- ALAC - lists.icann.org

SAC056 Posted: SSAC Advisory on the Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System
by Julie Hammer Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

Dear ALAC members, This is to advise that the following SSAC Advisory has been posted: [SAC056]: SSAC Advisory on Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System (09 October 2012) English [PDF] Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Board request for Community Input and Advice
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2012

Oct. 12, 2012

At 11/10/2012 05:46 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 11 October 2012 16:17, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The deadline for submitting a comment is 25 Oct. If there is little >interest in the ALAC for submitting such a comment, I am happy to do >it under my own name as well as anyone else who supports it. But if >there is agreement with the issues raised, it certainly would have >more impact coming from the ALAC. >I am speaking at a public panel on this subject on Monday. At this >point, it is solely on my own behalf, but I welcome input from >others on the ALAC as to what should be said. > > >I don't think that the response you received was insubstantial. > >It is reasonable -- especially for ALAC -- to respond to a request >by advising that its question is wrong or inappropriate. > >The problem is not with the methods by which the community sends >comments to the Board, but rather how (and how transparently) the >Board accepts and deals with that input. > >- Evan They were particularly asking about melded input from multiple groups, and the evidence is that the methodology for that (to the limited extent that it exists) is broken. If only because the positions taken are, at times, close to polar opposites. And even from a single group, the onus is on that group to condense the input to the extent that it is often written in code - code that is perhaps not understood by many of the recipients. I guess that could be referred to as how they deal with it, but I think there is a philosophical question that is much more important. Are we supposed to be on the same team as the Board, or not. Regarding whether it is reasonable for the ALAC to comment. If I didn't think so, I would not have spent several hours composing it on my last day before travel! ;-) Alan

2 1

Possible ALAC Statement and Call for Comments re Verisign's Patent Application on Domain Name Transfers
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

Dear ALAC, What are your thoughts about discussion on the subject and a possible ALAC Statement on the matter? Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 3

Board request for Community Input and Advice
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

You may recall this Board request for input and advice on how to get input and advice. I volunteered to draft a statement. Despite some ALAC comments that this request was more-of-the-same and did not warrant our involvement, my personal opinion is that it is among the more important things that we could influence. My draft statement can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/K5AoAg. It is long, but there is also a link to a PDF with somewhat better formatting. It is also a bit more hard-hitting and to the point than are some of my comments. The deadline for submitting a comment is 25 Oct. If there is little interest in the ALAC for submitting such a comment, I am happy to do it under my own name as well as anyone else who supports it. But if there is agreement with the issues raised, it certainly would have more impact coming from the ALAC. I am speaking at a public panel on this subject on Monday. At this point, it is solely on my own behalf, but I welcome input from others on the ALAC as to what should be said. Alan

2 1

Fwd: Application for New GNSO Constituency Candidacy-"Public Internet Access/Cybercafe Ecosystem"
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

FYI ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10oct12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10oct12-en.htm > > >Application for New GNSO Constituency Candidacy-"Public Internet >Access/Cybercafe Ecosystem" >

2 1

Fwd: Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

An interesting message regarding the Advice Letter of the Consumer Metrics group. Opinions welcome as this will be a topic of discussion in the GNSO Council on Saturday afternoon in Toronto. Alan >From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >CC: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> >Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:52:15 -0400 >Subject: [council] Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs > >All, > >A number of us have recently been discussing the motion up for a >vote next week in Toronto to adopt the Working Group's draft advice >letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice and Competition. First, I >want to commend the working group on the job that they have done and >the meticulous detail incorporated in the letter. I believe that >they group did as good of a job as anyone could do to come up with >metrics based on their best predictions as to what the future gTLD >landscape would look like. At the time that the recommendations >were created, and the draft advice letter went out for comment, no >one knew the number of applications, types of applications, etc. > >Now, after the reveal, we have more information about the landscape >and believe that the original criteria included in the final advice >letter may not be well suited for a large number of gTLD >applications (which later will be TLDs). While much of the criteria >is extremely relevant towards the open gTLDs, they do not >necessarily map well to a large number of the other closed, brand, >single-registrant or even geographic based TLDs. Over 1/3 of the >applications are for brand TLDs, with many of them being >single-registrant TLDs. Some of the criteria included in the >measure of consumer choice section of the Final Advice Letter, for >example, are not applicable to the brand TLDs and may, in fact, give >misleading results when looking at the issue of consumer choice. By >way of example, the criteria for consumer choice looks at whether >the website clearly discloses the benefits and restrictions of the >name space (Section 2.1). This makes sense for open registries, but >for a closed TLD (like .neustar), it does not. As a fairly large >$2.5 billion public company, if Neustar converted its homepage to ><http://www.neustar>http://www.neustar, we would not put anywhere on >our home page the benefits/restrictions of .neustar. As a closed >TLD, there would be no other registrants other than Neustar itself >and using up valuable space on our homepage to even mention why were >are using .neustar just would not make sense. In addition, Section >2.3 (gTLD registry benefits and restrictions should be >understandable to registrants and users) and 2.12 (geographic >diversity of registrants) would also not be applicable to the >closed-TLDs or regional TLDs. There are other examples. > >Therefore, our recommendation is that the Council consider sending >back the letter to the Working Group to revise their advice based on >the current gTLD application landscape before passing such advice on >to the board. If this means bifurcating the advice based on the >type of TLD, that may make some sense as well. > >We do not want the group to be disheartened, because they did an >excellent job with the information that was available at the >time. We now know more and believe that although the letter >presents an excellent starting point, it needs some additional work. > >We look forward to discussing this further in Toronto. > >Best regards, > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Motions for next weeks open GNSO Council Meeting
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 10, 2012

