-ICANN) fora to be fully aware of the proposals and mood of the first meeting. I also invite you to read the IANA stewardship micro-site: https://www.icann.org/stewardship Now the work re: NTIA Functions starts for the ALAC and the At-Large Community. The Coordination Group is a group that will coordinate the work of all of the communities involved in the putting together of a proposal (or a set of proposals) for the replacement of the NTIA role in the stewardship of the IANA functions. This will need to be fed with the consensus positions of the At-Large Community - and we therefore need to work in our community to reach consensus on all of the points that will be raised. We might also need to think creatively to make proposals of our own. Most of all, we will have to, as a community, be very vigilant in making sure that proposals brought forward by the other stakeholders at the Coordination Group are fair and serve the public interest. Our "Ambassadors" Jean-Jacques & Mohamed will need to be our ears but also our voice in this Coordination Group and I hope that we will all be able to work closely with them. The ALAC has created an ad-hoc working group to focus on these issues and in order to keep our main mailing lists free from what is likely to be a high clutter of discussions, starting in the next few days. https://community.icann.org/x/OYThAg This working group and its mailing list is open for all At-Large members to join. You may join the mailing list through: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues Its purpose will be to articulate the At-Large positions that will then be made available to our representatives on the Coordinating Group & other fora. There are other parallel threads that will take place simultaneously. One of them is the creation of a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition. This is in the process of being created by the various component organisations of ICANN. Leon Sanchez & Tijani Ben Jemaa are our current representatives helping with the drafting of the charter of this working group (with Julie Hammer, our SSAC Liaison also being part of the Charter Drafting Team). Once the Charter will be drafted, the ALAC will, like other component parts of ICANN, need to ratify it and then will need to send participants to the CCWG. I expect that in addition to Jean-Jacques and Mohamed whom I will encourage to join this group simply for them to be well aware of its work, we will need candidates to *drive* the values of our community in the CCWG. It is thought that the CCWG on IANA Functions will probably focus on a proposal for the stewardship of the "Names" function of IANA - but this is yet to be established or discussed. Aside from this process, there is also a process of an ICANN-wide ICANN accountability working group (currently in formation). In London, the Board has resolved to implement the Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) recommendations and this working group is very likely to be a driving factor for a follow-up on ICANN accountability that is likely to exceed the limits of the ATRT2. As a reminder, the ATRT2 was limited in scope to the markers in the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). So this new working group is likely to be very important indeed and I have already received emails from several of you who would like to take part in its deliberations. Question: How will we feed this ICANN-wide working group? By creating our own accountability working group or should we hand the work to one of our already established working groups? As of today, it is still unclear how the ICANN Accountability & the IANA Functions working groups will interface. I expect there will be an overlap in membership and there is likely to be a strong link between the two topics. Yet, they are taken as two separate threads, as I am told that both will require plenty of work. But I fully support that there should be strong communication and coordination between the two topics. The ICANN Accountability working group is a bit late on its original schedule and SO/AC Chairs