- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board agenda for Thursday 20 December 2012
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 14, 2012

Dec. 14, 2012

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-20dec12-en.htm 1. Consent Agenda a. Minutes: 13 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 18 October 2012 Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 18 October 2012 Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board 8 November 2012 Special Meeting of the ICANN Board b. SSAC Thank You to Departing Member c. SSAC Member Reappointments d. GNSO Council Recommendations IRTP Part C e. Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Bylaws Revisions for Public Comment f. Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) g. ICANN New gTLD Funds Investment Policy h. Location of November 2013 ICANN Meeting 48 2. Main Agenda a. Board Term Alignment b. Accountability Structures Expert Panel Recommendation c. Location of ICANN Meetings in 2014 and the Establishment of a Multi-stakeholder Meeting Strategy Working Group d. Any Other Business

2 1

Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 9, 2012

Dec. 9, 2012

Dear ALAC, please be so kind to find enclosed a message from the Chair of the IGO/INGO WG. May I suggest that if there is enough momentum, the ALAC submits a consolidated statement answering the questions asked even though this is not a formal public comment process? Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:20:27 -0800 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) <ocl(a)gih.com>, Evan Leibovitch (evan(a)telly.org) <evan(a)telly.org> CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com>, Brian Peck <brian.peck(a)icann.org> Dear SO/AC Chair, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO). The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests from the ICANN Board and GAC. As part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) by *_15 January 2013_*. For further background information on the WG's activities to date, please see: * IGO-INGO Web Page(see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm) * Final Issue Report for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts were combined with this PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm) *Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to address:* As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue Report: * Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special Protection * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers; the PDP WG is expected to: * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO organizations at the first and second levels. * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these identifiers. *Questions to Consider:* * * 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new gTLDs? 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate receiving your input by *_15 January 2013_* at the latest. Your input will be very much appreciated. With best regards, Thomas Rickert, Chair of the IGO-INGO WG Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

UK IPv6 advocacy group gives up, disbands
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 7, 2012

Dec. 7, 2012

http://www.6uk.org.uk/2012/12/6uk-powerless-to-encourage-ipv6-adoption-boar… -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Consultation on Internet Number Resources Performance Standards PC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 6, 2012

Dec. 6, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond has asked that a call be sent to the ALAC to determine if a Statement should be submitted on the Consultation on Internet Number Resources Performance Standards PC<https://community.icann.org/x/EIZEAg>. Please note that the comment period for this PC closes on 11-Dec-2012. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff Dec. 6, 2012

Dec. 6, 2012

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond has asked that a call be sent to the ALAC to determine if a Statement should be submitted on the Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process PC<https://community.icann.org/x/S4pEAg>. Please note that the comment period for this PC closes on 18-Dec-2012. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

2013 Internet Society Board of Trustees Election - Nominations (deadline: 2 January 2013)
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 4, 2012

