- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Motion on IDN TLD Confusion
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

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>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 be 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 donÃ¢t understand the technical >>argument, or who simply donÃ¢t want to know), >>so the more non-controversial you make this >>statement, the better chance you have of >>getting them to agree. If this doesnÃ¢t 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 theyÃ¢re worth. :-) >> >>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 GroupÃ¢s Proposed Guidelines 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

7 9

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Invitation: Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level
by Carlton Samuels March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

FYI. This should be of interest to a wide cross-section of us. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:41 AM Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Invitation: Webinar on Geographic Names at the Top Level To: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Dear WG members, As discussed in the WG face-to-face session in Copenhagen, the leadership team is organizing a webinar and session at ICANN59 to promote broad community discussion in the issue of geographic names at the top level, a topic within the WG’s Charter. Please find additional details below. We hope you can join these sessions. Please feel free to share this invitation with any other community members who might be interested in participating. Kind regards, Emily ___________________________________________________________________ The leadership team of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group is *seeking your input* on the issue of *geographic names at the top level*. *All are welcome *and encouraged to participate and contribute their perspectives. The following upcoming activities are intended to facilitate a broad community-wide dialogue on this topic to feed into the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP: *Webinar session on Tuesday 25 April 2017* – Two webinars will take place; one from 15:00-17:00 UTC and the second from 22:00-0:00 UTC. All community members are welcome to submit positions on the treatment of geographic names at the top level to be presented in the webinars. Depending on the number of positions submitted, the sessions may contain the same presentations or different presentations. The webinars will be recorded and archived. Details will follow. - *If you would like to attend the webinar, *please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org <Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org>. Registration is not required, but your response will help us plan and will allow us to send updates to you. - *If you would like to submit a position to present at the webinar, please send an email by 7 April 2017* with your name, group or affiliation (if applicable), and your time zone to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. - *The deadline for presentations is 18 April 2017.* Each presenter will be asked to prepare a 10 minute initial presentation and be available to answer questions on the webinar. We suggest preparing a maximum of 5 slides. If, in addition to the slides, you would like to make a more complete written contribution available, you may do so, and we will distribute those to each of the attendees and make them available to the public. Please send all slides and other contributions to Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. The webinar will be the beginning of a discussion that will continue at ICANN59. The leadership team will be holding an *extended session in Johannesburg to work through the positions presented in the webinars and to propose solutions* seeking common ground on a way forward. Additional information about the webinar and the Johannesburg session will soon be available on the WG wiki page: *https://community.icann.org/x/p77RAw[community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>*. If you have any questions about the webinar or the ICANN59 session, please email Geo-Names-Session(a)icann.org. Kind regards, Avri Doria and Jeff Neuman (WG Co-Chairs) ___________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

2 1

ALS Communications Program - For Discussion
by Alan Greenberg March 15, 2017

March 15, 2017

Please find attached document for discussion on Tuesday. Alan

7 9

ICANN 58 pictures
by Glenn McKnight March 14, 2017

March 14, 2017

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/albums/72157677519884184 Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

RECORDATORIO / Reminder LAC SPACE TODAY from 11-12:15 at HALL C 1.3 ( ALAC place)
by Vanda Scartezini March 13, 2017

March 13, 2017

Agenda: Date: 13th March 2017 Room: Hall C1.3 (ALAC) 11:00 – 12:15 Local time 11:00 – 11:05 Introduction Rodrigo de la Parra ICANN – Vanda Scartezini – Polo Consultores - ALAC 11:05 – 11:30 DNS Entrepreneurship Center (Ceilac) Daniel Fink - ICANN 11:30– 11:55 European DNS market Michele Neylon - Blacknight Solution 11:55 – 12:15 The new gTLDs Vanda Scartezini – Polo Consultores Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!

1 0

Contractual Compliance & Consumer Safeguards
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 10, 2017

March 10, 2017

Hello, ALAC and Regional Leaders: Jamie Hedlund just posted a blog. Have a look as preparation for your engagement with him in Copenhagen. Some new ideas in there focused on collaboration with community. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/six-weeks-in-contractual-compliance-and-con… Best regards, Rinalia

3 4

Fwd: Update from CCWG-IG
by Alan Greenberg March 9, 2017

March 9, 2017

FYI. Alan >From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> >Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 23:24:00 +0900 >Subject: Update from CCWG-IG >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > <ocl(a)gih.com>, Young-eum Lee <yesunhoo(a)gmail.com>, Nigel Hickson > <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, Desiree Cabrera > <desiree.cabrera(a)icann.org> > >Dear Alan, > >I am glad to send you the documents related to the revised charter >of the CCWG-IG, please find attached: >- document with comparison table between the draft revised charter >and CCWG model template >- document with comparison table between the draft revised charter >and the current CCWG-IG charter > >we also prepared an activity report and it will be sent soon by >Olivier. As co-chairs, we will be happy to give an update before >ALAC and explain about the proposed amendments for discussion. > >Best Regards, > >Rafik Dammak > >CCWG-IG Co-chair

1 0

Draft version of "Key Policy Issues of the At-Large Community" slides available for review
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 8, 2017

March 8, 2017

Dear All As part of the work being done for At-Large Community Onboarding, <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Community+Onboarding> the community onbarding members as part of the Outreach and Engagement SC have created a first draft presentation "Key Policy Issues of the At-Large Community". Its based on the Why end users should care Policy Document <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/9895> created last year. The approach is for three slides for each topic: - Policy Summary, along with any informational video links - Why should I care? - At-Large Involvement with links to the comments, the relevant WG , maybe more informational links to learn more about the issue. The slides feature a main menu whereby one can jump to any policy issue. Slides also have a hyperlink back to the main menu so persons can move around the slidedeck. <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Community+Onboarding> The draft presentation can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Key+Policy+Issues+of+the+At-Lar… Comments on the draft presentation are welcomed Dev Anand