have sent an email to the Staff person in charge of the process to obtain clarification on progress. Expect news in the next few days! If you are a little confused about all of these things happening at once, then please have a look at the diagram displayed on which can give you a better picture of how all of the working groups function together: How all the IANA Functions Stewardship and Accountability working groups relate to each other (PDF) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48333881/ICANN%20working%2…> How all the IANA Functions Stewardship and Accountability working groups relate to each other (JPG) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Ad-hoc+WG+on+the+Trans…> This is not meant to be a flow chart. It is not meant to be an accurate flow of information or how these groups will function. It is just an overall representation of how many groups there are, which ones are ICANN community only, which ones are At-Large, which ones are Internet-wide. Things have moved so quickly in the past few weeks that this diagram might soon be obsolete anyway, but hopefully we'll be able to understand more once the first meeting of the Coordination Group has taken place. Right now, think about joining the At-Large ad-hoc working group on https://community.icann.org/x/OYThAg I'll keep you all up to date as soon as we learn more about this exciting and historical process. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 15/07/2014 15:31, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > The ALAC vote regarding the endorsement of ALAC Representatives to > the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group has > been completed, with 15 out of the 15 ALAC members casted their ballots. > > *** > QUESTION: Should the advice from the At-Large Sub-Committee on the > Selection of Members for the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group > <https://community.icann.org/x/QpDhAg> be accepted? The advice is as > follows: > > Factoring in a point scoring system (i.e. a straw ballot) based on > applicants' Expression of Interest, discussion on the Sub-Committee's > mailing list (iana-steering-sc(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) and a > conference call on 11 July 2014 to make the decision on the > candidates, it is recommended that the ALAC endorse the following two > (2) individuals as ALAC Representatives to the NTIA IANA Functions' > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group via immediate vote (in > surname alphabetical order): > > * Mohamed El Bashir > * Jean-Jacques Subrenat > > The recommendations are based on a high level of confidence that the > two candidates: 1) are qualified to access the principles and > mechanism for the transitioning of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA > functions; 2) can work effectively as a team; 3) have the widest range > of contacts, languages and experiences to engage the largest number of > Coordination Group participants; and 4) can do so from the > perspective/viewpoint of the ALAC, the At-Large Community, and the > global Internet endusers. > > > Candidate Endorsement: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group > > > As at Poll close: Tuesday 15 July 2014 11:51 UTC > Number of voters: 15 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 100.00 > Ranked by votes > *Rank* *Candidate* *Votes* *%* > 1 Yes 14 93.33 > 2 Abstain 1 6.67 > 3 No 0 0.00 > > > *** > > To confirm: the ALAC has endorsed the selection of Mohamed El Bashir > and Jean-Jacques Subrenat as the ALAC representatives to the NTIA IANA > Functions' Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. > > You may review the results independently > under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=41023PQdzrDKvXf4WQufWHjd > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge > <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> > Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: [soac-discussion] How long can the ICANN model take the pressure?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 15, 2014

