- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 6, 2017

April 6, 2017

Dear all, in preparation for ICANN 59 please help us submit high interest topics so we can add them to the pool that will be discussed by the planning team. The deadline to submit topics is April 13 so we would really appreciate receiving your submissions on April 12 at the latest as we still need to fill the corresponding forms. You will also find a draft block schedule of the meeting so you can begin to have a taste of how our schedule will look like. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [Soac-leaders-icann59] Cross Community Topic Submission Form > Fecha: 5 de abril de 2017, 10:35:33 GMT-5 > Para: "soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org" <soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org> > > Dear Community Leaders: > > As discussed, please find a document attached with links to submit your topic proposals as well as a copy of our latest block schedule. > > Also, I thought it would be helpful to provide this group with the definition of outreach created by the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). > > Outreach Activities are defined as activities conducted by SO/AC groups or cross-community groups with the intention of increasing awareness and interest in ICANN with individuals and organizations outside of the ICANN community. > > ● These activities are consistent with ICANN’s function and mission. In ICANN’s global multistakeholder model, policy is developed in a bottom-up fashion, a process that is enhanced and strengthened by reaching out to external communities, educating them about ICANN and encouraging them to participate if they wish. > > Outreach takes many forms; Fellowships, NextGen, Newcomer’s Day, Tech Day, DNSSEC Workshops, OCTO Trainings, Regional Engagement, and more. > > Thanks again for your participation on today’s call. > > Best regards, > Tanzanica > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Tanzanica S. King > Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design > ICANN > > Office +1 310 301 5800 > Mobile +1 310 995 3038 > Email king(a)icann.org <mailto:king@icann.org> > www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>_______________________________________________ > Soac-leaders-icann59 mailing list > Soac-leaders-icann59(a)icann.org <mailto:Soac-leaders-icann59@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icann59>

6 5

Effect of Chinese Domain name Investments
by Carlton Samuels April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

....not sure what this says about the health of the market but it seems to me a perfectly rational market response.....except maybe to the mavens of the marketplace. What could be interesting is to see how the RySG interprets this development, especially in context of the request for marketing support from ICANN. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/05/official-data-show-effects-chinese-dom… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 5, 2017

April 5, 2017

Hello everyone, This is something we need to analyze thoroughly and comment on I believe. Best regards, León > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: "ICANN News Alert" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> > Asunto: [icann-board] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee > Fecha: 31 de marzo de 2017, 18:47:19 GMT-6 > Para: <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Responder a: no-reply(a)external.icann.org > > <http://www.icann.org/>News Alert > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-31-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-03-31-en> > Proposed Fundamentals Bylaws Changes to Move the Board Governance Committee's Reconsideration Process Responsibilities to Another Board Committee > 31 March 2017 > > Open Date: 31 March 2017 Close Date: 10 May 2017 > Originating Organization: Legal > Categories/Tags: Accountability/Transparency, Bylaws > Brief Overview: ICANN is posting for public comment proposed Fundamental Bylaws revisions that would move the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) responsibilities for the Reconsideration process as set forth under Article 4, Section 4.2 of the Bylaws to the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC). No other changes to the Reconsideration process are proposed or anticipated as a result of these Bylaws modifications. > Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en> > > This message was sent to icann-board(a)icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> from: > ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org <mailto:no-reply@external.icann.org> | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20666176&l=6333&s=RSGT&m=10…> _______________________________________________ > icann-board mailing list > icann-board(a)icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board>

