April 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Almost final Multi-Year GA/Summit Proposal
by Alan Greenberg May 1, 2016

May 1, 2016

Attached please fine the final proposal, subject to final clean-up editing (and inclusion of the missing URL on the last page). Please forward any critical errors to me and Heidi. Note that this paper must be submitted to the Budget Public Comment prior to 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 30 April. Alan

7 6

GA/Summit Proposal submitted
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

The Proposal for Multi-Year Planning for At-Large GAs and Summits has been submitted. A copy is attached. Thank you all for your input, comments, suggestions and edits. Particular thanks and gratitude to Olivier for developing the idea in the first place, and doing the really hard part of drafting the earlier versions which allowed me to do the final adjustments. And thanks to Dev for the time-line graphic which greatly simplified the earlier tables. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Almost final Multi-Year GA/Summit Proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

You were heard before, but I was really at a loss to know how to reduce the size that much and still make the arguments that I (and others) believe are needed to counter the negative perceptions that could lead to rejection. And give that the document must be submitted within a few hours, there is really no way for someone else to take over the task and get ALAC buy-in on the result. Alan At 30/04/2016 05:02 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >Hi all > >I've said it before but not with such specificity. My recommendations: > >1. Incorporate the key ideas in the "Proposal" section into the >Executive Summary > >2. Merge the "Background" and the "importance of Face to Face" >meetings into a couple of paragraphs > >3. Shorten the bullet pointed items in the "MultiYear Planning >section" to key ideas only, present them after a short introduction > >4. End with the conclusion and next steps, as is :) > >3 pages MAX. (plus your graphic and annexes). At the moment we are >competing with the bylaws for quantity. > >Maureen > > > >On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Attached please fine the final proposal, subject to final clean-up >editing (and inclusion of the missing URL on the last page). > >Please forward any critical errors to me and Heidi. > >Note that this paper must be submitted to the Budget Public Comment >prior to 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 30 April. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Almost final Multi-Year GA/Summit Proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

At 30/04/2016 10:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Thanks for the share, I recall that it was suggested to link this to >the fact that this is also in sync with ICANN multi-year planning >initiative; was that the intent for the last sentence in the >executive summary? It may be good to make it more explicit than that. The last sentence in the Executive Summary is a(very) vague reference to this. The specific on is in the last paragraph of section 5 which points to the exact section in the budget document that addresses multi-year projects. >Can we run this through Rinalia to get comment in regards to the >volume because I agree as well that 7 pages may be quite a lot. >While recognising the volume of pages, I think if we must further >shorten this, then item 2 may go completely, while items 3 and 4 can >be collapsed into one as they are both trying to provide >justification (Infact we may remove 3 and just leave item 4) Rinalia has been a part of this process. While I have no doubt there could be some reductions, we have pretty much run out of time. Alan >That said, I have no strong opposition about the current status as >it looks great and the board should be fine with it [1] but can be >made better if indeed volume becomes a concern. > >Regards >1. Afterall the transition proposals are much more voluminous than this ;-) >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 30 Apr 2016 5:56 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Attached please fine the final proposal, subject to final clean-up >editing (and inclusion of the missing URL on the last page). > >Please forward any critical errors to me and Heidi. > >Note that this paper must be submitted to the Budget Public Comment >prior to 23:59 UTC on Saturday, 30 April. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)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/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Revised GA/Summit Multiyear proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

A clean and redline version of the proposal are attached to tomorrow's ALAC Agenda - <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F9TSAAw…>https://community.icann.org/x/9TSAAw, agenda item 13. Alan

1 0

URGENT - Call for Comments: Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016

Dear All, On behalf of the ALAC, Tijani Ben Jemaa has developed the first draft ALAC Statement on the Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update<https://community.icann.org/x/HiKAAw>. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/HiKAAw. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 28 April 2016 at 23:59 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. 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<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Steve Crocker's Op-Ed in the WSJ
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 23, 2016