Dec. 4, 2012

FYI 2013 Internet Society Board of Trustees Election - Nominations (deadline: 2 January 2013) *nomcomchair(a)isoc.org* *Call for Nominations for the Internet Society Board of Trustees* The Internet Society's (ISOC) Nominations Committee is accepting applications from, or in favour of, candidates interested in serving on the ISOC Board of Trustees. In 2013, three positions on the Board of Trustees are open for election. Two Trustees will be elected by ISOC Organizational Members and one by ISOC Chapters. Additionally, one Trustee will be selected by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The Trustee positions are 3-year terms that start August 2013 and end in 2016. ISOC is a global not-for-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education and policy. With principal offices in Washington, D.C., United States of America, and Geneva, Switzerland, and several other regional offices, it is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world. ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and other Internet-related bodies who together play a critical role in ensuring that the Internet develops in a stable and open manner. ISOC has more than 130 organizational members, more than 55,000 individual members, and over 90 chapters that play a role in driving the mission and work of the organization. In 2013, ISOC's operational budget will be $38.3 million USD. The ISOC Board of Trustees<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/board.php>is responsible for the governance of the organization, and its authority is derived from the organization’s by-laws and policies<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml>. The Board consists of 12 Trustees that are either appointed or elected by the chapters, organization members and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the ISOC CEO and President serves ex-officio as a non-voting Trustee. In accordance with ISOC’s Procedures for the Selection of Trustees<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/select.shtml>, six Trustees are elected by the organizational members, three Trustees are elected by the chapters and three Trustees are appointed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Trustees serve a three year term and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. *Time Commitment* Trustees are expected to commit the time necessary to perform regular Board and committee business. Trustees are also expected to allocate time to attend and prepare for meetings. The ISOC Board of Trustees holds three physical meetings and three or four 2-hour teleconference meetings annually. Trustees must also expect to be part of Board committees, with additional time and effort allotted to this work and to communicate with the ISOC community. A typical Trustee time commitment averages 4-5 hours per week over their term, with some significant peaks and troughs on a weekly basis. *Eligibility Statement* Candidates for ISOC Trustee will have demonstrable involvement in the Internet with depth of understanding in at least several of the following areas: - Internet standards - Internet operation - Public policy for Internet and telecommunications - Internet development Ideal candidates also have a good understanding of broader technology, policy, business and/or economics issues relevant to the society. The following qualifications are also highly desirable: - Previous Board / Governance experience or organizational leadership experience - Skills in business management and leadership - Not-for-profit experience and fund raising - Ability to identify relevant ISOC projects and attendant funding and resourcing - Focus on solutions - Vision for the role of ISOC The ISOC Board of Trustees aims to be as broadly representative of the many cultures and communities around the world that it can. We would encourage applications from all economies, all regions and all walks of life. The Nominations Committee will not discriminate based on gender, domicile, or national origin. *Timeline and Nomination Form* Nominations are now open, and the deadline for nominations is *Wednesday 2 January 2013*. Self-nominations can be made here < https://www.internetsociety.org/bot-elections-form?type=self&id=plutonium> and Nominations by a Third Party may be made here < https://www.internetsociety.org/bot-elections-form?type=third&id=plutonium> The Nominations Committee will progressively conduct a review and interviews with nominees. As the 2013 Board of Trustees election timetable<http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/board-trustees/trustee-elections/…>states, candidates will be announced on Friday 22 February 2013. Strong confidentiality requirements for the management of the candidates’ personal information will be applied. Further information is available at http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/board-trustees/trustee-electionsas well as by email to < nomcomchair(a)isoc.org>. Individual inquiries to members of the Nominations Committee are not encouraged and will be redirected by them to the Committee’s Secretariat.

1 0

Fwd: IDN Variant TLD Program Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Dec. 4, 2012