6 6

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Fundamental bylaws revisions for public comment
by Maureen Hilyard April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Hi Bastiaan As an initial explanation,I am passing on this message which I have just received from a ccNSO member to other ccTLD managers about why they should respond to this request. Its basic but it encourages the members to participate in their new rights as the Empowered Community. Maureen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> Date: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Fundamental bylaws revisions for public comment To: ccnso-council(a)icann.org Dear fellow ccTLD-managers The following is a personal opinion, sent in my capacity as a ccTLD manager, not as a ccNSO Council Member> When you read the proposal at the end of the link you may well feel that it is unimportant or irrelevant. For reasons I will explain here, I would encourage you not to take that view. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-bgc-2017-03-31-en. > It may seems at first quite strange that ICANN is proposing to change Fundamental Bylaws so soon after they were all set up, at great expense of time and money. However, on closer inspection, this proposed change is quite routine, beneficial and appears to be proposed for good reason. Why is it important? Well, it's important for the reason that this is the first time that the Empowered Community powers need to be exercised. It's important, I suggest, exactly because it's a harmless (in my opinion) and positive change. This means that we (the ccNSO as part of the Community) can focus on making sure that the Powers and the structure works well. If we do not participate, or pass it off as unimportant, then the whole purpose of the transition and Empowerment will be, in my opinion, diminished. So with that in mind, I encourage all of you to read the proposal, and express your views, here on the list, and elsewhere. That way a response based on the positive approval of the ccNSO members (as distinct from a mere lack of disapproval) can be made. With that in mind I confirm that both .GG and .JE support the proposed Bylaw changes. Nigel Roberts _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council

2 1

Judge Orders Verisign to Transfer/Repatriate the Domain Name
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

.....interestingly, the action was filed 'in rem' - meaning to be enforced where the property is located - even though the WHOIS record showed an Egypt address. Again highlighting the role US courts can play in domain name disputes. http://domainnamewire.com/2017/04/03/judge-orders-verisign-transfer-costari… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

As the world turns........ ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> Date: Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:16 PM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, avri(a)apc.org Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/ correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it *is * the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt(a)kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

5 7

Performance Metrics for 2015AGM-2016AGM
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Dear All, ALAC Members & ALAC Liaisons Performance Metrics for 2015AGM-2016AGM period is now posted on the wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/4xC4Aw>. Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: <https://atlarge.icann.org/> atlarge.icann.org Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> facebook.com/icann<facebook.com/icannatlarge><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> @<@ICANNAtLarge><https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<@ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png]

1 0

FYI - VOTE RESULT: EURALO Vote: RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report
by Ariel Liang April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

FYI - EURALO ratified the RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report. Thank you, Ariel From: <euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2017 at 8:50 AM To: "euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [EURO-Discuss] VOTE RESULT: EURALO Vote: RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report Dear All, This is to let you know that the EURALO ratification vote on the RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report is now closed. *** Question: Do you support the ratification of the RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report for the communication to relevant parties? *** As at Poll close: Saturday 01 April 2017 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 22 · Group size: 36 · Percentage voted: 61.11 Ranked by votes RankVote Option IDVote OptionVotes% 115883917Yes2090.91 215883918No14.55 215883919Abstain14.55 To read the final Statement, please download the PDF document in the “RALO Response” tab here: https://community.icann.org/x/KJjRAw[community.icann.org]. == To confirm: EURALO ratified the RALO Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report. You may view the result independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=7078L2ELPgPFg9scVC5zwbY4[bigpulse… ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org[atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann[facebook.com]atlarge[facebook.com] Twitter: @[twitter.com]ICANNAtLarge[twitter.com]

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-LT] In progress - RSVP - Urgent - Additional Travel Slot
by Maureen Hilyard April 2, 2017

