- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from 8 Dec 2011
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Well, as I said yesterday during the GTLD-WG call, I was not surprised that the recommendation was not followed, but I did expect some half-way measure - perhaps an explicit increase of 1-2 million, funded by a deferred return-to-reserve and perhaps only in the event of insufficient additional fund-raising. But clearly that did not happen and that is indeed disappointing. However, the actual size of the pool does not need to be fixed until the SARP makes its awards, so there is nearly a year left to continue lobbying the Board (and in our call last week, that was acknowledged by Board members). I think we need to consider how best to do this, not only for ALAC, but by getting others involved as well. Bills note sounds like the start, but it would be good if we can get new voices into this, not just the usual players. Alan At 13/12/2011 03:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Alan, you had my hopes up... for a few seconds. Until I read the >whole resolution. > >The Board may have approved the fee reduction to $47K, but it >explicitly rejected the core JAS recommendation that the fee >reduction be separated from the ICANN fund. > >The implications of this are: > * There is a hard limit on how many applications may receive > cost reductions, meaning that worthy and eligible applications may > have to compete among themselves for funding and that some (many? > we don't know) eligible applicants will not receive the reduction. > Based on the current fund size a maximum of only 14 TLD > applications can receive the reduced rate. > * The fund that ICANN "set aside" for applicant support is > designed to all funnel back into ICANN (some charity!) ... no > assistance is available to help with non-ICANN expenses or capacity building > * The bottom up core JAS community recommendations -- supporting > fee reductions independent of the fixed pool (as endorsed in > the<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm> > joint statement by the ALAC and GAC, as well as endorsed by the > NPOC and NCUC) were explicitly rejected without rationale. We have > no idea who is pushing back against the public-interest community > advice or why; what has been openly published about the JAS > recommendations (of which I'm aware) has been in support or neutral. > >So... the implicit rejection of a core component of the JAS >recommendation is now explicit. > >I know we should be happy for even getting this far -- that ANY >assistance is offered -- but I am disgusted at the opaqueness of the >debate. The bottom up process, done as designed, has either been >enthusiastically endorsed (ALAC, GAC, NCUC, NPOC -- all the >public-interest constituencies) or passed without comment (the rest >of GNSO). There has been no active argument presented against the >recommendations. We have tried to anticipate objections in the JAS >documentation yet have never been able to openly confront and >respond to the opposition. It's a small victory for At-Large getting >anything, but a major fail for ICANN's claims of policy-by-consensus >and transparency. > >- Evan

1 0

ICANN Board resolutions from 8 Dec 2011
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-08dec11-en.htm Of particular interest are: Item 1.1 approving the new gTLD fee reduction to $47,000 for deserving applicants as well as supporting the current proposed process and criteria documents (links in agenda item 4 of <https://community.icann.org/x/oYHbAQ>https://community.icann.org/x/oYHbAQ) Item 1.2 on batching applications seems interesting, but I have not yet been able to decipher exactly what they are talking about. Item 3 approving Board member compensation Item 4 approving new Conflict of Interest rules related to new gTLDs. Alan

3 2

CEO Search Committee Progress
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12dec11-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12dec11-en.htm CEO Search Committee Progress 12 December 2011 The CEO Search Committee has met several times since Dakar, and has scheduled conference calls at least weekly through the Costa Rica meeting in March 2012. The committee received a number of e-mailed responses in reply to its request in Dakar for further input. We thank those who have provided input, either in person in Dakar or through e-mail submissions. The committee issued an RFP for a search firm to assist us in the process. Eight firms were solicited, and four acceptable responses were received. The proposal of Odgers Berndtson of Brussels was chosen, and the committee is now working actively with them. The committee, in cooperation with Odgers Berndtson, has developed a candidate profile to be used in our search efforts. The profile is a condensation of the Board's thinking and comments from the community and others, to help potential candidates understand the required skills and experience. The larger and richer set of characteristics of the new CEO, developed through community consultations, will be fully utilized in the evaluation of candidates. A job description is prepared separately. The CEO Candidate Profile may be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/ceo-search/ceo-candidate-profile-01dec11…>http://www.icann.org/en/committees/ceo-search/ceo-candidate-profile-01dec11… [PDF, 576 KB]. Members of the community are encouraged to consult the profile and assist in encouraging excellent candidates to interest themselves in the position. The committee has decided that all inquiries and expressions of interest regarding the ICANN CEO position should be sent directly to Odgers Berndtson. The following e-mail address has been established for this purpose: <mailto:ceo-icann@odgersberndtson.be>ceo-icann(a)odgersberndtson.be This address is now operational and available for use. All expressions of interest the CEO search should be sent directly to this address. Finally, the committee is currently involved in finalizing the job description, discussing advertising strategy, and assessing a compensation package for the new CEO. The committee intends to keep the community informed of its progress on a periodic basis.

