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

Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

I need to stop sending off e-mails late at night which are not sufficiently clear. In my defence, I am on a very tight timeline to finalize the questions for the Board and needed to find out if my analysis was close to acceptable. Like it or not, we WILL be judged, and I think it time that we started to manage the criteria which will be used. Those implied in the survey questions are NOT, in my mind, acceptable and I thought that establishing that first might be a good way to start a more productive discussion with the Board as to what IS reasonable. Alan (heading out for several hours) At 03/03/2017 04:27 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >Hi Alan, > > >I agree with your analysis. > > >Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously >existing, established organizations, some older >that ICANN, that have a life of their own in >their national context. The fact that they have >applied for an ALS status means that their own, >national level goals and interests coincide at >least to some extent with those of ICANN and >that they thus probably defend the interests of >ICANN in their national level multistakeholder >setting. This important role is something that >the review seems to be oblivious of. > > >If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the >classic sense of representative democracy would >be possible, we would have had a world >government long ago... But each ALS can try to >figure out how end users in its particular >environment would be best served and bring forth >their points of view, as you say. To get a >deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and >views of their countries and regions, they might >liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC. > > >Best, > > >Yrjö > > > > > > > > >---------- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org ><alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf >of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei(a)rol.ru> >Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC >Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large >Community - Discussion with the Board > >Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's >approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. >However nothing stops me and any other ALAC >members to express opinion aired by Evan. The >whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and >uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain >cultures through ALSs all over the world into >the best-western style management is insane. >"We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a >geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched >elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. > >--andrei > >2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: >The survey question is, in my mind, deeply >flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get >into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. > >And yes, other communities are now (finally) >being asked the same question, and I think we >are in a better position than most to answer it. > >But back to my original message, we can only use >this as a start if we have a generally agreed >upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. > >Alan > > > >At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>This whole process is insane. >> >>Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it >>represents or speaks for every business -- >>domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC >>asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people >>who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military? >> >>Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry >>-- generally do have reasonably full >>representation, in part because there are >>relatively few players and in part because they >>are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- >>ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies. >> >>But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out >>for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike >>the others -- we wouldn't be able to be >>involved without the charitable resources -- >>travel and staff support -- that ICANN >>bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers >>other communities who believe that we are >>skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. >> >>In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU >>speaking for?" comment has been used whenever >>we have something to say that poses a >>legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's >>standard operation. Hearing that in a debate >>would embolden me because it indicates that our >>logic and evidence was superior and the only >>rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy. >> >>At the end of the day, we do the job that is >>asked of us to the extent we are able -- that >>is, to bring the end-user point of view into >>ICANN to the best of our individual >>capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) >>asks of us and I believe we have generally done >>that as well as possible given the constraints >>in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV >>informed by a geographical and linguistic >>diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except >>for the GAC. But even here we are deeply >>flawed, considering how the regions are sliced >>and a structure that is so complex so as to >>churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input. >> >>Still, there is decent output. I see our policy >>diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection >>that grassroots population don't always share >>the same priorities and perspectives of the >>civil society that is supposedly protecting it. >>This divergence exists on the street, so seeing >>it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large >>is indeed doing a reasonable -- and >>surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective. >> >>Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto >><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >>I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of >>the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC >>ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From >>there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end >>users. >>Regards >> >>Alberto >>-----Mensaje original----- >>De: >><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>[ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >>Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM >>Para: ALAC >><<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the >>Board >>One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in >>CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. >>I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in >>the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the >>A-L Community. >>The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most >>accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? >>There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for >>each option. >>1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members >>that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) >>2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on >>behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) >>3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to >>engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and >>non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) >>4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of >>Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) >>5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests >>and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) >>My analysis: >>1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist >>outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests >>(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests >>of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse >>inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs >>and interests of users world-wide. >>2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if >>the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? >>3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or >>even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of >>respondents really think we do?? >>4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members >>engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we >>mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is >>based on experience with such a community. >>5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they >>meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or >>the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed >>Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve >>the global user community well. >>What do people think of this analysis? >>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+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >> >>C) >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Evan Leibovitch >>Toronto, Canada >>Em: evan at telly dot org >>Sk: evanleibovitch >>Tw: el56 > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET

2 1

The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community. The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option. 1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) 2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) 3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) 4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) 5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) My analysis: 1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide. 2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? 3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do?? 4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community. 5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well. What do people think of this analysis? Alan

7 10

Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it. But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. Alan At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >This whole process is insane. > >Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks >for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC >asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law >enforcement speak for all police and military? > >Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have >reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively >few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and >dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other >communities or constituencies. > >But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of >analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be >involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff >support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly >bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off >revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. > >In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment >has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a >legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. >Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that >our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to >challenge our legitimacy. > >At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the >extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view >into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all >that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done >that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to >bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic >diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even >here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced >and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer >time on process than on policy input. > >Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG >as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always >share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that >is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, >so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed >doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying >the end-user perspective. > >Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. > >- Evan > > >On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto ><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of >the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC >ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From >there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end >users. > >Regards > >Alberto > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: ><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM >Para: ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the >Board > >One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in >CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. > >I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in >the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the >A-L Community. > >The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most >accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? > >There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for >each option. > >1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members >that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) > >2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on >behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) > >3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to >engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and >non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) > >4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of >Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) > >5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests >and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) > >My analysis: > >1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist >outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests >(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests >of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse >inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs >and interests of users world-wide. > >2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if >the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? > >3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or >even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of >respondents really think we do?? > >4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members >engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we >mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is >based on experience with such a community. > >5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they >meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or >the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed >Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve >the global user community well. > >What do people think of this analysis? > >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+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >C) > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto, Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