April 2, 2017

Carlton or Aida. My choices But if the CCRT group is going to do a presentation in Jo'burg then perhaps Carlton would* have *to be there (if he isn't already covered) Both from the same RALO. On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > Folks > > Just a word first for Carlton - we are developing comments on the CCRT > review, and while they will be due before J’burg, there will be follow on - > the Committee will have to consider comments. I also think John could be > good. He had useful things to say on the Review and, by that stage we will > be developing recommendations for the Board (and/or Committee) and his > would be a useful voice. I also note that Aida has been working on the > review so the same goes > > Holly > On 2 Apr 2017, at 2:38 am, Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > Dear Alan and ALT, > > I am following up on Carlton and Daniel. We should have something by > Monday. > > I have informed Constituency Travel that we are working on this travel > slot. > > Thnk you. > Kind regards, > Gisella > > *From: *<alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan > Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > *Date: *Saturday, 1 April 2017 at 16:12 > *To: *Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr < > langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > *Cc: *"ALAC Leadership Team (ALT)" <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [ALAC-LT] RSVP - Urgent - Additional Travel Slot > > With a typical RALO cancellation, the slot stays in the region to give > them their 5 travellers. In this case, Leon is still going and they have > their 5. > > However, Aida is also a possible candidate in my mind. > > So we have on the table: > > Carlton Samuels (if he is not already funded -staff to verify) > John Laprise (active in NARALO and CCWG) > Daniel Nanghaka (active in RDS PDP (Staff to verify)) > Jahangir Hossain (I presume from past records) > Aida Noblia (has put a lot of effort into attending meeting and working on > review despite language difficulties) > > Can we hear a bit more about rational for Jahangir and support for any of > these candidates. And if staff could get answers to questions (despite it > now being Saturday), that would help. > > Alan > > > > At 01/04/2017 07:58 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > Sorry for the late reaction (not in Tunis). > > I believe that this slot could go to Aida who is from LACRALO (the RALO of > the available slot), and who was active in several of the policy > discussions. She also attended the Copenhagen meeting, and she was always > present in all our ALAC sessions. I believe she deserves to be given this > slot to encourage her to continue. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA*Executive Director > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114> > +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------- > > > > > Le 1 avr. 2017 Ã 00:45, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> a > Ã©crit : > > I am happy to suggest Jahangir > > On 1 Apr. 2017 10:36, "Maureen Hilyard" < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com > <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > That is great. We have just filled a spare APRALO slot because Ali cant > come - had two close contenders for one slot. Cheryl chose.. but had > leanings to the loser as well. If the spot is still vacant in the last > hour, can we have it? > > On 31/03/2017 1:31 pm, "Heidi Ullrich" <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org > wrote: > > Hi Maureen, > > > > Dev is being covered by the ICANN Onboarding Program. He is the At-Large > mentor. > > > > Kind regards > > Heidi > > > From: alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto: > alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 4:30 PM > To: Gisella Gruber <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org > > Cc: ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) < alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>>; Alan Greenberg < > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > Subject: Re: [ALAC-LT] RSVP - Urgent - Additional Travel Slot > > > > I agreed with Olivier about inviting Dev who is asked to contribute to > many meetings with regards to technical issues as well as chairs the TTF > and the O&E WGs. > > Has he been asked? > > On 31/03/2017 12:37 pm, "Gisella Gruber" <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > We have reached the deadline of 31 March today (still a couple of hours to > go Pacific time)! â˜º > > > > I have to