1 0

IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Hello, I sent this first to the NARALO list because -- at least superficially -- this is a US domestic event. I copied it here because -- let's face it -- hearings about ICANN in the US government have potential consequences that go far beyond regional boundaries. If you have the time I think you'll find the video interesting. ------------------------- This morning, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the ICANN new gTLD program. The web page describing the hearing, which includes a video of the entire 90-minute session, is at http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH I am told that it will soon be uploaded to the Committee's YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/SenateCommercePress Among the speakers are - Kurt Pritz, ICANN VP - Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers who is trying to block the new gTLD program - Fiona Alexander with the US NTIA - Angela Williams of the US YMCA (speaking after deliberation with ICANN's Non-Profit Organization Constituency) - Esther Dyson, former ICANN Board member (and ALAC member from the pre-RALO days when ALAC was all-appointed) It's VERY interesting listening. Kurt's message -- that adequate protections are in place in the program to deter large amounts of money spent on defensive registrations -- was not well received. In contrast, the committee heard about several instances -- in some cases by the Senators themselves -- who were the victims of cybersquatting and domain speculators. All other speakers were critical of the program and some were even asking if the US government has the authority to block the roll-out from happening in January as ICANN intends. Interesting note amongst the comments... many orgs have found themselves needing to buy defencive registrations in .XXX and are livid at the thought of having to do a bunch more for future TLDs. (For instance, Indiana University has purchased "hoosiers.xxx"). Of note to us.... much was made by Kurt of the consensus between stakeholders. Dan shot that down in relation to business users and Angela said the NPOC wasn't allowed to become a real stakeholder group in time to have an impact on decisions already made. Esther made mention at the end that the real constituency not yet heard from (at least by the Senators) was the billions of Internet end users. Mention was made that the committee now needs to hear from them. This sounds like an opportunity to me. Now... I don't know if one has to be a US citizen to testify; if not the ALAC Chair or vice chairs (of which I am one) would all be good candidates and in fact the international character of ALAC sends a useful message IMO. But if the requirement is to be a US resident, I have complete and utter faith that NARALO's own leadership includes people (Beau, Ganesh, Eduardo) who could easily step into the role and do the community proud. Further to this, I would like to raise the issue as an agenda item on Monday's NARALO call and I would like us to consider letting the Committee know that there is indeed a group within ICANN that exists to provide the voice of Internet end-users, Thank you. - Evan

4 3

New GISWatch report 2011 published
by Wolf Ludwig Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Dear all, some of you may have noticed previous editions of the Global Information Society Watch (GISW) reports, annually published by APC, already. This year’s focus was on human rights and online freedoms what is also of interest for the At-Large and user community. Among the authors you can find some representatives of our community as well. Please spread the announcement in your regions – thanks. _____ New report on Internet and democracy is dedicated to the Arab revolutions THURSDAY DECEMBER 8 2011, Johannesburg (APC and Hivos) – Launching on December 10 - Human Rights Day-- the Global Information Society Watch 2011 report investigates how governments and internet and mobile phone companies are restricting freedom online - and how citizens are responding using the very same technologies. Everyone is familiar with the stories of Egypt and Tunisia. GISWatch authors tell these and other lesser-known stories from over fifty countries including: * PRISON CONDITIONS IN ARGENTINA Prisoners are using the internet protest living conditions and demand respect for their rights. * TORTURE IN INDONESIA The torture of two West Papuan farmers was recorded on a mobile phone and leaked to the internet. The video spread to well-known human rights sites sparking public outrage and a formal investigation by the authorities. * THE TSUNAMI IN JAPAN Citizens used social media to share actionable information during the devastating tsunami, and in the aftermath online discussions contradicted misleading reports coming from state authorities. Other countries include China, Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan. “Written by internationally-renowned experts, the report brings its readers easy-to-read and yet comprehensive articles, many with policy proposals, on the most important challenges protecting human rights on the internet is facing today,” says lawyer Matthias C. Kettemann, co-chair of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. “The report's country studies – which are in turn saddening, moving, uplifting – shed light on how the internet can truly be a catalyst for change – and how it can be misused.” In his preface to the report Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression says “GISWatch 2011 offers timely commentary on the future of the internet as an open and shared platform that everyone has the right to access.” GISWatch 2011 also includes expert reports from: * Egyptian blogger Ramy Raoof on the the role of the internet in the wave of recent social resistance in North Africa * Alex Comninos on revolutions and cyber crackdowns in the Middle East and North Africa * Ron Deibert (Open Net Initiative) on cyberwarfare and counter-terrorism: implications for an open and free internet * Joe McNamee (EDRI) on internet intermediaries - the border control guards who get to monitor and censor your content simply because they host your information * Ben Wagner on Who profits from restricting speech? Global Information Society Watch 2011 Internet rights and democratisation - Focus on freedom of expression and association online Published by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Hivos The report is available online for download at www.giswatch.org from December 8. ____ Regards, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