5 4

ALAC website - UA ready!
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, Staff have informed me that the ALAC's new website is Universal Acceptance ready with the features listed below. Can you provide confirmation that community members with IDNs in their email addresses and those with non-Latin script URLs are able to use it, and are using it? Features of the ALAC website: · Where you enter a URL (AtLarge asks you to identify your website) o The URL can be in any character set (Arabic, Cyrillic, Kanji, etc.) o Each domain in the URL can be up to 63 characters long ( www.buysomething.shopping) · Where you enter an email (when applying to join the group) o The domains of the email address can be in any character set o The domains of the email address can be up to 63 characters long o The user name must be in ASCII. (This is temporary) o Email example: username(a)domain.topleveldomain · There is no immediately visible change to the AtLarge user interface o If you have an email from the .cloud domain, it will work now (too long a top-level domain before) o If you have a website in Cyrillic (there are a couple of Cyrillic top-level domains now), it will recognize and use it o If you have an email from a Katakana top-level domain, that will work too – but only as long as your username is in English characters Please let me know. Thanks! Best regards, Rinalia

3 7

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Maureen Hilyard March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

(With thanks to Narten) This is a good example of at-large contribution by individual members (some belonging to ALSes) - seems to be working well to me. Maureen On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:53 PM, <narten(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: > Total of 28 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Mar 3 00:53:28 EST 2017 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 3.57% | 1 | 10.59% | 123834 | kankaili at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 10.29% | 120348 | maureen.hilyard at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 10.23% | 119603 | program-admin at atlarge.icann.org > 7.14% | 2 | 6.04% | 70697 | gbruen at knujon.com > 3.57% | 1 | 9.46% | 110643 | erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at > 3.57% | 1 | 4.88% | 57067 | jason.hynds at partsinc.biz > 3.57% | 1 | 3.86% | 45126 | lsymek at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.85% | 45002 | ch.sohaib at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.55% | 41496 | at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > 3.57% | 1 | 3.51% | 41016 | sb at inapp.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.39% | 39597 | svg at milathan.ltd > 3.57% | 1 | 3.37% | 39359 | skiden at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.21% | 37513 | jjs at dyalog.net > 3.57% | 1 | 3.01% | 35187 | leonfelipe at sanchez.mx > 3.57% | 1 | 2.95% | 34517 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > 3.57% | 1 | 2.49% | 29080 | cveraq at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 2.39% | 27957 | erik.huesca at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 2.09% | 24399 | remmyn at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.69% | 19742 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > 3.57% | 1 | 1.61% | 18877 | joly at punkcast.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.26% | 14686 | mercefalcone at hotmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.24% | 14472 | fsylla at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.15% | 13449 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.15% | 13404 | otieno.barrack at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.07% | 12473 | narten at us.ibm.com > 3.57% | 1 | 0.99% | 11628 | wolfgang.kleinwaechter at > medienkomm.uni-halle.de > 3.57% | 1 | 0.73% | 8484 | joywaychan at mail.bnu.edu.cn > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 28 |100.00% | 1169656 | Total > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] cNSO-SSAC issue
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

I think the issue is not a technical problem with the technical root zone, but that increasingly SSAC is considering the potential for user confusion. From a user perspective, that is a good thing. If they had done so earlier in the gTLD process, we might be in a much better position there than we are now. But yes, that is a change. Perhaps you can elaborate on how the potential problems "can be mitigated by the registry or registrars at the local level". That may help ensure that we are all talking about the same thing and perhaps provide a path forward. Alan At 28/02/2017 04:01 PM, Andrei Kolesnikov wrote: >Thank you Maureen, good report. > > The origin of this story goes years back when I was representing > ccTLD with (still world largest) IDN obtained by Fast Track. I know > how important it is for the local market, government and end users > to have an ability to use local script in domain names. The process > of similarity check was in place without expectations to see a real > problematic cases anyday soon. But it happened. The similar process > in new gTLD project was accurately timelin'ed and works well (until > the real confusion case at least). I'd like to mention RFC6912 > paragraph 6 one more time. The visually confusing labels are > potential problem for a registry, not to a root zone in general. > With IDN ccTLD registry procedures (particularly for mentioned > Greek and Cyrillic scripts) if any domain name confusion case > becomes real, it can be mitigated by the registry or registrars at > the local level. I recommend to support ccNSO statement with all > balances and checks they've included into the document. > >best regards, --andrei > >2017-02-28 13:49 GMT+03:00 Maureen Hilyard ><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>: >Background notes for your information - for the ALAC meeting > >Maureen > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET

1 0

cNSO-SSAC issue
by Maureen Hilyard March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Background notes for your information - for the ALAC meeting Maureen

6 6

New APWG phishing trends report
by Julie Hammer March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Hi Everyone As advised by one of my SSAC Colleagues, Greg Aaron, some sobering figures from the Latest Anti-Phishing Working Group report: https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q4_2016.pdf <https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q4_2016.pdf> The APWG has released its latest Phishing Trends Report. Some key findings in this report: 2016 was the worst year for phishing ever. The total number of phishing attacks observed by the APWG in 2016 was a record 1,220,523, a 65% increase over 2015. In the fourth quarter of 2004, the APWG saw 1,609 phishing attacks per month. In the fourth quarter of 2016, APWG saw an average of 92,564 phishing attacks per month, an increase of 5,753% over 12 years. Fraudsters in Brazil are using both traditional phishing and social media to defraud Internet users. They are also using technical tricks to make it harder for responders to stop theses scams. Phishers concentrated on fewer targets during the holiday season, and hit fewer lower-yielding or experimental targets. Phishers didn’t need to choose domain names that help fool victims. I have not yet read the report myself but will plan to do so in the next few days. Cheers, Julie

1 0