March 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Motion on IDN TLD Confusion
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Seun, you have come full-circle in this discussion. We re-opened the issue because by letting our statement stand we were sending a message that we supported the ccNSO WG report as submitted, and this support was being used as a prime rationale for not acting on SSAC advice. The ccNSO did raise the issue of other potential confusing situations. Some of those are due to ISO-3166-2 and there is little we can do about that. Some is due to what I consider really bad decisions we made in the new gTLD process, and thankfully there is a strong move to not make those mistakes again. In my mind, we cannot eliminate confusion, but we should not do things that make it worse. Alan At 28/03/2017 04:51 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >I feel a quite uncomfortable with revoking the >previous ALAC statement because i feel that >could send a wrong signal about how important we >take IDNs. During the meeting with the ccNSO, >they highlighted some other instances of >confusability which already exist within the >gTLD which isn't seen as an issue, why this is >so peculiar still alludes me. I would have >preferred we add an updated statement >highlighting our support for timely >implementation of the IDN TLDs while noting the >point raised in bullet one instead of revoking in totality. > >That said, I have seen that our ccNSO liaison is >fine with the statement hence I will rely on her >judgement on this one. Nevertheless, I would >prefer that we modify the second bullet point to the following: > >"The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to >find a path forward that will not >compromise the rigour of confusability >evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs." > >My rationale for the above that I do not think >this is a security and stability issue to the root. > >I will try to join the call for as long as >possible before nature fully takes over :) >@Staff kindly pen me down for dialout. > >Regards > >On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In Copenhagen, we decided that subject to final >wording, we would revisit our earlier decision. >I propose the following motion which I think >fully matches our discvussion. We will discuss >it on the ALAC call tomorrow, and either vote on >it during the call of via an online vote to start following the call. > >Alan >=========================== > >Whereas: >The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user >confusion in the use of domain names is of paramount importance; >The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be expedited; >On 24 August 2016, the ALAC issued Statement >AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN supporting the >recommendations of the ccNSO Extended Process >Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group >(see ><https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw) >On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its >Advisory SAC084 ( >https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf) >raising security and stability concerns based on >potential user confusability with the proposed process; >During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with >both the SSAC and the ccNSO to discuss the issue; >The ALAC was made aware of a possible >methodology to resolve the issue specifically, >accept that at two character IDN string may bbe >confusingly similar in its own right, but that >the impact on end-users could be mitigated by registry policy; >If such mitigation is committed to by the >registry and is considered as part of the >evaluation process, the issue of user confusion can be reduced; >Therefore: >The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN. >The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find >a path forward that will not compromise security >and stability or the rigour of confusability >evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs. > >At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >>Understandyou know thhe community better than >>me. And I thought there was more than Wafa, but good if that is not the case. >> >>Cheers, Julie >> >>On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>Actually, probably the other way around. Since >>out discussion focused on mitigation, not >>mentioning that may trigger some concern. In >>any case, I think the only holdout will be >>Wafa, and I will do use back-channels to make >>sure that Maureen, Andrei and Javier are ok. >>But if there is any pus-hback, you we will talk. >> >>Alan >> >>At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >>>Hi Alan, >>> >>>I have been thinking about this a little >>>further after our brief chat on Thursday after >>>I showed it to you. You were considering >>>saying a little more than I have drafted >>>below, but I think it may be prudent to keep >>>the statement minimalist, as I have tried to >>>do in this draft. My thinking is that you >>>want to get this through the vote, and the >>>more you put in it, the more opportunity there >>>is for ALAC Members to either disagree or try >>>to wordsmith. You already know that you have >>>a few who wish to support the ccNSO position >>>(who perhaps donÃÂ¢â¬t understand the >>>technical argument, or who simply donÃÂ¢t >>>wa want to know), so the more >>>non-controversial you make this statement, the >>>better chance you have of getting them to >>>agree. If this doesnÃÂ¢t gt get through, >>>then that would be a really big win for the >>>ccNSO and they may well try to capitalize on >>>it. That in turn may seriously complicate >>>the delicate discussions that are continuing >>>between them, the Board and the SSAC. >>> >>>Just my thoughts, for what theyÃÂ¢re worth. bsp; :-) >>> >>>Cheers, Julie >>> >>>On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer >>><<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com > wrote: >>> >>>Hi Alan, >>> >>>Just some words to think about, should you feel they are appropriate: >>> >>>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel >>> >>>On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a >>><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pd…>Public >>>Comment in support of the ccNSO >>><http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.p…>EPSRP >>>Working GroupÃÂ¢s Proposed Guidelines a> >>>for the evaluation of confusing similarity in >>>IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released >>><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>SAC084 >>>highlighting security and stability concerns >>>with the proposed process based on user >>>confusability. Taking into consideration the >>>ongoing discussions between the ICANN Board, >>>the ccNSO and the SSAC to resolve these >>>different views, the ALAC wishes to withdraw >>>its earlier expression of support and reserve >>>its judgement on this issue until these differences are resolved. >>> >>>Cheers, Julie > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! >