2 1

Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by Beau Brendler Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

I'm not sure NARALO has ever taken aboard an agenda item suggested by EURALO, but I'm not territorial, consider it firmly placed on the agenda and consider yourself invited to speak on the topic (if you want to). The call is at 3 p.m. US EST on Monday. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: sandra hoferichter <info(a)hoferichter.eu> >Sent: Dec 8, 2011 4:32 PM >To: 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org>, 'ICANN ALAC list' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs > >Dear Evan, > >thank you for this first hand summary of the hearing. > >< Further to this, I would like to raise the issue as an agenda item on >Monday's NARALO call and I would like us to consider letting the Committee >know that there is indeed a group within ICANN that exists to provide the >voice of Internet end-users,> > >I think this should be done, raise the voice of ALAC in this discussion, IMO >the Chair and an American citizen could be an option. > >Best Sandra > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Evan Leibovitch >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2011 21:11 >An: ICANN ALAC list >Betreff: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs > >Hello, > >I sent this first to the NARALO list because -- at least superficially -- >this is a US domestic event. I copied it here because -- let's face it -- >hearings about ICANN in the US government have potential consequences that >go far beyond regional boundaries. If you have the time I think you'll find >the video interesting. > > >------------------------- > > >This morning, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and >Transportation held a hearing on the ICANN new gTLD program. > >The web page describing the hearing, which includes a video of the entire >90-minute session, is at http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH >I am told that it will soon be uploaded to the Committee's YouTube channel >at http://www.youtube.com/user/SenateCommercePress > >Among the speakers are > > - Kurt Pritz, ICANN VP > - Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers who is trying to > block the new gTLD program > - Fiona Alexander with the US NTIA > - Angela Williams of the US YMCA (speaking after deliberation with > ICANN's Non-Profit Organization Constituency) > - Esther Dyson, former ICANN Board member (and ALAC member from the > pre-RALO days when ALAC was all-appointed) > >It's VERY interesting listening. Kurt's message -- that adequate >protections are in place in the program to deter large amounts of money >spent on defensive registrations -- was not well received. In contrast, the >committee heard about several instances -- in some cases by the Senators >themselves -- who were the victims of cybersquatting and domain >speculators. All other speakers were critical of the program and some were >even asking if the US government has the authority to block the roll-out >from happening in January as ICANN intends. > >Interesting note amongst the comments... many orgs have found themselves >needing to buy defencive registrations in .XXX and are livid at the thought >of having to do a bunch more for future TLDs. (For instance, Indiana >University has purchased "hoosiers.xxx"). > >Of note to us.... much was made by Kurt of the consensus between >stakeholders. Dan shot that down in relation to business users and Angela >said the NPOC wasn't allowed to become a real stakeholder group in time to >have an impact on decisions already made. Esther made mention at the end >that the real constituency not yet heard from (at least by the Senators) >was the billions of Internet end users. Mention was made that the committee >now needs to hear from them. > >This sounds like an opportunity to me. > >Now... I don't know if one has to be a US citizen to testify; if not the >ALAC Chair or vice chairs (of which I am one) would all be good candidates >and in fact the international character of ALAC sends a useful message IMO. >But if the requirement is to be a US resident, I have complete and utter >faith that NARALO's own leadership includes people (Beau, Ganesh, Eduardo) >who could easily step into the role and do the community proud. > >Further to this, I would like to raise the issue as an agenda item on >Monday's NARALO call and I would like us to consider letting the Committee >know that there is indeed a group within ICANN that exists to provide the >voice of Internet end-users, > >Thank you. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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+(ALA >C) > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2011