April 23, 2016

Hello, ALAC. Steve Crocker's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal below. Best regards, Rinalia (http://tinyurl.com/zu634s4*).* ------------------------------ *OPINION* *Broadening the Oversight of a Free and Open Internet * *Stewardship by the global community will guard against ‘capture’ by one group or government.* *By Stephen D. Crocker, **April 19, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET* Today the global Internet connects three billion of us. While it has grown, the world has shrunk. Geographic distance has become less relevant as we can more easily access information, communicate and reach new customers. The Internet has matured because it is free and open, led by the private economy and based on voluntary standards. It is built on the principles that define America: free enterprise and limited government. It is those same ideals of privatization that frame a proposal <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-pac…> recently sent to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that would transition stewardship of some key Internet technical functions away from the U.S. to a diverse and accountable global Internet community. Why is such a transition needed? Since the Internet’s inception, the U.S. Commerce Department and the California nonprofit corporation that I head, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, have been in charge of coordinating the global assignment of Internet addresses and domain names. In 2014 the U.S. government decided a more international stewardship was appropriate. Since then, the global Internet community has been working on a proposal that assures that such a transition will not threaten the openness and freedom of the Internet. First and foremost, this proposal guards against “capture” by any one group or government. This is the primary reason the Internet community—along with businesses, civil society and other interest groups—has given its blessing to the changes. On March 17, representatives from the Intel <http://quotes.wsj.com/INTC> <http://quotes.wsj.com/INTC>Corporation, the Internet Society and others told Congress they supported the transition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Software & Information Industry Association and others also approve of the plan. Business leaders from companies like Google, Verizon <http://quotes.wsj.com/VZ>, <http://quotes.wsj.com/VZ>AT&T <http://quotes.wsj.com/T>, <http://quotes.wsj.com/T>Cisco <http://quotes.wsj.com/CSCO> <http://quotes.wsj.com/CSCO>and Yahoo <http://quotes.wsj.com/YHOO> <http://quotes.wsj.com/YHOO>participated in the development of the proposal. Academics from Harvard, George Mason University and other institutions also weighed in. From the International Chamber of Commerce to the Center for Democracy and Technology, diverse organizations have voiced support. These groups understand the vital role of the Internet in strengthening the global economy by creating jobs and economic growth. Almost $8 trillion of commerce takes place on the Internet annually, an example of how dependent the world economy has become on a single, unified network. But there are no guarantees about the Internet’s future. In fact, the transition proposal came from the understanding that maintaining the status quo would risk the single, free and open Internet that we cherish. If the U.S. does not transition its stewardship role to the global Internet community, then other governments may try to move control to organizations like the United Nations. There is also a risk that some governments may form their own national or regional networks. This disruptive splintering would damage the economy and weaken personal Internet use. This potential threat to the Internet was understood as far back as 1997, when the U.S. formalized its largely symbolic role as steward of some of the Internet’s technical functions. It intended to move away from this role once Icann was mature enough to operate without the U.S. as a backstop. In March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced that it wanted to begin the process of severing its contract with Icann. The government stipulated that Icann remain an incorporated U.S. nonprofit entity and would need to be strongly accountable to diverse stakeholders with an interest in the Internet. Over the past two years, myriad interests and participants in the global Internet community worked tirelessly to meet that challenge. Hundreds of stakeholders undertook an amazing effort that logged more than 400 meetings and calls, some 32,000 mailing list exchanges and hundreds of working hours to devise a transition proposal. A plan describing how the transition always envisioned could be implemented has now been delivered to the Commerce Department. The proposal reinforces the private economy-led model that has allowed policy to keep pace with the Internet’s growth. What could be more American than a world that has a free and open Internet, in which all stakeholders have a voice in its governance and no one interest has a controlling say? A successful stewardship transition will allow online innovation and productivity to continue to thrive. What’s more, it will be a validation of the approaches to other pressing transnational issues such as privacy, online content, interconnection fees, taxation and cybersecurity. This transition, maintaining the global Internet’s role as an incubator for innovation and a stimulator of domestic and international economic growth, merits broad support. We owe it to future generations to assure that the Internet of tomorrow is as free, open and resilient as the Internet of today. *Mr. Crocker is the chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.*

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Steve Crocker's Op-Ed in the WSJ
by Seun Ojedeji April 23, 2016

