- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

I'm not suggesting the ALAC make a pronouncement that this is a PR disaster. I am suggesting trying to mitigate the PR disaster by sharply prodding ICANN to provide more solid information not only about the system failure, but about the how and the why, along with information about steps taken internally to assure better quality control, if that's the issue. That Rod Beckstrom has now joined the response team is at least a sign the organization is acknowledging the seriousness of at least the perception of a problem. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch Sent: Apr 19, 2012 11:15 AM To: Beau Brendler Cc: JJS , Carlton Samuels , alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? It's for this reason why I wonder what ALAC should be doing. From my PoV, the reputational damage has already been done. To indicate that this was a PR disaster which requires damage control would appear to be stating the obvious, and thus just "piling on" IMO. - Evan On 19 April 2012 10:31, Beau Brendler <[1]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , [2]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1][3]carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> a ÃÂ©crit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: [4]876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2][5]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>wrote: > Greetings, colleagues. > > Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem > and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking > place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I > believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, > as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the > opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. > > In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to > differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current > communique from ICANN staff April 17: > --------------------------------------------------- > TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) > Statement by Akram Atallah, COO > 17 April 2012 > ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD > application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems > from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of > file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see > some other applicants' file names and user names. > As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we > have implemented for this issue is effective. > We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file > names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which > applicants had the ability to see them. > Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed > with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We > will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the > timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but > apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is > going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the > obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be > public-interest gTLD sponsors. > > * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what > went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be > publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? > > * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who > reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem > created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and > security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first > phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for > gTLD applications? > > * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes > involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the > back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer > may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? > > What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? > > * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to > nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency > response protocols are in place? Any? > * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help > ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own > work. > * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. > * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such > incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs > online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make > that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. > * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the > technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, > and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [3][6]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [4][7]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [5][8]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [6][9]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Commit tee+( ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7][10]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [8][11]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9][12]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10][13]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Comm ittee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:[14]carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:[15]beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:[16]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. [17]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. [18]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. [19]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) 7. mailto:[20]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. [21]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. [22]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. [23]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [24]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [25]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [26]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [27]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 References 1. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 2. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 3. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 4. tel:876-818-1799 5. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 6. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 7. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 8. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 9. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( 10. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 11. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 12. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 13. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ 14. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 15. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 16. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 17. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 18. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 19. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 20. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 21. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 22. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 23. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 24. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 25. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 26. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 27. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1]carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>wrote: > Greetings, colleagues. > > Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem > and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking > place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I > believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, > as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the > opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. > > In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to > differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current > communique from ICANN staff April 17: > --------------------------------------------------- > TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) > Statement by Akram Atallah, COO > 17 April 2012 > ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD > application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems > from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of > file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see > some other applicants' file names and user names. > As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we > have implemented for this issue is effective. > We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file > names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which > applicants had the ability to see them. > Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed > with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We > will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the > timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but > apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is > going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the > obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be > public-interest gTLD sponsors. > > * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what > went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be > publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? > > * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who > reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem > created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and > security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first > phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for > gTLD applications? > > * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes > involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the > back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer > may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? > > What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? > > * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to > nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency > response protocols are in place? Any? > * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help > ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own > work. > * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. > * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such > incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs > online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make > that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. > * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the > technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, > and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [3]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [4]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [5]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [6]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [8]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 7. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Greetings, colleagues. Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current communique from ICANN staff April 17: --------------------------------------------------- TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 17 April 2012 ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see some other applicants' file names and user names. As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we have implemented for this issue is effective. We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which applicants had the ability to see them. Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. --------------------------------------------------------------- Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be public-interest gTLD sponsors. * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for gTLD applications? * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency response protocols are in place? Any? * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own work. * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing.