submit the At-Large funded travelers by COB. > > > > Have you had any further thought? Next step is to check whether that > person is available to travel. > > > Thank you! > Kind regards, > > Gisella > > > From: < alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Gisella Gruber > <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org > > Date: Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 23:38 > To: LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Alan Greenberg < > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > Cc: "ALAC Leadership Team (ALT)" < alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC-LT] Urgent - Additional Travel Slot > > > > Dear Leon, > > > > If you are referring to Sarah Kiden, yes as the 2nd AFRALO Leadership > Slot. Mohamed will be travelling under his ALS. > > > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Gisella > > > From: < alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of LeÃ³n Felipe > SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx > > Date: Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 23:34 > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > Cc: "ALAC Leadership Team (ALT)" < alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > > Subject: Re: [ALAC-LT] Urgent - Additional Travel Slot > > > > We should copy ITEMS just to prove that travel is not something anyone in > At-Large dies for! ;-) > > > > Is Sarah funded? > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > LeÃ³n > > > > El 30/03/2017, a las 14:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > escribiÃ³: > > > Any really active CCWG ACCT people come to mind? We could have him/her > come a day early and leave a day early? > -- > > Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > > On March 30, 2017 1:30:41 PM CDT, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Surely he wouldâ€‹ (or should be) supported by the Community On-boarding > Program... (Which I might point out is not a Policy activity and Joberg is > a Policy Meeting... Is there no-one not already travel supported, that is > actually involved in Policy work ATM??? > > > > On 31 Mar. 2017 05:23, "Maureen Hilyard" < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com > <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > > I support Olivier's suggestion. > > On 30/03/2017 8:08 am, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > as Dev Anand Teelucksingh has been doing so much work on working groups, > including the Outreach & Engagement, and this forthcoming meeting is not > only a Policy Forum, but also an Outreach meeting, may I suggest that he > should qualify for this? > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > On 30/03/2017 17:52, Gisella Gruber wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Any suggestions further to Alanâ€™s email? > > > > Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Gisella > > > > On 29/03/2017, 02:28, " alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg" > < alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <alac-excom-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: > > > > As Leon's travel is on behalf of the Board, we have an extra slot > > which we can use. Before I go to a wider group, are there any > > suggestion as to how this may be used? > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ > atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_alac-2Dexcom&d= > DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=Pqnml > D10aN3cxIHyiUf_hNf25P6Dsv7dJM6flBzRrBs&m=Yll1CFC0QhqIwpxgc0D > UvVkPAk6HYu5Z6TDPSS0X3Xk&s=M6T1bUUqpH1UIOZQjVqSqJNAexeeILcjjeGF3VadUpU&e = > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-exco > m[atlarge-lists.icann.org[atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > ] > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org[atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > ] > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org[atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > ] > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org[atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > ] > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org[atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > ] > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom[ > atlarge-lists.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.…> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-ExCom mailing list > ALAC-ExCom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Motion on IDN TLD Confusion
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