Nov. 28, 2011

Thanks. Regarding proxy registrations, some people read the current contracts as not allowing them, but that is moot at this point, since they have been going on for a long time now and ICANN has never tried to stop them. Certainly for .net and .com, it is far too late to put the genie back in the bottle. So no change from thin to thick whois is going to alter the current situation. Or at least, that is how I read it. Alan At 28/11/2011 05:35 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: >Alan > >I'm pro thick whois but only where policy locally can support proxy >registration services on proviso there are processes to deal with >specific cases of abuse (technical, administrative, >ownership). This needs to be local so that local jurisdictions can >establish their own flavour of policies and provide registrants and >users with choice and information. > >Imposing a one size fits all global policy on all localities tends >to lead to technical suspensions of domains due to registration >inaccuracies (deliberate or not) rather than for the underlying >problem behaviour. This has the capacity to increase instabilities >in the DNS. Choice for users and registrants depends largely on >maintaining an Internet environment where local policies have room >to effectively exist and be available to users globally. > >Many domain owners have legitimate reasons to need privacy. This >need for privacy where it exists should not be used a rationale by >Registry or Registrar operators to control (own) as a trade secret >the information in their registries. It should in my view be there >to support registrants within an environment of local safeguards for users. > >A PDP should re-address the importance of the local dimensions for >Internet Policy development and management in my view. In other >words be bottom up not simply in developing a policy but most >importantly in its day to day management. > > > >Christian > >On 22 Nov 2011, at 01:08, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > One of the recommendations of the IRTP-B Policy Development Process > > (PDP) was for the GNSO to investigate requiring all gTLD Registries > > to use a "Thick" Whois. > > > > With thick Whois, all of the Whois information related to a > > registration is maintained by the Registry. With "Thin" Whois, the > > only information maintained by the Registry is the current status of > > the registration and identification of who the sponsoring Register > > is; the rest of the information and specifically that related to the > > Registrant is kept by the Registrar, making Whois a widely > > distributed database. > > > > Currently most Registries use thick Whois, and thick Whois is > > required for all gTLDs to be created under the new gTLD program. The > > only Registries that use thin Whois are operated by Verisign, but > > these of course include .com and .net which constitute the majority > > of gTLD registrations. > > > > In response to the IRTP-B recommendation, the GNSO requested and > > Issue Report and a preliminary version is now available and has been > > posted for public comment. Comments on this document will be received > > until 30 December, 2011. See > > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…. > > > > The report confirms that the issue is within the scope of ICANN and > > the GNSO and recommends that the GNSO initiate a Policy Development > > Process on the issue. > > > > The primary purpose of this comment period is to ensure that the > > Issue Report does indeed address all of the relevant aspects of the > > issue. However, it will likely also be the only formal opportunity > > for the ALAC to state whether it recommends that a PDP should be > > initiated or not. > > > > I have not yet reviewed the document in sufficient depth to say > > whether I feel that it is complete, but on an initial review, it > > looks fine. My personal belief is that the ALAC should strongly > > support the initiation of a PDP on this issue. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

[Balancing Rights - European Court of Justice] #Intellectual Property #ISP #privacy
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 25, 2011