July 15, 2014

Interesting reading... if you have time! Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [soac-discussion] How long can the ICANN model take the pressure? Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:16:35 +0200 From: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> To: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Hi Probably many have seen this short article but some may not have, and it seems germane to the focus of the proposed SOAC gathering. https://centr.org/article/how-long-can-icann-model-take-pressure Bill *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake(a)uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake(a)gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2014

July 13, 2014

My rather consistent digit inversion has been pointed out to me. Sadly ISO numbers do not have built in check digits to identify such mangling. Please read 1366 as 3166. Alan At 13/07/2014 12:54 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >A couple of points: > >- For this type of confusion to happen, the following would need to be true: > = The unused two-letter code would have to > be registered before ISO-1366 was updated to include the new territory > = the code was then included in 1366 > = it would have to be sufficiently well-known to cause confusion > I think the coincidence of these is going to be pretty rare. > >- If an argument is going to make ICANN treat >these new TLD differently than a host of old >ones that have already been granted this >capability, I think it will need to be pretty compelling and not an edge case. > >- What ccTLDs do is completely out of our >control, and many are already allocating unused >1366 2nd level names (and some even used 1366 codes I think) > >BTW, I find this debate great. Too often someone >makes a statement and everyone agrees. I find it >healthy that we do not agree on everything! > >Alan > >At 13/07/2014 12:04 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > >Well, end users might confuse the two character label at the 2nd level as a >country or territory if third level domains were being offered under that >2nd level. > >Using au.org from your example, a hypothetical domain like health.au.org >could confuse users in thinking it represented a health authority from >Australia. > >A company (I don't think its a accredited registrar) called Joynic ( ><http://www.joynic.com>http://www.joynic.com) >offers third level domains under .vu (the ccTLD for >Vanuatu): >de.vu, at.vu, ch.vu, nl.vu, ca.vu, tr.vu, gr.vu, ru.vu, pl.vu, es.vu, za.vu > > >From 2005 to 2011, Joynic was offering third level domains under .tt (the >ccTLD from Trinidad and Tobago) : >us.tt, uk.tt, uk.tt, ca.tt, au.tt, eu.tt, fr.tt, es.tt, nl.tt, it.tt, be.tt, >de.tt, at.tt, ch.tt > >See Wayback archive of Joynic's website from 2010 at ><https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/>https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/ > >Dev Anand > > > > > >On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>alan.greenberg >at mcgill.ca> >wrote: > > > I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here. > > > > I just don't see it. > > > > If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely think that it is somehow > > related to Canada. In fact, when I played that mind exercise I immediately > > thought about a long-defunct computer company called Coumputer Automation > > Inc. au.org is a group called Americans United for Separation of Church > > and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia. > > > > Personally I would not object to the release of all 2-letter codes. > > BA.TRAVEL is going to mean British Airways to most users. Perhaps there > > are some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel... > > > > But remember, we are only talking about the two letter codes that are NOT > > used and currently have no meaning in relation to countries. If one day > > they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there is a good chance that the > > two letter code will not be instantly recognizable as standing for its new > > territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion? > > > > If you can write up a credible statement about potential user confusion, I > > am all for it. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: > > > >> Hi Alan > >> > >> I take your points. And maybe it is too late to protest, but in making > >> a statement, couldn't we note the impact on users. And remember, GAC is > >> not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented > >> within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we > >> can't expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective > >> > >> Holly > >> On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg > <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>alan.greenberg > at mcgill.ca> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment > >> and a question: > >> > > >> > - Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing > >> these could be seen as inequitable. > >> > - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there > >> really a user component that implies that we should comment? > >> > > >> > Alan > >> > > >> > At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> >> Thanks for this, Dev. > >> >> You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but > >> if > >> >> there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could > >> indeed > >> >> make a Statement. > >> >> Kindest regards, > >> >> > >> >> Olivier > >> >> > >> >> On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > >> >> > Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character > >> Domain Names > >> >> > in the New gTLD Namespace" at > <https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg > >> >> > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at > >> >> > > <https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg > >> >> > for consideration: > >> >> > > >> >> > "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to > >> >> > Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement > >> >> > ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 > >> >> > character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would > >> suffice. > >> >> > > >> >> > While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries > >> and > >> >> > territories being created, and then allocated a new two character > >> ASCII > >> >> > label by ISO 3166/MA (see > >> >> > > <https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.>https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso. > >> org/iso/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm > >> >> > ). > >> >> > > >> >> > Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not > >> receive > >> >> > the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would > >> find > >> >> > that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish > >> for > >> >> > their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification > >> 5. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 > >> >> > character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? > >> Many > >> >> > would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in > >> >> > existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't > >> be > >> >> > applied to new gTLDs. > >> >> > However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked > >> for in > >> >> > the public comment. > >> >> > > >> >> > If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country > >> codes in > >> >> > ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be > >> enforced to > >> >> > ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII > >> labels > >> >> > are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in > >> today's > >> >> > ISO 3166-2 list. > >> >> > > >> >> > Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by > >> >> > KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. > >> >> > should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification > >> 5. > >> >> > > >> >> > The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that > >> the two > >> >> > character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by > >> ISO > >> >> > 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be > >> confused > >> >> > with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and > >> could be > >> >> > approved. > >> >> > > >> >> > Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e > >> Participações S.A > >> >> > which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not > >> letters > >> >> > or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are > >> labels > >> >> > that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved." > >> >> > > >> >> > Thoughts? > >> >> > > >> >> > Kind Regards, > >> >> > > >> >> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > ALAC mailing list > >> >> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> >> > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>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/>https://community.icann.org/ > >> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > >> >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > ALAC mailing list > >> > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>ALAC > at 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/>https://community.icann.org/ > >> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment
by Alan Greenberg July 13, 2014