1 0

Motion on IDN TLD Confusion
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

In Copenhagen, we decided that subject to final wording, we would revisit our earlier decision. I propose the following motion which I think fully matches our discvussion. We will discuss it on the ALAC call tomorrow, and either vote on it during the call of via an online vote to start following the call. Alan =========================== Whereas: * The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user confusion in the use of domain names is of paramount importance; * The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be expedited; * On 24 August 2016, the ALAC issued Statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN supporting the recommendations of the ccNSO Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group (see <https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw) * On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its Advisory SAC084 (<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf) raising security and stability concerns based on potential user confusability with the proposed process; * During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with both the SSAC and the ccNSO to discuss the issue; * The ALAC was made aware of a possible methodology to resolve the issue specifically, accept that at two character IDN string may be confusingly similar in its own right, but that the impact on end-users could be mitigated by registry policy; * If such mitigation is committed to by the registry and is considered as part of the evaluation process, the issue of user confusion can be reduced; Therefore: * The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN. * The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find a path forward that will not compromise security and stability or the rigour of confusability evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs. At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >Understandyou know thhe community better than >me. And I thought there was more than Wafa, but good if that is not the case. > >Cheers, Julie > >On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >Actually, probably the other way around. Since >out discussion focused on mitigation, not >mentioning that may trigger some concern. In any >case, I think the only holdout will be Wafa, and >I will do use back-channels to make sure that >Maureen, Andrei and Javier are ok. But if there >is any pus-hback, you we will talk. > >Alan > >At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >>Hi Alan, >> >>I have been thinking about this a little >>further after our brief chat on Thursday after >>I showed it to you. You were considering >>saying a little more than I have drafted below, >>but I think it may be prudent to keep the >>statement minimalist, as I have tried to do in >>this draft. My thinking is that you want to >>get this through the vote, and the more you put >>in it, the more opportunity there is for ALAC >>Members to either disagree or try to >>wordsmith. You already know that you have a >>few who wish to support the ccNSO position (who >>perhaps donÃ¢t understand the technical >>argument, or who simply donÃ¢t want to know), >>so the more non-controversial you make this >>statement, the better chance you have of >>getting them to agree. If this doesnÃ¢t get >>through, then that would be a really big win >>for the ccNSO and they may well try to >>capitalize on it. That in turn may seriously >>complicate the delicate discussions that are >>continuing between them, the Board and the SSAC. >> >>Just my thoughts, for what theyÃ¢re worth. :-) >> >>Cheers, Julie >> >>On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer >><<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com > wrote: >> >>Hi Alan, >> >>Just some words to think about, should you feel they are appropriate: >> >>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel >> >>On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a >><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pd…>Public >>Comment in support of the ccNSO >><http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.p…>EPSRP >>Working GroupÃ¢s Proposed Guidelines for the >>evaluation of confusing similarity in IDN >>ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released >><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>SAC084 >>highlighting security and stability concerns >>with the proposed process based on user >>confusability. Taking into consideration the >>ongoing discussions between the ICANN Board, >>the ccNSO and the SSAC to resolve these >>different views, the ALAC wishes to withdraw >>its earlier expression of support and reserve >>its judgement on this issue until these differences are resolved. >> >>Cheers, Julie

7 9

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Invitation: Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level
by Carlton Samuels March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

FYI. This should be of interest to a wide cross-section of us. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:41 AM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Invitation: Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Dear WG members, As discussed in the WG face-to-face session in Copenhagen, the leadership team is organizing a webinar and session at ICANN59 to promote broad community discussion in the issue of geographic names at the top level, a topic within the WG’s Charter. Please find additional details below. We hope you can join these sessions. Please feel free to share this invitation with any other community members who might be interested in participating. Kind regards, Emily ___________________________________________________________________ The leadership team of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group is *seeking your input* on the issue of *geographic names at the top level*. *All are welcome *and encouraged to participate and contribute their perspectives. The following upcoming activities are intended to facilitate a broad community-wide dialogue on this topic to feed into the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: *Webinar session on Tuesday 25 April 2017* – Two webinars will take place; one from 15:00-17:00 UTC and the second from 22:00-0:00 UTC. All community members are welcome to submit positions on the treatment of geographic names at the top level to be presented in the webinars. Depending on the number of positions submitted, the sessions may contain the same presentations or different presentations. The webinars will be recorded and archived. Details will follow. - *If you would like to attend the webinar, *please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org <Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org>. Registration is not required, but your response will help us plan and will allow us to send updates to you. - *If you would like to submit a position to present at the webinar, please send an email by 7 April 2017* with your name, group or affiliation (if applicable), and your time zone to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. - *The deadline for presentations is 18 April 2017.* Each presenter will be asked to prepare a 10 minute initial presentation and be available to answer questions on the webinar. We suggest preparing a maximum of 5 slides. If, in addition to the slides, you would like to make a more complete written contribution available, you may do so, and we will distribute those to each of the attendees and make them available to the public. Please send all slides and other contributions to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. The webinar will be the beginning of a discussion that will continue at ICANN59. The leadership team will be holding an *extended session in Johannesburg to work through the positions presented in the webinars and to propose solutions* seeking common ground on a way forward. Additional information about the webinar and the Johannesburg session will soon be available on the WG wiki page: *https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>*. If you have any questions about the webinar or the ICANN59 session, please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. Kind regards, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