Dec. 4, 2012

Dear ALAC, Given that time is short and the ALAC ratification vote on the *IDN statement on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs* has to start in 3 days (Friday), please provide your comments directly to the wiki (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=37193862) so that your comments/input can be taken into account in the finalization of the statement: Thank you, Edmon, for the draft! Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edmon Chung <edmon(a)isoc.hk> Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM Subject: RE: IDN Variant TLD Program Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Hi Everyone,**** ** ** I have just posted a draft as a comment to: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=37193862&focusedCo… **** ** ** Also attached for your quick reference.**** ** ** Edmon**** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:10 PM *To:* Edmon Chung *Cc:* idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff *Subject:* Re: IDN Variant TLD Program Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs**** ** ** Hi, Edmon. I'm reminded that 13 December 2012 is the end of the reply period for the following:**** IDN Variant TLD Program – Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/interim-variant-ux-23oct12-en.h…> **** If you are ready, can you kindly circulate the proposed draft statement to the IDN WG for comments/input? The wiki is here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=37193862. I suggest circulating the draft concurrently to the ALAC for comments as well given that time is short. ALAC vote ratification has to be begin on 7th Dec latest so the finalized version has to reach staff by 6th Dec. Thanks! Best regards, Rinalia**** On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org> wrote:**** Dear All,**** ** ** Rinalia - Thank you for the quick response, much appreciated. **** ** ** Edmon – Can you please confirm when you will be submitting a Statement?**** ** ** Regards,**** **** Matt Ashtiani**** At-Large Coordination Officer**** ICANN**** 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300**** Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA**** ** ** *From: *Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, November 2, 2012 1:19 AM *To: *Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org> *Cc: *"edmon(a)isoc.hk" <edmon(a)isoc.hk>, "idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: IDN Variant TLD Program Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs**** ** ** Thanks for setting up the WIKI space, Matt. Edmon had indicated that there should be a statement and that he will take the lead in drafting one on this issue for consultation with the IDN WG and the ALAC. Best regards, Rinalia**** On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Matt Ashtiani <matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org> wrote:**** Dear Edmon,**** ** ** Can you please confirm if the IDN WG will be submitting a Statement on the IDN Variant TLD Program – Interim Report Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs <https://community.icann.org/x/hog3Ag>?* *** ** ** Please note that the close for this Statement is 22-Nov-2012. As such, we would need a Statement as soon as possible. **** ** ** Regards,**** **** Matt Ashtiani**** At-Large Coordination Officer**** ICANN**** 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300**** Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA**** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

2 1

Fwd: free webinar on Mitigating DDoS Attacks
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 3, 2012

Dec. 3, 2012

I am forwarding this message on behalf of Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> of PIR (Public Interest Registry - .org). Alan ================================ PIR, in partnership with ISOC-NY and NY Tech, is sponsoring a debate this Wednesday (5 December) on "Mitigating DDoS Attacks: Best Practices for an Evolving Threat Landscape." Panelists will include colleagues from Afilias, NeuStar and VeriSign, as well as Symantec, Google, De Natris Consult and EFF. The free event will run from 1000-1300 EST, and will be webcast. Further details are available at http://www.pir.org/why/security/ddos.

1 0

Mueller: Three little ICANN atrocities that make the ITU look good by comparison
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 3, 2012

Dec. 3, 2012

I don't often agree with Milton, and I find much to disagree with here. But given current events I find it a usefully thoughtful piece. And the provocative theme of the headline -- sometimes the ITU threats don't seem much worse than the ICANN status quo -- occasionally resonate. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/01/three-little-icann-atrocities-… - Evan

1 0

Fwd: [WCIT] The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 30, 2012

Nov. 30, 2012

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WCIT] The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:31 -0500 From: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander(a)NTIA.DOC.GOV> Reply-To: Fiona Alexander <FAlexander(a)NTIA.DOC.GOV> To: <WCIT(a)LMLIST.STATE.GOV> The blog below is being posted on NTIA, State and FCC websites The Necessity of an Inclusive, Transparent and Participatory Internet On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government's commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues. The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries. There are those who may suggest next week in Dubai - and in future venues where Internet policy is discussed - that the United States controls the Internet. Alternatively, they may suggest that in the future governments alone should run the Internet. Our response is grounded in the reality that this is simply not the case. The Internet is a decentralized network of networks and there is no one party - government or industry - that controls the Internet today. And that's a good thing. The Internet's decentralized, multistakeholder processes enable us all to benefit from the engagement of all interested parties. By encouraging the participation of industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments from around the globe, multistakeholder processes result in broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives through the cooperation of many different parties. The global community has many serious topics to discuss with respect to the Internet. Collectively, we need to ensure that these matters are taken up in suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well informed by the voices of all interested parties. Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications. This is a view shared by many around the world and was most recently reiterated by a statement of civil society members and groups from around the world who participated in the "Best Bits" pre-Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting held earlier this month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The U.S. Government wishes to lend its support to the spirit of the recommendations contained in the statement. We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard. ---------------------- Lawrence E. Strickling, Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Phillip L. Verveer, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, State Department

1 0