July 13, 2014

A couple of points: - For this type of confusion to happen, the following would need to be true: = The unused two-letter code would have to be registered before ISO-1366 was updated to include the new territory = the code was then included in 1366 = it would have to be sufficiently well-known to cause confusion I think the coincidence of these is going to be pretty rare. - If an argument is going to make ICANN treat these new TLD differently than a host of old ones that have already been granted this capability, I think it will need to be pretty compelling and not an edge case. - What ccTLDs do is completely out of our control, and many are already allocating unused 1366 2nd level names (and some even used 1366 codes I think) BTW, I find this debate great. Too often someone makes a statement and everyone agrees. I find it healthy that we do not agree on everything! Alan At 13/07/2014 12:04 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: Well, end users might confuse the two character label at the 2nd level as a country or territory if third level domains were being offered under that 2nd level. Using au.org from your example, a hypothetical domain like health.au.org could confuse users in thinking it represented a health authority from Australia. A company (I don't think its a accredited registrar) called Joynic ( <http://www.joynic.com>http://www.joynic.com) offers third level domains under .vu (the ccTLD for Vanuatu): de.vu, at.vu, ch.vu, nl.vu, ca.vu, tr.vu, gr.vu, ru.vu, pl.vu, es.vu, za.vu >From 2005 to 2011, Joynic was offering third level domains under .tt (the ccTLD from Trinidad and Tobago) : us.tt, uk.tt, uk.tt, ca.tt, au.tt, eu.tt, fr.tt, es.tt, nl.tt, it.tt, be.tt, de.tt, at.tt, ch.tt See Wayback archive of Joynic's website from 2010 at <https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/>https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/ Dev Anand On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote: > I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here. > > I just don't see it. > > If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely think that it is somehow > related to Canada. In fact, when I played that mind exercise I immediately > thought about a long-defunct computer company called Coumputer Automation > Inc. au.org is a group called Americans United for Separation of Church > and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia. > > Personally I would not object to the release of all 2-letter codes. > BA.TRAVEL is going to mean British Airways to most users. Perhaps there > are some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel... > > But remember, we are only talking about the two letter codes that are NOT > used and currently have no meaning in relation to countries. If one day > they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there is a good chance that the > two letter code will not be instantly recognizable as standing for its new > territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion? > > If you can write up a credible statement about potential user confusion, I > am all for it. > > Alan > > > At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: > >> Hi Alan >> >> I take your points. And maybe it is too late to protest, but in making >> a statement, couldnt we note the impact on users. And remember, GAC is >> not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented >> within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we >> cant expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective >> >> Holly >> On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >> wrote: >> >> > While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment >> and a question: >> > >> > - Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing >> these could be seen as inequitable. >> > - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there >> really a user component that implies that we should comment? >> > >> > Alan >> > >> > At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> Thanks for this, Dev. >> >> You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but >> if >> >> there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could >> indeed >> >> make a Statement. >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> >> >> Olivier >> >> >> >> On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >> >> > Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character >> Domain Names >> >> > in the New gTLD Namespace" at <https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg >> >> > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at >> >> > <https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg >> >> > for consideration: >> >> > >> >> > "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to >> >> > Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement >> >> > ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 >> >> > character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would >> suffice. >> >> > >> >> > While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries >> and >> >> > territories being created, and then allocated a new two character >> ASCII >> >> > label by ISO 3166/MA (see >> >> > <https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.>https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso. >> org/iso/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm >> >> > ). >> >> > >> >> > Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not >> receive >> >> > the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would >> find >> >> > that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish >> for >> >> > their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification >> 5. >> >> > >> >> > Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 >> >> > character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? >> Many >> >> > would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in >> >> > existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't >> be >> >> > applied to new gTLDs. >> >> > However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked >> for in >> >> > the public comment. >> >> > >> >> > If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country >> codes in >> >> > ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be >> enforced to >> >> > ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII >> labels >> >> > are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in >> today's >> >> > ISO 3166-2 list. >> >> > >> >> > Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by >> >> > KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. >> >> > should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification >> 5. >> >> > >> >> > The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that >> the two >> >> > character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by >> ISO >> >> > 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be >> confused >> >> > with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and >> could be >> >> > approved. >> >> > >> >> > Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e >> Participações S.A >> >> > which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not >> letters >> >> > or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are >> labels >> >> > that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved." >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > Kind Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > ALAC mailing list >> >> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>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/>https://community.icann.org/ >> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>ALAC at 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/>https://community.icann.org/ >> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) >> > >

1 0

Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh July 13, 2014

July 13, 2014

Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration: "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice. While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_c… ). Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5. Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment. If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list. Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5. The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved. Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved." Thoughts? Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh

7 13