- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois PDP
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

> > Snip > > > at the delay in the GNSO doing anything on this issue. Carlton has > > referred to the ALAC statement on the think Whois. We also commented > > on the .com and .net contracts - decrying the fact that they did not > > require a think Whois, even through all new gTLDs require it. > > No. Thick whois is the wrong approach. Entirely. > > But I will not discuss this further. I'm disappointed and frustrated. > Hi Lutz, hope all is well in Germany. I am sure there are many out there who support the Thin Whois approach and others the Thick Whois. What was clear from the Whois Review Final Report is that as SSAC pointed out : "*The answers to common questions about the “WHOIS” should be derived from a clear* *statement of the problem to be solved. To the extent that the answers are different among **various use cases, solutions will likely be different. To the extent that the solutions are **different, a single universal “WHOIS” policy, as defined in the Review Team’s report, is **unlikely to be effective or even achievable*." [See page 4 of their comments on the Whois Review Final Report] We can see, that competing interests and rights are going to make this a challenge. Clearly, there are some instances that will demand a Thick Whois approach and others a Thin Whois approach. I personally agree with SSAC's approach about the need for a single consensus Policy , ie. Registration Data Policy as a *precursor* to developing solutions (pg 4 of the SSAC055 Report): • Why are data collected? • What purpose will the data serve? • Who collects the data? • Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? • Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? • Who needs the data and why? • Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why? In my view, this is a logical framework where solutions can then be easily tailored. The Whos Review Final Report highlighted the various concerns. Of note is that the SSAC have recommended to the Board that they put together a properly authorised committee to look at these questions and then deriving a Policy from the answers. One of the things I have personally felt about the Whois Review Final Report was that it did not give out clear directions although it highlighted the problems, recommended solutions but all very hazy and as SSAC described it, a case of the blind men and the elephant where to each his/her own. The SSAC's report is a clear means of bringing things to a point of confluence and yes I agree with SSAC that a Registration Data Policy is first needed. Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Thick Whois PDP
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Dear All, For consideration of the working group: Given the GNSO Council Motion which I have copied below where it was resolved that the Thick Whois PDP would be delayed following the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012, I thought I would suggest the following:- - Preparing and Receiving Community Input; - Analysis of Recommendations made by the Whois Review Final Report; - Channelling issues raised within the At Large on Thick Whois into the Wiki space; - Requesting for feedback on current studies carried out by GNSO and give input into current studies being carried out. *20120412 - 1* Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109 ); Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012. Thanks and Kind Regards, Sala -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

5 7

Re: [ALAC] Thick Whois PDP
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Sala, That resolution was at least partially triggered by the hope that a Thick Whois would be included as a requirement in the .com Registry Agreement. When the Board approved it without that requirement in Prague, the GNSO took the PDP off of the back burner and created a drafting team to draft a charter for the PDP, which will start immediately after the charter is approved. The DT is working on the charter, and I, Evan and Carlton are members of the DT. Alan At 19/09/2012 07:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >For consideration of the working group: > >Given the GNSO Council Motion which I have copied below where it was >resolved that the Thick Whois PDP would be delayed following the first GNSO >Council meeting after 30 November 2012, I thought I would suggest the >following:- > > > - Preparing and Receiving Community Input; > - Analysis of Recommendations made by the Whois Review Final Report; > - Channelling issues raised within the At Large on Thick Whois into the > Wiki space; > - Requesting for feedback on current studies carried out by GNSO and > give input into current studies being carried out. > > >*20120412 - 1* > >Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process > >Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its >meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109 >); > >Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff >and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) > >Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February >2012 (see >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) > >Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed >with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues >discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated >the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and >within the scope of the GNSO; > >Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its >meeting of 14 March 2012 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) > >Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current >workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay >in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are >available to deal with this. > >THEREFORE BE IT: > >Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of >the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting >after 30 November 2012. > > > >Thanks and Kind Regards, >Sala > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