Oct. 10, 2012

And one more: Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations At 10/10/2012 01:20 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >There are currently siz motions on the GNSO Council agenda for next >week. The full text of the motions can be found at ><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+…>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+October+…. >ANy advice on comments to be made on behalf of the ALAC would be welcome. > >1. Motion on the Adoption of the Advice Letter of the Working Group >on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC): > >2. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on >Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse > >3. Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting > >4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the >Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs. > >5. Motion to approve the Charter for the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group > >6. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 >of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

1 0

Fwd: Agendas for ICANN Board meetings in Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 10, 2012

Oct. 10, 2012

It looks like the Public Board meetings are scheduled for one hour at the end of the Public Forum on Thursday afternoon. Alan >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Agendas for ICANN Board meetings in Toronto >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:18:14 +0000 > >Hello All, > >There will effectively be three separate Board meetings in >Toronto. The first is for routine administrative actions. The >second contains topics of interest to the community, and the third >deals with the formalities of the AGM. > >See below for agendas. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > >(1) Saturday - 13 October 2012 > >From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-13oct12-en.htm > > >Consent Agenda: > > * Approval of Minutes of 3 October 2012 Special Board Meeting > > * Approval of Proposed .Name Renewal Registry Agreement > >Main Agenda: > > *Any Other Business > > >(2) Thursday 18 October 2012 > >Agenda for Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Toronto > >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-18oct12-en.htm > >Main Agenda: > > * Approval of Revised Process for Handling Requests for > Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs > > * Approval of Language Services Policy & Procedures > > * WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > > * Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team > Final Report > > * Any Other Business > > >(3) Thursday 18 October 2012 > >Agenda for Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors - Toronto > > >From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-2-18oct12-en.htm > > >Main Agenda: > > * Election of Board Chair > > * Election of Board Vice-Chair > > * Appointment of Membership of Board Committees > > * Confirmation of Officers of ICANN > > * Any Other Business

1 0

CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST for ALAC Liaisons to serve from October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 8, 2012