April 23, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 23 Apr 2016 16:48, "gbruen(a)knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > Right now we have a pantomime of consumer input, our name is used in vain. > SO: While recognising the reality of consensus building within such a diverse ICANN community , I am definitely in agreement with your statement above especially as it concern transition. Regards > In your previous message you insisted that we should engage directly with the board on this issue. If furture interactions with the board are going to be like the last one, we're not going anywhere. > > -Garth > > > On 4/20/16 1:32 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >> >> Hello, ALAC. >> >> Steve Crocker's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal below. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia >> >> (http://tinyurl.com/zu634s4) >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> OPINION >>> >>> Broadening the Oversight of a Free and Open Internet >>> >>> Stewardship by the global community will guard against ‘capture’ by one group or government. >>> >>> By Stephen D. Crocker, April 19, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET >>> >>> Today the global Internet connects three billion of us. While it has grown, the world has shrunk. Geographic distance has become less relevant as we can more easily access information, communicate and reach new customers. >>> >>> The Internet has matured because it is free and open, led by the private economy and based on voluntary standards. It is built on the principles that define America: free enterprise and limited government. >>> >>> It is those same ideals of privatization that frame a proposal recently sent to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that would transition stewardship of some key Internet technical functions away from the U.S. to a diverse and accountable global Internet community. >>> >>> Why is such a transition needed? Since the Internet’s inception, the U.S. Commerce Department and the California nonprofit corporation that I head, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, have been in charge of coordinating the global assignment of Internet addresses and domain names. In 2014 the U.S. government decided a more international stewardship was appropriate. Since then, the global Internet community has been working on a proposal that assures that such a transition will not threaten the openness and freedom of the Internet. >>> >>> First and foremost, this proposal guards against “capture” by any one group or government. This is the primary reason the Internet community—along with businesses, civil society and other interest groups—has given its blessing to the changes. >>> >>> On March 17, representatives from the Intel Corporation, the Internet Society and others told Congress they supported the transition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Council for International Business, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Software & Information Industry Association and others also approve of the plan. >>> >>> Business leaders from companies like Google, Verizon, AT&T, Cisco and Yahoo participated in the development of the proposal. Academics from Harvard, George Mason University and other institutions also weighed in. >From the International Chamber of Commerce to the Center for Democracy and Technology, diverse organizations have voiced support. >>> >>> These groups understand the vital role of the Internet in strengthening the global economy by creating jobs and economic growth. Almost $8 trillion of commerce takes place on the Internet annually, an example of how dependent the world economy has become on a single, unified network. >>> >>> But there are no guarantees about the Internet’s future. In fact, the transition proposal came from the understanding that maintaining the status quo would risk the single, free and open Internet that we cherish. >>> >>> If the U.S. does not transition its stewardship role to the global Internet community, then other governments may try to move control to organizations like the United Nations. There is also a risk that some governments may form their own national or regional networks. This disruptive splintering would damage the economy and weaken personal Internet use. >>> >>> This potential threat to the Internet was understood as far back as 1997, when the U.S. formalized its largely symbolic role as steward of some of the Internet’s technical functions. It intended to move away from this role once Icann was mature enough to operate without the U.S. as a backstop. >>> >>> In March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced that it wanted to begin the process of severing its contract with Icann. The government stipulated that Icann remain an incorporated U.S. nonprofit entity and would need to be strongly accountable to diverse stakeholders with an interest in the Internet. >>> >>> Over the past two years, myriad interests and participants in the global Internet community worked tirelessly to meet that challenge. Hundreds of stakeholders undertook an amazing effort that logged more than 400 meetings and calls, some 32,000 mailing list exchanges and hundreds of working hours to devise a transition proposal. A plan describing how the transition always envisioned could be implemented has now been delivered to the Commerce Department. >>> >>> The proposal reinforces the private economy-led model that has allowed policy to keep pace with the Internet’s growth. What could be more American than a world that has a free and open Internet, in which all stakeholders have a voice in its governance and no one interest has a controlling say? >>> >>> A successful stewardship transition will allow online innovation and productivity to continue to thrive. What’s more, it will be a validation of the approaches to other pressing transnational issues such as privacy, online content, interconnection fees, taxation and cybersecurity. >>> >>> This transition, maintaining the global Internet’s role as an incubator for innovation and a stimulator of domestic and international economic growth, merits broad support. We owe it to future generations to assure that the Internet of tomorrow is as free, open and resilient as the Internet of today. >>> >>> Mr. Crocker is the chairman of the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… > > > > -- > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > 617-947-3805 > http://www.knujon.com > Fisher College, Criminal Justice Division > ICANN At-Large Advisory Council > Author: WHOIS Running the Internet > http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118679555.html > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