For the record, the word moratorium is no longer being used (as of this afternoon in any case). The wording would be to the effect that the names are temporarily on the reserved names list pending a final decision of whether they should be reserved or not as an outcome of the PDP. Alan At 19/09/2012 10:19 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >You know something, Avri has caused me to rethink this. > >The IOC is not and should not be equated to the Red Cross. Period. > >The argument that the IOC would ever return a privilege once given is weak. >No they will not. > >Let's do it right the first time. Consider the matter in context of the >larger issue; IGOs and their protection. > >I'm not sure what 'moratorium' means in this context but at this stage, >well.....nothing is going to happen too quickly here. > >Let the matter go to a PDP. We must support delinking the IOC and Red >Cross when the matter is considered. > >I withdraw my support. No. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Please forgive me for intruding in your discussions. > > > > I see that you mostly have made up your minds to support this travesty, > > but I want to add a contrary note to your deliberations. > > > > If we give the IOC and the IFRC what they want in this motion, we will > > never be able to take it away from the them. You will be supporting > > granting this as IOC base 'rights'. > > > > Please, do not hold your noses. Please smell the skunk for what it is and > > recommend against it. Recommend a PDP and recommend splitting the issue. > > Please do not recommend creating a new special reserve list (whatever they > > call a rose is a rose and a duck is a duck). > > > > Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time. > > > > Be that as it may, please understand that anything given temporarily now > > will become the new base on which future give aways will be built. That is > > the way of the world, and certainly the way of ICANN. > > > > We can call it as temporary as we want but it won't matter, because there > > is nothing so permanent as a temporary solution. > > > > avri > > > > On 19 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Carlton Samuels wrote: > > > > > My ALAC position was to delink the Red Cross from the IOC, different > > > animals altogether. The recent controversy about how the IOC hogs the > > > funds from the Olympics is further evidence to support that posture. > > > > > > No contest that Usain Bolt has done more for revenues this year than any > > > other single athlete. But the Jamaican Olympic Committee is left to > > > scrounge for a few more scholarships from all the money them suckers > > reaped > > > off his performance! Unconscionable. > > > > > > I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On condition > > > that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the mattresses for > > > delinking....and even reversal. > > > > > > - Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > > Carlton A Samuels > > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Alan Greenberg > > > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > > > >> I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully > > >> brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. > > >> > > >> The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options > > >> for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus > > >> Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be > > >> discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, > > >> and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report > > >> back to the DT at its meeting the following day. > > >> > > >> I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to > > >> attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the > > meeting. > > >> > > >> Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line > > >> with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on > > >> September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft > > >> proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution > > >> can be found at > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12… > > >> . > > >> > > >> The proposal has two parts and is as follows. > > >> > > >>> 1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My > > >>> personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue > > >>> for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP > > >>> is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a > > >>> subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council > > >>> will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite > > >>> likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete > > >>> prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this > > >>> proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. > > >>> > > >>> 2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth > > >>> by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends > > >>> the following: > > >>> > > >>> 2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact > > >>> matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC > > >>> recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the > > >>> first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO > > >>> names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This > > >>> would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and > > >>> would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing > > >>> this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. > > >>> > > >>> 2.b. Communicate to the GAC: > > >>> > > >>> 2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as > > >>> possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international > > >>> organizations. > > >>> > > >>> 2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on > > >>> pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and > > >>> that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. > > >>> > > >>> 2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as > > >>> possible on this position. > > >>> > > >>> 2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note > > >>> that the work that has already been done on this issue should > > >>> facilitate the process. > > >> > > >> I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have > > >> qualified it above. > > >> > > >> The rationale is as follows: > > >> > > >> - in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as > > >> protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be > > >> done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up > > >> before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation > > >> of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the > > >> UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT > > >> of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work > > >> on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue > > >> would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not > > >> definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no > > >> doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. > > >> > > >> - If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not > > >> protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if > > >> ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be > > >> protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call > > >> back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly > > >> not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been > > >> impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do > > >> significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names > > >> are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this > > >> protection, the names can easily be released at that time. > > >> > > >> - In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the > > >> case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly > > >> linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future > > >> PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to > > >> both organizations. > > >> > > >> - The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given > > >> that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of > > >> languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter > > >> (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of > > >> course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection > > >> that they would prefer. > > >> > > >> Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if > > >> the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid > > >> position that no additional protections should be granted, it is > > >> likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort > > >> anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real > > >> benefit. > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ALAC mailing list > > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >> > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Not sure how clear I made it, and it is even clearer after a RC/IOC DT meeting today, the temporary reserving of the names is recommended ONLY if the GNSO initiated a PDP. Without that pre-requisite, I don't think that this compromise position would make it out of the DT. We are not the only ones who have some doubts about this entire mess. Alan At 19/09/2012 09:31 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >I will hold my nose and support the position Alan outlined. On >condition that if the PDP comes as he thinks, we go to the >mattresses for delinking....and even reversal. > >- Carlton