3 2

Apologies
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro April 18, 2012

April 18, 2012

Dear All, I apologise for missing the APRALO and ALAC call. Murphy's law as I had lost my cell phone and just got a replacement and retained the number. My landline also needs to be tested. I regret that I was unable to participate. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

1 0

comment for SSRT (English version)-lacralo wg Spanish - abril 2012
by presidencia Internauta Argentina April 16, 2012

April 16, 2012

Dear All: I`m sending this LACRALO commnets in English (sorry for my english version). Was made for LACRALO DNS spanish WG (Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS), created after Costa Rica meeting, I belive this is a good results!!! Kind regards -- * Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

1 0

Fwd: lost the vote credential
by Presidencia Internauta April 15, 2012

April 15, 2012

Dear all and staff: I sent an email to staff on 12/04 / (see below), asking the sending of credentials to vote "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability of the DNS & Resiliency Review Team (RT SSR) - Draft Report" . Do not know why, but never received reply. My computer crashed and I lost some mails including voting credential. Today is day 14 and I missed, for the records I wanted to vote in favor of work. Kind Regards Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi: +54 9 223 5 215819 "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: presidencia Internauta Argentina <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar> Fecha: 12 de abril de 2012 19:41 Asunto: lost the vote credential Para: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Staff: I lost my credential for vote in: "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report, is posible send a new credential? Thanks! kind Regards -- * Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta ArgentinaAsociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org> ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

5 5

Proposed statement on the .com contract revision
by Evan Leibovitch April 14, 2012

April 14, 2012

Hello all, Holly Raiche, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg and myself have been involved in the development of a comment to proposed revisions to the contract that covers Verisign and the .com TLD. Holly did most of the legwork and deserves most of the credit. She also wrote most of a proposed statement, which includes input from Alan and me, A workspace on the topic has been create (thanks Matt!) at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+.com+Registry+Ag… The proposed statement is located at the bottom of the above-mentioned wiki page before the comments section. Comments are welcome, and it is our intent to have this statement (and comments) considered by the ALAC at its next meeting. Thank you. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Statement on TLD Application System
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

A few more details on the TAS outage. Alan ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-12apr12-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-12apr12-en.htm > > > >Statement on TLD Application System > > > > > >12 April 2012 > >We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system >software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some >other users' file names and user names in certain scenarios. > >Out of an abundance of caution, we took the system offline to >protect applicant data. We are examining how this issue occurred and >considering appropriate steps forward. > >We apologize for any concern this may have caused and will >communicate on a regular basis on our website, which can be found at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org>http://newgtlds.icann.org > >Akram Atallah >Chief Operating Officer >ICANN

1 0

Resolutions from meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee on 10 April 2012
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

First actions of the new gTLD Program Committee: - No Guidebook changes to address perception of need for defensive applications, but increased education and work at 2nd level; - No Guidebook changes in response to the GNSO RC/IOC recommendations at t he top level. Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12… > > >10 April 2012 > > >Note: On 10 April 2012, the Board established the New gTLD Program >Committee, comprised of all voting members of the Board that are not >conflicted with respect to the New gTLD Program. The Committee was >granted all of the powers of the Board (subject to the limitations >set forth by law, the Articles of incorporation, Bylaws or ICANN's >Conflicts of Interest Policy) to exercise Board-level authority for >any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. >The full scope of the Committee's authority is set forth in its >charter at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld. > > > 1. Defensive Applications for New gTLDs > > >Whereas, the Board approved the New gTLD Program with protections >for certain interests and rights, and intellectual property rights >in particular >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >Whereas, the Board provided its rationale for approving the New gTLD >Program with these elements >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) > >Whereas, the availability of the objection process and other aspects >of the program have been actively communicated; > >Whereas, ICANN received comment describing an apparent need to >submit gTLD applications for defensive purposes to protect >established legal rights; > >Whereas, ICANN responded by establishing a public comment period to >seek input on the sources of this perception and how it could be >addressed >(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/new-gtlds-defensive-application…) > >Whereas, ICANN held a public workshop during ICANN's public meeting >in Costa Rica to hold a community discussion regarding suggestions >raised during the comment period, and additional suggestions with >participation from the community (http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29711) > >Whereas the New gTLD Program goals include the protection of >established legal rights,; > >Whereas, a summary and analysis of public comment was performed and >the discussion in the public workshop was transcribed; > >Whereas the sense of the public discussion indicated that trademark >protections should continue to be discussed and developed for the >registration of second-level domain names and also indicated that >cybersquatting was not likely to be a significant issue in the >registration of top-level domain names; > >Whereas, ICANN is committed to reviewing the effectiveness of the >application and evaluation process, and of the safeguards put in >place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction of new gTLDs, >following the initial application round; > >Whereas, the comments indicated that significant concerns about >awareness of the protections available and that renewed efforts >should be undertaken to broadly communicate those protections to >rights holders; > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG1), the New gTLD Program Committee thanks the >community for its participation in the discussion of this issue. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD Program Committee is >not directing any changes to the Applicant Guidebook to address >defensive gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD Program >Committee directs staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic of >defensive registrations at the second level and requests the GNSO to >consider whether additional work on defensive registrations at the >second level should be undertaken; > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG3), the New gTLD Program Committee directs >staff to continue implementing targeted communications about the >processes used and protections available in the New gTLD Program. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG1-2012.04.10.NG3 > >[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.] > > > >2. GNSO Recommendation for Protection of Red Cross and International >Olympic Committee Names in New gTLDs > > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG4), the New gTLD Program Committee >acknowledges receipt of the GNSO's recommendation on extending >certain protections to the Red Cross/Red Crescent and the >International Olympic Committee names at the top level. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5), the New gTLD Program Committee chooses to >not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.NG4-2012.04.10.NG5 > >[Rationale to be provided with Minutes.]