ALAC Travel Slots
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

As you may know, the ALAC is currently funded for 27 travel slots to ICANN meetings: 15 ALAC Members, 10 Regional Leaders, and the Liaisons to the GNSO and ccNSO. We are not currently funded for the Liaison to the SSAC, but generally SSAC has provided support for that. Currently the two Liaisons to the GNSO and ccNSO (Olivier and Maureen) are funded due to their roles as EURALO Chair and APRALO ALAC Member, and we have not been allowed to reallocate the Liaison funding for other purposes. In our FY17 Community Budget Requests, we requested permission to used these slots for other purposes in support of the ALAC mission, and particularly to bring people to an ICANN meeting where their presence will be of particular merit. Although the formal FY17 process is ongoing, we have been allowed to use the two travel slots for the last meeting of FY16. I requested and received a number of suggestions from the ALAC and Regional Leaders as to how these slots might best be used. There is a long-standing process by which unused travel slots within a region are allocated by regional leadership, and we are doing an equivalent process with these At-Large-wide slots. In consultation and with the unanimous support of the ALT, I am announcing that the additional travellers to the ICANN55 meeting in Helsinki will be Dev Anand Teelucksingh and Daniel Nanghaka. Dev is a (among other things) key participant (and chair of some cases) of the Outreach & Engagement (O&E) SC, the Technology Taskforce and the CROPP-RT. Daniel is (among other things) active in the O&E SC, the CROPP-RT and the GNSO PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace Whois. Cheryl Langdon-Orr, who was suggested by a number of people, will be at the meeting but funded through a different source. Alan

3 2

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Response to Letter From Dr. Crocker
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

Dear ALAC, Attached is the correspondence to Chairman of the ICANN Board from Stephen Coates, Avri Doria, and Jeff Neuman Co-chairs, GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group regarding ALAC and GAC concerns on the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs in response to the letter from Dr. Crocker. This is excellent movement on the issue. Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Special Board Meeting 14 April 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 17, 2016

April 17, 2016

Dear ALAC, FYI - Agenda published for Special Board meeting on 14 April. Main agenda is discussion on October 2016 ICANN meeting venue contracting. https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-04-14-en Best regards, Rinalia

1 2

Re: [ALAC] Content regulation
by Carlton Samuels April 15, 2016

April 15, 2016

My response to the matter of the Chairman of the Board's response to the GNSO Council re ICANN's responsibility in context as guardian of the [global] public interest vs. Bruce [Tonkin's] remarks at Marrakech on same matter seems apropos here. It is extracted hereunder. ------------------------------------------------------- Seems to me he's 'walking it back' towards the safe harbour outlined by Bruce. I would frame a response on " *(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)*.” In my view and in this context, arguments stemming definition of the 'global public interest' tend to instantiate sophism. We have established the causes for this business of 'coordination' claimed as mission for ICANN; it is to make the DNS space exploitable for the many uses already identified. Add to these - channeling the descriptives of the myths from elsewhere - those yet 'invisible and unknown'. In my view any matter that undercuts the security and stability tra la la - the instances i) thru iv) quoted so often - of the DNS, that is to say, erode/reduce/tax consumer/user trust in the DNS, is inimical to the [global] public interest and are, in reason and judgment, targets of 'lawful' activity to reduce/suppress/remove said instances and threats. If this does not clearly establish ICANN's duty of care - and the duty to demonstrate care in as many ways as necessary! - I cannot think what else would. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Blog written by Allen Grogan - could be of interest to the ALAC on registrant > issues. > > See > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > > _______________________________________________ > 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… >

2 2

Content regulation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 15, 2016

April 15, 2016

Blog written by Allen Grogan - could be of interest to the ALAC on registrant issues. See https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police Best regards, Rinalia

4 5

The Public Interest (was: Fwd: [council] Updated [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to James Bladel re:GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 14, 2016