2 1

ALS Communications Program - For Discussion
by Alan Greenberg March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Please find attached document for discussion on Tuesday. Alan

7 9

ICANN 58 pictures
by Glenn McKnight March 14, 2017

March 14, 2017

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/albums/72157677519884184 Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

RECORDATORIO / Reminder LAC SPACE TODAY from 11-12:15 at HALL C 1.3 ( ALAC place)
by Vanda Scartezini March 13, 2017

March 13, 2017

Agenda: Date: 13th March 2017 Room: Hall C1.3 (ALAC) 11:00 – 12:15 Local time 11:00 – 11:05 Introduction Rodrigo de la Parra ICANN – Vanda Scartezini – Polo Consultores - ALAC 11:05 – 11:30 DNS Entrepreneurship Center (Ceilac) Daniel Fink - ICANN 11:30– 11:55 European DNS market Michele Neylon - Blacknight Solution 11:55 – 12:15 The new gTLDs Vanda Scartezini – Polo Consultores Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!

1 0

Contractual Compliance & Consumer Safeguards
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Hello, ALAC and Regional Leaders: Jamie Hedlund just posted a blog. Have a look as preparation for your engagement with him in Copenhagen. Some new ideas in there focused on collaboration with community. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/six-weeks-in-contractual-compliance-and-con… Best regards, Rinalia

3 4

Fwd: Update from CCWG-IG
by Alan Greenberg March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

FYI. Alan >From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 23:24:00 +0900 >Subject: Update from CCWG-IG >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > <ocl(a)gih.com>, Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo(a)gmail.com>, Nigel Hickson > <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, Desiree Cabrera > <desiree.cabrera(a)icann.org> > >Dear Alan, > >I am glad to send you the documents related to the revised charter >of the CCWG-IG, please find attached: >- document with comparison table between the draft revised charter >and CCWG model template >- document with comparison table between the draft revised charter >and the current CCWG-IG charter > >we also prepared an activity report and it will be sent soon by >Olivier. As co-chairs, we will be happy to give an update before >ALAC and explain about the proposed amendments for discussion. > >Best Regards, > >Rafik Dammak > >CCWG-IG Co-chair

1 0

Draft version of "Key Policy Issues of the At-Large Community" slides available for review
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear All As part of the work being done for At-Large Community Onboarding, <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Community+Onboarding> the community onbarding members as part of the Outreach and Engagement SC have created a first draft presentation "Key Policy Issues of the At-Large Community". Its based on the Why end users should care Policy Document <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/9895> created last year. The approach is for three slides for each topic: - Policy Summary, along with any informational video links - Why should I care? - At-Large Involvement with links to the comments, the relevant WG , maybe more informational links to learn more about the issue. The slides feature a main menu whereby one can jump to any policy issue. Slides also have a hyperlink back to the main menu so persons can move around the slidedeck. <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Community+Onboarding> The draft presentation can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Key+Policy+Issues+of+the+At-Lar… Comments on the draft presentation are welcomed Dev Anand

3 3

Updated slides for Introduction to At-Large Presentation (March 2017)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

The Outreach and Engagement SC (O&E) has updated its presentation about At- Large for use : - to present ICANN At-Large to Fellows or Nextgen at ICANN meetings. - use by ALS representatives to explain what is ICANN At-Large to the members of their organisations. Some notable changes: - stats updated as of March 2017 - the old At-Large organsiational diagram replaced with one done from scratch in the likeness of the organisational diagram in the At-Large Brochure. - changed the wording of a key At-Large activity from "Policy Advice Development" to "Comments on ICANN Activities" in response to the ITEMS At-Large Review draft report (page 22-23) which criticised the use of the term "policy advice" in relation to the ALAC ratified statements and declarations. - number of slides reduced from 21 to 19 The presentation is available at https://community.icann.org/x/qorRAw As always, please review and if you have any comments or suggestions on how to improve on this, let us know Dev Anand O&E chair P.S Also as a FYI, the Technology Taskforce has submitted a budget proposal to link the responses/impacts of ALAC comments to the listing of ALAC comments on At-Large's website.

1 0