Oct. 8, 2012

*Call for Expressions of Interest for ALAC Liaisons to serve from October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013* Dear All, The ALAC Liaison positions, and those currently serving in the role (until the ICANN AGM in Toronto) are listed below. The incumbent Liaisons are able to stand for reappointment. Please note that only current ALAC members can nominate and select the Liaisons. *Nominations are now called for each of the following Liaison positions:* · GNSO liaison -- Currently held by Alan Greenberg <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Alan+Greenberg+SOI> · ccNSO -- Currently held by Cheryl Langdon-Orr · SSAC -- Currently held by Julie Hammer <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Julie+Hammer+SOI> · IDN Policy -- Currently held by Edmon Chung <https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/Edmon+Chung+-+Bio+and+Statement+…> · NCSG -- Currently held by Evan Leibovitch <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Evan+Leibovitch+SOI> The DotMobi Liaison position is remaining vacant pending clarification from DotMobi. *2012-2103 ALAC Liaison Selection Schedule: * * 4 October 2012 - Call for Expressions of Interest (to be sent to lists.) * 10 October 2012 - Deadline for Liaison Nominations (to be sent to lists.) * 15 October 2012 - Chair to post to the public ALAC list a "selection summary" message (sent to lists). * 15-18 October 2012 - Nominations are discussed. * 19 October 2012 - Deadline for Nominees to Accept their Nomination (sent to lists and or as notified and recorded on the relevant Election Pages of the At-Large Wiki.) * 22-26 October 2012 - Selection of ALAC Liaisons -- if elections are required, they will be held 22-26 October 2012. Where only one nomination is received for any Liaison position, the nominee will be confirmed in that role on 19 October 2012 * 26 October 2012 - Selection/Election Results announced and any unconfirmed Liaisons begin in their roles. *Relevant Rules from the ALAC Rules of Procedure: * RULE 4 - ELECTION OF LIAISONS 4.1 Liaisons to ICANN's Advisory Committees, Supporting Organizations and Constituencies can be established by approval of the Committee; in that case, they will follow the rules established for the appointment and functioning of the GNSO Liaison 4.2 **Refers to *The Board Liaison*, and is therefore not relevant here, and will be redacted from the revised ALAC ROPs* 4.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 4.4 All liaisons serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. 4.5 Liaisons shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 4.6 They shall normally be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; 4.7 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the At-Large Community by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 4.8 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as an ALAC representative, to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. RULE 5 - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR LIAISONS 5.1 There is no requirement for a Liaison to be a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee;* 5.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 5.3 A person may not serve two different liaison positions at the same time; 5.4 All liaisons can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11; 5.5 All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in Rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. The mission and responsibilities of each Liaison of the ALAC are: 5.6 To participate diligently in the meetings and activities of the body he/she is liaison to; 5.7 To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to such body; 5.8 To report to the ALAC the current and upcoming activities of the body he/she is liaison to, as far as this is possible under the timing and confidentiality constraints of such *body;* 5.9 When this is possible under such constraints, ask to the ALAC for advance instructions on matters that are going to be discussed by such body. RULE 6 - PRIVILEGES OF LIAISONS 6.1 All liaisons have the same rights of access to information, mailing lists and documents *as the ordinary ALAC members.* *PLEASE NOTE:* With the exception of the ALAC ByLaw-mandated liaisons to the GNSO and the ccNSO, there is no assured travel finding for ALAC Liaisons to attend ICANN Meetings unless they are serving ALAC members. Therefore, assurances that they can still perform their role will be required. *The 2012-2013 ALAC Liaison Election - Schedule and Nominees Workspace:* This workspace is available at https://community.icann.org/x/lZEoAg. It includes the following additional important information: · Qualification criteria for liaisons; · Privileges of liaisons; · Election procedures, including specific procedures for the ALAC liaison to the SSAC; · A table listing who has been nominated for the various liaison positions. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

9 12

Re: [ALAC] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 8, 2012

Oct. 8, 2012

Dear Dev, thank you very much for your email explaining the course of action which you recommend. I am CC'ing the present email to the ALAC for its information. I also trust that Avri Doria, Chair of the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, will be picking up the ball from here. I look forward to her WG making recommendations as to the course of action they suggest. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/08/2012 19:51, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > Dear All, > > The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) > received a comment on community objection grounds by InternetNZ, an > ALS in APRALO, on the application by Amazon EU S.A.R.L for the applied > for gTLD string "book" on July 26 2012. > > InternetNZ's comment was posted to the At-Large new gTLD Applications > Dashboard Workspace at > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG > > Several comments from At-Large, including members of the gTLD RG were > received and posted on the wiki page at > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG > including a condensed version of InternetNZ's comment by gTLD RG > members Eduardo Diaz and Yrjo Lansipuro. > > The comments by InternetNZ and others raises concerns regarding the > availability of 2nd level domains under generic TLDs. Whether domains > under such proposed generic TLDs should be available or "open" to the > wider public or "closed" to the applicants applying for the proposed > gTLD. > > Because such concepts are outside the scope of the application for > ".book" by Amazon EU s.a.r.l, the gTLD RG on its conference call on > Monday August 6 2012 (https://community.icann.org/x/iAUeAg) decided > not to submit a comment on this application to the ALAC for possible > submission to ICANN's new gTLD comment forum before the close of the > Application Comment Period. > > However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd > level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts > individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues > raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group > (https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible > policy recommendations. > > > Kind Regards, > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > Chair, gTLD Review Group > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 2