3 3

Updated slides for Introduction to At-Large Presentation (March 2017)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 7, 2017

March 7, 2017

The Outreach and Engagement SC (O&E) has updated its presentation about At- Large for use : - to present ICANN At-Large to Fellows or Nextgen at ICANN meetings. - use by ALS representatives to explain what is ICANN At-Large to the members of their organisations. Some notable changes: - stats updated as of March 2017 - the old At-Large organsiational diagram replaced with one done from scratch in the likeness of the organisational diagram in the At-Large Brochure. - changed the wording of a key At-Large activity from "Policy Advice Development" to "Comments on ICANN Activities" in response to the ITEMS At-Large Review draft report (page 22-23) which criticised the use of the term "policy advice" in relation to the ALAC ratified statements and declarations. - number of slides reduced from 21 to 19 The presentation is available at https://community.icann.org/x/qorRAw As always, please review and if you have any comments or suggestions on how to improve on this, let us know Dev Anand O&E chair P.S Also as a FYI, the Technology Taskforce has submitted a budget proposal to link the responses/impacts of ALAC comments to the listing of ALAC comments on At-Large's website.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

I need to stop sending off e-mails late at night which are not sufficiently clear. In my defence, I am on a very tight timeline to finalize the questions for the Board and needed to find out if my analysis was close to acceptable. Like it or not, we WILL be judged, and I think it time that we started to manage the criteria which will be used. Those implied in the survey questions are NOT, in my mind, acceptable and I thought that establishing that first might be a good way to start a more productive discussion with the Board as to what IS reasonable. Alan (heading out for several hours) At 03/03/2017 04:27 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >Hi Alan, > > >I agree with your analysis. > > >Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously >existing, established organizations, some older >that ICANN, that have a life of their own in >their national context. The fact that they have >applied for an ALS status means that their own, >national level goals and interests coincide at >least to some extent with those of ICANN and >that they thus probably defend the interests of >ICANN in their national level multistakeholder >setting. This important role is something that >the review seems to be oblivious of. > > >If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the >classic sense of representative democracy would >be possible, we would have had a world >government long ago... But each ALS can try to >figure out how end users in its particular >environment would be best served and bring forth >their points of view, as you say. To get a >deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and >views of their countries and regions, they might >liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC. > > >Best, > > >Yrjö > > > > > > > > >---------- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org ><alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf >of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei(a)rol.ru> >Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC >Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large >Community - Discussion with the Board > >Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's >approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. >However nothing stops me and any other ALAC >members to express opinion aired by Evan. The >whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and >uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain >cultures through ALSs all over the world into >the best-western style management is insane. >"We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a >geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched >elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. > >--andrei > >2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: >The survey question is, in my mind, deeply >flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get >into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. > >And yes, other communities are now (finally) >being asked the same question, and I think we >are in a better position than most to answer it. > >But back to my original message, we can only use >this as a start if we have a generally agreed >upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. > >Alan > > > >At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>This whole process is insane. >> >>Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it >>represents or speaks for every business -- >>domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC >>asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people >>who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military? >> >>Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry >>-- generally do have reasonably full >>representation, in part because there are >>relatively few players and in part because they >>are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- >>ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies. >> >>But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out >>for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike >>the others -- we wouldn't be able to be >>involved without the charitable resources -- >>travel and staff support -- that ICANN >>bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers >>other communities who believe that we are >>skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. >> >>In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU >>speaking for?" comment has been used whenever >>we have something to say that poses a >>legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's >>standard operation. Hearing that in a debate >>would embolden me because it indicates that our >>logic and evidence was superior and the only >>rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy. >> >>At the end of the day, we do the job that is >>asked of us to the extent we are able -- that >>is, to bring the end-user point of view into >>ICANN to the best of our individual >>capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) >>asks of us and I believe we have generally done >>that as well as possible given the constraints >>in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV >>informed by a geographical and linguistic >>diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except >>for the GAC. But even here we are deeply >>flawed, considering how the regions are sliced >>and a structure that is so complex so as to >>churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input. >> >>Still, there is decent output. I see our policy >>diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection >>that grassroots population don't always share >>the same priorities and perspectives of the >>civil society that is supposedly protecting it. >>This divergence exists on the street, so seeing >>it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large >>is indeed doing a reasonable -- and >>surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective. >> >>Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto >><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >>I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of >>the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC >>ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From >>there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end >>users. >>Regards >> >>Alberto >>-----Mensaje original----- >>De: >><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>[ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >>Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM >>Para: ALAC >><<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the >>Board >>One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in >>CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. >>I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in >>the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the >>A-L Community. >>The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most >>accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? >>There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for >>each option. >>1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members >>that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) >>2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on >>behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) >>3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to >>engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and >>non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) >>4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of >>Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) >>5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests >>and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) >>My analysis: >>1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist >>outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests >>(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests >>of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse >>inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs >>and interests of users world-wide. >>2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if >>the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? >>3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or >>even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of >>respondents really think we do?? >>4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members >>engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we >>mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is >>based on experience with such a community. >>5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they >>meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or >>the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed >>Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve >>the global user community well. >>What do people think of this analysis? >>Alan >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >> >>C) >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Evan Leibovitch >>Toronto, Canada >>Em: evan at telly dot org >>Sk: evanleibovitch >>Tw: el56 > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET

2 1