April 14, 2016

Dear all, further to discussions about the Public Interest, please be so kind to find a response from the Chair of the ICANN Board to the Chair of the GNSO concerning a query about Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Strings Representing Generic Terms. As a reminder, when the ALAC discussed the Public Interest with the ICANN Board at the Marrakech meeting, Bruce Tonkin, Board member, responded with a vision of the Public Interest mission of ICANN that was purely technical in terms of making sure Domain Names resolved to the proper IP addresses. During the ALT meeting with the ICANN Board Chair, the ICANN Board Chair responded that this was not quite correct and provided some language that broadened the use of the term "The Public Interest" which was more aligned to the ALAC's view that all actions that ICANN took needed to take into account the Public Interest. (I'll have to read the transcripts back for the exact wording) In the attached letter, the Chair of the ICANN Board quotes Paragraph 3 of the Articles of Incorporation - so that's a very technical baseline. He then explains the current status of information collection from the ICANN research on the global public interest framework. But nothing more so far. I would like to take this up with the Public Interest working group - but would appreciate your feedback first. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Updated [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to James Bladel re:GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:16:08 +0000 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councillors, Please find the updated correspondence Steve Crocker to James Bladel re: GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs. This updated version has one very minor edit in the last sentence. Apologies for the inconvenience of double posting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

3 3

Fw: [CCT-Review] One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLDRegistrar to .Google Domain Name
by Kan Kaili April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Hi, thought that you may find it interesting ... Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez To: Jordyn Buchanan Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez via CCT-Review Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:11 AM Subject: [CCT-Review] One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLDRegistrar to .Google Domain Name Congrats Jordyn! http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160404_google_switches_tld_registrar_to_dot… One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLD Registrar to .Google Domain Name If you've read my posts before you'll be well aware that as a strong advocate for .brands and the power they have to revolutionise digital marketing effectiveness, I am always eager to share some love with organisations that have taken the leap and launched their .brand TLDs. In recent months we've seen diverse and exciting examples from BMW, the Australian Football League and CERN — just to name a notable few. I have the privilege of advising some of the world's largest companies on their .brand strategy, but one recurring question I hear is "When will we see .google and how will they use it?" Google Domains permanently moved to the .brand domain name www.domains.googleLast week, a significant instalment in that answer became apparent when Google Small Business announced on Twitter and Google+ that Google Domains had permanently moved to the .brand domain name www.domains.google as its primary digital location. This relatively new business stream is Google's attempt to take on companies like GoDaddy and Web.com in providing domain names, websites and associated services to SMEs and is a slick offering that blends in a range of other Google services. It is however not the first time they've used their .google extension, but is certainly the most prominent. We know Google has registered a small number of other domains under its .brand TLD, including the humorous 'www.com.google' which was used for an April Fools' Day prank last year where the page appeared in reverse as if the visitor was 'inside' the search engine looking out at the user. Note — that feature is no longer active and users typing in that address now are redirected to the standard search homepage. Additionally, Google launched www.registry.google as its Top-Level Domain information hub several months ago, but by its nature this site is unlikely to reach many beyond our industry. Its domain name Registrar however will receive significantly higher levels of traffic given its consumer focus, particularly when availability is opened beyond the US. Other domains created but not yet resolving include 'www.nest.google', clearly referring to Alphabet subsidiary and home automation producer Nest. The search giant has made a conscious decision about its .brand TLD here; deciding to publically launch and promote www.domains.google despite also owning www.google.domains. It is a great sign of things to come with many commenters already expressing interest in the likelihood of seeing www.maps.google, www.drive.google and the like in the future. From an alternate perspective, visitors to the domain design.google will find themselves redirected to domains.google.com which is the traditional web address for Google Design. Google has ticked all the best practice boxes in the transition, with the redirection of previous domain names to new addresses and selection of a familiar, intuitive naming structure for key activities such as the Google Domains initiatives. The launch of www.domains.google indicates a strategy forming around simple, utility-based domain names under its .google TLD, which reflect pre-existing third-level structures with the .com extension 'dropped' off the end. For example, www.domains.google was previously located at domains.google.com, which now redirects. Finally, the elephant in the room with this domain transition is the search factor. With Google dictating the world of search as its most dominant player and many of the domain name industry continually looking for updates on its treatment of new TLDs, the performance of .google and Google Registry's other TLDs will be an interesting case to watch. By Tony Kirsch, Head of Professional Services at Neustar Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains, Web -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CCT-Review mailing list CCT-Review(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cct-review