1 0

ICANN Board resolution - 10 April 2012 - Establishment of New gTLD Program Committee
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

Creation of a new Board Committee delegated to take any and all actions on behalf of the Board related to the new GTLD program. This committee excludes any Directors who have conflicts related to the program. Alan >From: >http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10apr12-en.htm > >10 April 2012 > >Establishment of New gTLD Program Committee > > >Resolved (2012.04.10.01), the Board hereby establishes the Board New >gTLD Program Committee as follows: (i) the voting members of the >Committee will consist of: Rod Beckstrom, Cherine Chalaby, Chris >Disspain, Bill Graham, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Ray Plzak, R. >Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, and Kuo-Wei Wu; (ii) the >liaisons to the Committee will be Thomas Roessler; and (iii) the >Chair of the Committee will be Cherine Chalaby. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.02), the Board hereby delegates to the Board >New gTLD Program Committee all legal and decision making authority >of the Board relating to the New gTLD Program (for the round of the >Program, which commenced in January 2012 and for the related >Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round) as set forth >in its Charter, which excludes those things that the Board is >prohibited from delegating by law, or pursuant to Article XII, >Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. > >Resolved (2012.04.10.03), all members of the New gTLD Program >Committee reinforce their commitment to the 8 December 2011 >Resolution of the Board (Resolution 2011.12.08.19) regarding Board >member conflicts, and specifying in part: "Any and all Board members >who approve any new gTLD application shall not take a contracted or >employment position with any company sponsoring or in any way >involved with that new gTLD for 12 months after the Board made the >decision on the application." > >Resolved (2012.04.10.04), the Board directs the CEO to prepare a >document setting forth a process for the creation of Board >Committees to address future situations where there may be multiple >Board members with perceived, potential or actual conflicts of >interest on an issue. > > >Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.01-2012.04.10.04 > >In order to have efficient meetings and take appropriate actions >with respect to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the >Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook, the Board decided >to create the "New gTLD Program Committee" in accordance with >Article XII of the Bylaws and has delegated decision making >authority to the Committee as it relates to the New gTLD Program for >the current round of the Program which commenced in January 2012 and >for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round. > >Establishing this new Committee without conflicted members, and >delegating to it decision making authority, will provide some >distinct advantages. First, it will eliminate any uncertainty for >conflict Board members with respect to attendance at Board meetings >and workshops since the New gTLD Program topics can be dealt with at >the Committee level. Second, it will allow for actions to be taken >without a meeting by the committee. As the Board is aware, actions >without a meeting cannot be taken unless done via electronic >submission by unanimous consent; such unanimous consent cannot be >achieved if just one Board member is conflicted. Third, it will >provide the community with a transparent view into the Board's >commitment to dealing with actual, potential or perceived conflicts. > >This resolution should have a positive impact on the community and >ICANN as a whole as the New gTLD Program Committee will be able to >take actions relating to the New gTLD Program for the current round >of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook without any >question of conflict arising. No fiscal impact is anticipated as a >result of this action and there will be no impact on the security, >stability no resiliency of the domain name system.

1 0