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

The issue on the table is not the large protection of IGO names that is the subject of the IR, but just the RC/IOC and just for the first round Alan At 19/09/2012 08:15 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Yes I noted the Board Resolution which you sent in your introductory >call for comments and also that the Policy work would not be >concluded prior to January 13, 2012 for obvious reasons. What I am >concerned about is the delay in the Final Issues paper because any >submissions we make may very likely miss key things raised in the >Final Issues paper. I also note that you have advised that it will >be out shortly. :) > >I will prepare submissions anyway but they will be made with the >express caveat that there may be things raised in the Final Issues >report that we have not considered. > >Sala > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The most recent update (from the GNSO Council meeting of 13 Sep) can >be found at ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/presentation-pending-final-issue-report-int…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/presentation-pending-final-issue-report-int…. > >The final Issue Report should be issued any day now, with the intent >to have it on the GNSO agenda for its Council meeting in Toronto. It >is possible that a PDP could be approved at that point, but as likely >it will be deferred until the next meeting (Council rules call for an >automatic deferral if any Council member says that more time is >needed). Once approved, a Drafting Team would be convened for draft >the charter. > >Alan > >At 19/09/2012 07:21 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > >Dear Alan, > > > >I support your recommendation and appreciate the rationalization > >that accompanied the recommendation. > > > >I agree with both Sala and Evan that the "linking" of the IOC and > >the RC is not ideal, but acceptable for the moment. > > > >On the PDP that is being considered on the larger IGO issue, can you > >provide your best estimate as to when the GNSO might move on it? > > > >Thank you! > > > >Best regards, > > > >Rinalia > > > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Evan Leibovitch > ><<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >Hi Alan, > > > >Thanks for the heads up. Your approach and rationale sound quite reasonable. > > > >I am reminded of the work done that led to this: > > > >*- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the case > > > of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly linked at > > > this time (although they could be delinked in a future > > > PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to both > > > organizations.* > > > > > > >In my personal opinion, ICANN's senseless refusal to delink does not negate > >the need to continue to maintain these are two separate issues. At one > >level, I feel strongly enough about it that if forced the choice to protect > >both or neither, I would advocate to choose neither -- so convinced am I > >regarding the harm done by protecting the IOC, based on our previous work. > >But this approach sounds unlikely to gain traction ICANN-wide, so what you > >propose is OK with me as a second choice. > > > >- Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given > > > that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of > > > languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter > > > > > > (<<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) > > And of > > > course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection > > > that they would prefer. > > > > > > Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if > > > the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid > > > position that no additional protections should be granted, it is > > > likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort > > > anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real > > > benefit. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>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…>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><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.ica > nn.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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com > mittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

As noted, the Final Issue Report is not yet issued. It should be out very soon. Alan At 19/09/2012 08:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting >protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been >posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed >under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web >site. The specific pointer for this one is ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… >. > >I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final >Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR. > >Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any >GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is >required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in >fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer. > >If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC >and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I >have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at >the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well. > > > >Alan > > > >At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Alan, >> >>I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my >>submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that >>was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request >>for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues >>Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm. >> >>This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback. >> >>Kind Regards >> >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully >>brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. >>The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options >>for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus >>Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be >>discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, >>and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report >>back to the DT at its meeting the following day. >>I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to >>attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. >>Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line >>with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on >>September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft >>proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution >>can be found at >><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12… >>. >>The proposal has two parts and is as follows. >> >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My >> >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue >> >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP >> >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a >> >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council >> >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite >> >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete >> >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this >> >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. >> > >> >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth >> >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends >> >the following: >> > >> >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact >> >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC >> >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the >> >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO >> >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This >> >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and >> >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing >> >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. >> > >> >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: >> > >> >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as >> >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international >> >organizations. >> > >> >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on >> >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and >> >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. >> > >> >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as >> >possible on this position. >> > >> >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note >> >that the work that has already been done on this issue should >> >facilitate the process. >>I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have >>qualified it above. >>The rationale is as follows: >>- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as >>protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be >>done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up >>before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation >>of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the >>UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT >>of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work >>on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue >>would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not >>definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no >>doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. >>- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not >>protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if >>ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be >>protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call >>back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly >>not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been >>impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do >>significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names >>are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this >>protection, the names can easily be released at that time. >>- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the >>case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly >>linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future >>PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to >>both organizations. >>- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given >>that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of >>languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter >>( https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of >>course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection >>that they would prefer. >>Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if >>the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid >>position that no additional protections should be granted, it is >>likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort >>anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit. >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >> > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