Seun, you have come full-circle in this discussion. We re-opened the issue because by letting our statement stand we were sending a message that we supported the ccNSO WG report as submitted, and this support was being used as a prime rationale for not acting on SSAC advice. The ccNSO did raise the issue of other potential confusing situations. Some of those are due to ISO-3166-2 and there is little we can do about that. Some is due to what I consider really bad decisions we made in the new gTLD process, and thankfully there is a strong move to not make those mistakes again. In my mind, we cannot eliminate confusion, but we should not do things that make it worse. Alan At 28/03/2017 04:51 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >I feel a quite uncomfortable with revoking the >previous ALAC statement because i feel that >could send a wrong signal about how important we >take IDNs. During the meeting with the ccNSO, >they highlighted some other instances of >confusability which already exist within the >gTLD which isn't seen as an issue, why this is >so peculiar still alludes me. I would have >preferred we add an updated statement >highlighting our support for timely >implementation of the IDN TLDs while noting the >point raised in bullet one instead of revoking in totality. > >That said, I have seen that our ccNSO liaison is >fine with the statement hence I will rely on her >judgement on this one. Nevertheless, I would >prefer that we modify the second bullet point to the following: > >"The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to >find a path forward that will not >compromise the rigour of confusability >evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs." > >My rationale for the above that I do not think >this is a security and stability issue to the root. > >I will try to join the call for as long as >possible before nature fully takes over :) >@Staff kindly pen me down for dialout. > >Regards > >On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >In Copenhagen, we decided that subject to final >wording, we would revisit our earlier decision. >I propose the following motion which I think >fully matches our discvussion. We will discuss >it on the ALAC call tomorrow, and either vote on >it during the call of via an online vote to start following the call. > >Alan >=========================== > >Whereas: >The ALAC believes that the avoidance of user >confusion in the use of domain names is of paramount importance; >The ALAC believes that the deployment of IDN TLDs should be expedited; >On 24 August 2016, the ALAC issued Statement >AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN supporting the >recommendations of the ccNSO Extended Process >Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) Working Group >(see ><https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw>https://community.icann.org/x/Ag6bAw) >On 31 August 2016, the SSAC released its >Advisory SAC084 ( >https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-085-en.pdf) >raising security and stability concerns based on >potential user confusability with the proposed process; >During ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the ALAC met with >both the SSAC and the ccNSO to discuss the issue; >The ALAC was made aware of a possible >methodology to resolve the issue specifically, >accept that at two character IDN string may bbe >confusingly similar in its own right, but that >the impact on end-users could be mitigated by registry policy; >If such mitigation is committed to by the >registry and is considered as part of the >evaluation process, the issue of user confusion can be reduced; >Therefore: >The ALAC rescinds its statement AL-ALAC-ST-0816-01-00-EN. >The ALAC encourages all concerned bodies to find >a path forward that will not compromise security >and stability or the rigour of confusability >evaluation processes while ensuring timely deployment of IDN TLDs. > >At 18/03/2017 05:01 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >>Understandyou know thhe community better than >>me. And I thought there was more than Wafa, but good if that is not the case. >> >>Cheers, Julie >> >>On 18 Mar 2017, at 6:43 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >> >>Actually, probably the other way around. Since >>out discussion focused on mitigation, not >>mentioning that may trigger some concern. In >>any case, I think the only holdout will be >>Wafa, and I will do use back-channels to make >>sure that Maureen, Andrei and Javier are ok. >>But if there is any pus-hback, you we will talk. >> >>Alan >> >>At 18/03/2017 02:48 AM, Julie Hammer wrote: >>>Hi Alan, >>> >>>I have been thinking about this a little >>>further after our brief chat on Thursday after >>>I showed it to you. You were considering >>>saying a little more than I have drafted >>>below, but I think it may be prudent to keep >>>the statement minimalist, as I have tried to >>>do in this draft. My thinking is that you >>>want to get this through the vote, and the >>>more you put in it, the more opportunity there >>>is for ALAC Members to either disagree or try >>>to wordsmith. You already know that you have >>>a few who wish to support the ccNSO position >>>(who perhaps donÃÂ¢â¬t understand the >>>technical argument, or who simply donÃÂ¢t >>>wa want to know), so the more >>>non-controversial you make this statement, the >>>better chance you have of getting them to >>>agree. If this doesnÃÂ¢t gt get through, >>>then that would be a really big win for the >>>ccNSO and they may well try to capitalize on >>>it. That in turn may seriously complicate >>>the delicate discussions that are continuing >>>between them, the Board and the SSAC. >>> >>>Just my thoughts, for what theyÃÂ¢re worth. bsp; :-) >>> >>>Cheers, Julie >>> >>>On 16 Mar 2017, at 7:49 PM, Julie Hammer >>><<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>julie.hammer(a)bigpond.com > wrote: >>> >>>Hi Alan, >>> >>>Just some words to think about, should you feel they are appropriate: >>> >>>Extended Process Similarity Review Panel >>> >>>On 24 August 2016, the ALAC released a >>><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/pd…>Public >>>Comment in support of the ccNSO >>><http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/proposed-epsrp-guidelines-23jun16-en.p…>EPSRP >>>Working GroupÃÂ¢s Proposed Guidelines a> >>>for the evaluation of confusing similarity in >>>IDN ccTLDs. On 31 August, the SSAC released >>><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>SAC084 >>>highlighting security and stability concerns >>>with the proposed process based on user >>>confusability. Taking into consideration the >>>ongoing discussions between the ICANN Board, >>>the ccNSO and the SSAC to resolve these >>>different views, the ALAC wishes to withdraw >>>its earlier expression of support and reserve >>>its judgement on this issue until these differences are resolved. >>> >>>Cheers, Julie > >_______________________________________________ >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… > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! >

1 0