Nov. 25, 2011

Interestingly, the European Court of Justice ruled today, in a unrelated case, that > privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be superseded by other interests, and > certainly not in a disproportionate manner. As you say, unrelated. But nice, very nice. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.… http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=… James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre(a)jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org The significance of this Judgment is in relation to how they dealt with the prioritisation of rights, that is the rights if intellectual property owners, the rights of ISPs to conduct their business freely and the rights of consumers to privacy. "The injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system involve a systematic analysis of all content [ISPs cannot afford this and at the end of the day, this cost would be borne by customers somehow] and the collection and identification of users' IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified". (Highlighted portion is mine) The consideration in how the Judges arrived at their decision is on [para 52, 53] where there is no guarantee that lawful content would not be blocked. After considering all the rights stemming from the Directives listed in para 55, the courts held in favour of "privacy" of consumers that is fundamental rights trumping when reading all of the Directives together. Although the European Court of Justice recommended that harmonization take place. Some may recall a thread initiated by Carlton attaching Geist's article. I apologise for repeating previous posts but am doing so in case there are those that did not read the other threads. Most of us are aware of the controversial bill that was debated in US Congress called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) which has had a few multinationals raising a ruckus for obvious reasons. The Bill is accessible here:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c11213UD8d: Whilst some of you may wonder what that has to do with us who do not live in the United States of America, that Bill will force the taking down of websites if there are infringements to intellectual property rights. Well before the SOPA, the US Government took down a Spanish Website called Rojadirecta even though the Spanish government and people protested and their Petition: See: https://www.eff.org/files/Petition%20for%20Release%20of%20Seized%20Goods%20…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> You can see the extra-territorial jurisdictional implications through that example. You can also read a lighter version here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/us-government-rojadirecta-owners-must-p…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> (I apologise that this is a secondary source) There is also an interesting perspective by Geist via http://www.thestar.com/article/1085475--geist-internet-belongs-to-us-u-s-ar…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> (I am re-attaching this link that was initially sent by Carlton) As pointed out by James S Tyre during the discussions on the other thread, the European Court of Justice handed down a decision. I found this Judgment interesting in the wake of the controversies surrounding SOPA. To see impact of SOPA, read the Summary, Problems and Implications of the SOPA visit http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> There are some interesting developments by the European Court of Justice on the prioritisation of rights, where EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files, see the Press Release: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> The actual Judgment that was just released on the 24th November, 2011 is available here: http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=…<https://www.tflwebmail.com.fj/owa/redir.aspx?C=ea557e11430047ab9ac9834c05d4…> Whilst this is true for ISPs, it also is interesting to see the manner in which IP addresses is viewed by the European Court of Justice in the Judgment which makes the Judgments interesting. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

LACRALO regional advice to ALAC re: ISOC-CR ALS Application
by José Francisco Arce Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

Dear All, LACRALO has reviewed the ALS Application from the ISOC Costa Rica Chapter (ISOC-CR) and recommends that the ALS application be accepted. Both the LACRALO chair and secretariat note the following: * The LACRALO President met the ISOC-CR President, Carlos Carazo at the regional IGF event in Trinidad and Tobago in August 2011. * We have reviewed the information provided on the form and ISOC-CR's website and have found it sufficient, and futher note that it is hosting an ISOC event, in collaboration with ICANN in November 2011. * The LACRALO President has clarified the answer provided to Question 3 in the ISOC-CR's ALS application form. Question 3 states "Provide support for the statement that your Organization is self-supporting (by answering "yes" you confirm that it will not rely on ICANN for funding)". While the response in the form was "NO", the LACRALO President has confirmed with ISOC-CR's President that the question was misunderstood and that ISOC-CR is a self-supporting organisation and does not rely on ICANN for funding. Kind Regards, Jose Francisco Arce LACRALO President Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat For all the above LACRALO advice is to approve the ISOC Costa Rica application.

2 1

Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

One of the recommendations of the IRTP-B Policy Development Process (PDP) was for the GNSO to investigate requiring all gTLD Registries to use a "Thick" Whois. With thick Whois, all of the Whois information related to a registration is maintained by the Registry. With "Thin" Whois, the only information maintained by the Registry is the current status of the registration and identification of who the sponsoring Register is; the rest of the information and specifically that related to the Registrant is kept by the Registrar, making Whois a widely distributed database. Currently most Registries use thick Whois, and thick Whois is required for all gTLDs to be created under the new gTLD program. The only Registries that use thin Whois are operated by Verisign, but these of course include .com and .net which constitute the majority of gTLD registrations. In response to the IRTP-B recommendation, the GNSO requested and Issue Report and a preliminary version is now available and has been posted for public comment. Comments on this document will be received until 30 December, 2011. See http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…. The report confirms that the issue is within the scope of ICANN and the GNSO and recommends that the GNSO initiate a Policy Development Process on the issue. The primary purpose of this comment period is to ensure that the Issue Report does indeed address all of the relevant aspects of the issue. However, it will likely also be the only formal opportunity for the ALAC to state whether it recommends that a PDP should be initiated or not. I have not yet reviewed the document in sufficient depth to say whether I feel that it is complete, but on an initial review, it looks fine. My personal belief is that the ALAC should strongly support the initiation of a PDP on this issue.

1 0