The two were linked because the GAC asked for both at the same time and gave a related rationale for both. I am not sure there is anything deeper in it than that. The PDP, presuming one is started, may well decide that they deserve different levels of protection. They are certainly different sorts of beasts! I would, however be careful with how we label them. The IOC certainly tries to maximize sponsorship, broadcasting and licensing revenue, but in the eyes of many, that is not their raison d'etre. [I do go on record as noting that during the recent Olympics, the only thing I watched was part of the closing ceremony when I was visiting relatives who had it on in their living room, so I am certainly not one of their more ardent supporters.] Alan At 19/09/2012 11:03 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Actually, in parallel to what Alan is suggesting, I would actually >like to propose a formal advice to the Board demanding public >accountability regarding why the IOC and RC are insisted to be >linked. Such a path undermines public confidence in an organization, >that can't tell the difference --regarding public protection -- >between a humanitarian body and one that merely seeks to maximize >sponsorship revenue. > >- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

The most recent update (from the GNSO Council meeting of 13 Sep) can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/presentation-pending-final-issue-report-int…. The final Issue Report should be issued any day now, with the intent to have it on the GNSO agenda for its Council meeting in Toronto. It is possible that a PDP could be approved at that point, but as likely it will be deferred until the next meeting (Council rules call for an automatic deferral if any Council member says that more time is needed). Once approved, a Drafting Team would be convened for draft the charter. Alan At 19/09/2012 07:21 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I support your recommendation and appreciate the rationalization >that accompanied the recommendation. > >I agree with both Sala and Evan that the "linking" of the IOC and >the RC is not ideal, but acceptable for the moment. > >On the PDP that is being considered on the larger IGO issue, can you >provide your best estimate as to when the GNSO might move on it? > >Thank you! > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Evan Leibovitch ><<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >Hi Alan, > >Thanks for the heads up. Your approach and rationale sound quite reasonable. > >I am reminded of the work done that led to this: > >*- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the case > > of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly linked at > > this time (although they could be delinked in a future > > PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to both > > organizations.* > > > >In my personal opinion, ICANN's senseless refusal to delink does not negate >the need to continue to maintain these are two separate issues. At one >level, I feel strongly enough about it that if forced the choice to protect >both or neither, I would advocate to choose neither -- so convinced am I >regarding the harm done by protecting the IOC, based on our previous work. >But this approach sounds unlikely to gain traction ICANN-wide, so what you >propose is OK with me as a second choice. > >- Evan > > > > > > > > > - The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given > > that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of > > languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter > > > (<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) > And of > > course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection > > that they would prefer. > > > > Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if > > the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid > > position that no additional protections should be granted, it is > > likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort > > anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real > > benefit. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… >

2 1

ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input 11 September 2012 In fulfillment of ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, calling for a review of ICANN's Accountability Structures, ICANN has identified an international panel of experts to serve on the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). Biographies of the experts are available at <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep>http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. The ASEP is interested in hearing from the ICANN community regarding your thoughts on ICANN's accountability structures, particularly the Reconsideration process and the Independent Review process, and whether they can or should be modified. Your comments and inputs can be submitted to <mailto:ASEP@ICANN.org>ASEP(a)ICANN.org and comments can be viewed at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/. Please provide your input by 1 October 2012. The ASEP will be posting updates regarding its work, with a detailed project plan expected by mid-September. All information regarding the ASEP will be accessible from the ASEP page at <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep>http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep.

7 10