2 2

Fwd: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs
by Judith Hellerstein April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs
by Seun Ojedeji April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

I understand the igfsa funds is available to all national and regional igfs irrespective of country status the form is available at the url below: https://igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/nationalregional-igf-meeting-funding-proposal/ Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 5 Apr 2016 17:07, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: Funding not possible for National IGFs in countries that are not in developing countries list. Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/04/2016 15:56, Judith Hellerstein wrote: HI Glenn, It is not ISOC that is supporting it, it is the IGF SA. ISOC is just the secretariat of the IGF SA. This is the same amount they gave last year. Perhaps if they had more donations they could provide more support. They are also supporting people and providing fellowships for people from developing countries to come to the Global IGF. Perhaps ISOC will also put their own funding behind this. I recall they did this last year. the IGF-USA event costed about 50-60,000 to put on last year Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 4/5/2016 9:52 AM, Glenn McKnight wrote: Judith I would guess that a good IGF event costs substantial amount to organize and deliver. Since the IGF is so important and Raquel was on the panel last week at SSIG I don't understand why ISOC is providing such meager financial support G Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight . On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > In case others have not seen this call from ISOC it relates to funding > opportunities from the IGF Support Association for funding of National and > Regional IGFs. They are giving Regional IGFs 3500 USD and National IGFs > 2000 USD. All groups who are hosting IGFs should apply. I know some in > APRALO area were seeking funding for their IGFs so here is your chance for > funding > > Best, > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and > regional IGFs > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:47:03 +0000 > From: Joyce Dogniez via Internet Society <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > Reply-To: INTERNETSOCIETY-chapterleaderscommunity(a)ConnectedCommunity.org > To: judith(a)jhellerstein.com > > Hi Everyone, Please find below an announcement from Markus Kummer on a > funding opportunity for national and regional IGFs through he IGFSA. ... > -posted to the "Chapter Leaders Community" community > == Please, reply ABOVE THIS LINE == > ------------------------------ > Chapter Leaders Community > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/…> > Post New Message > <INTERNETSOCIETY-chapterleaderscommunity(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…> > Reply to Group > <INTERNETSOCIETY_chapterleaderscommunity_130b4bc3-9416-45f9-9e86-9ba0c6bf1c21@ConnectedCommunity.org?subject=Re:%20IGFSA:%20Opportunity%20for%20funding%20of%20national%20and%20regional%20IGFs> Reply > to Sender > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?G…> > [image: Joyce Dogniez] > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/people/joyce-dogniez> > Apr 5, 2016 7:47 AM > Joyce Dogniez <http://connect.internetsociety.org/people/joyce-dogniez> > > Hi Everyone, > > Please find below an announcement from Markus Kummer on a funding > opportunity for national and regional IGFs through he IGFSA. > > Should you have any questions about this please contact Kyle Shulman at > Shulman(a)igfsa.org > > Thanks a lot! > > Joyce > > ---- > > Dear all, > > The IGFSA has issued an open call to apply for funding of National and Regional > IGF initiatives. Organisers of National and Regional IGF initiatives are > invited to apply, using the form below: > > igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/... > <https://igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/nationalregional-igf-meeting-funding-proposal/> > > Last year, we supported 15 National and 7 Regional and Sub-regional initiatives > with contributions ranging between USD 2000 and USD 3500. > > Contributions this year are expected to be in the same range. > > We hope that our contribution helps strengthen the National and Regional > IGF initiatives and enhance their linkages with the global IGF. > > Best regards > > Markus > ------------------------------ > dogniez(a)isoc.org > Director of Chapters > > Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group. > ------------------------------ > *Reply to Group Online > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?M…>* > *View Thread > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > *Recommend > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > *Forward > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/forwardmessa…>* > *Flag as Inappropriate > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > > > > > You are subscribed to "Chapter Leaders Community" as > judith(a)jhellerstein.com. To change your subscriptions, go to My > Subscriptions > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions>. > To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?Use…> > . > > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…> > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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… -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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