- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014

Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw through. Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these issues. It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least. One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy service. Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make an additional statement to the WG? Alan At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear All, > >BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues raised >by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. >See >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-en.pdf > >Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular registrar >appear to have been included in the breach notice, including the systemic >Whois inaccuracy complaints. > >Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Fwd: [soac-chairs] FW: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

FYI. This ties in with our support for the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on the IANA issue. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [soac-chairs] FW: Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 16:25:41 +0100 From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Reply-To: jrobinson(a)afilias.info Organization: Afilias To: <soac-chairs(a)icann.org> All, As discussed today. Jonathan *From:*Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] *Sent:* 08 May 2014 22:45 *To:* 'ianatransition(a)icann.org' *Subject:* Proposal for a Cross-Community Working Group Dear ICANN, Please find the following comments regarding an emerging plan for a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) intended to make a substantive contribution to the /the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions./These comments are respectfully submitted for and on behalf of the GNSO Council. Since well prior to the "/Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions/", there has been significant discussion on the substantial issues associated with the transition from NTIA. Some of this discussion has focussed on the prospect of the formation, chartering and working of a Cross-Community Working Group to deal with the key elements of this process. For the avoidance of doubt, the current CWG on Internet Governance has made it clear that its scope will not include detailed work on the NTIA transition. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, an initial proposal for a charter of such a CWG was circulated in the community and this has received some iterations and developments since. It is far from the finished article and nor should it be, since the drafting of a such charter should be the first task of the CWG. Nevertheless, at its meeting today, the GNSO Council agreed to submit the early draft charter to this call for public input in order to commit to record both the early draft charter as a potential starting point and the intention to move forward with the bottom-up formation of a CWG in collaboration with others in the ICANN community. Accordingly, the draft charter is attached to this submission. An additional key point to note is that existing ICANN Community processes and relationships should be used to facilitate this effort as much as possible. This will minimise the need to create new processes and should generally enhance efficiency of the work. Notwithstanding this, modifications can be expected to be needed in order to facilitate and encourage participation by those from outside of the ICANN Community. The use of a CWG with a community defined scope, reflected in a well-defined charter provides the prospect of truly bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process to deal with this critical set of issues. Such a process may well integrate with the ICANN /Draft Proposal/(to be modified in response to this public comment) and we trust that the prospect of a CWG will be recognised by all for its potential value and legitimacy as a bottom-up, community led initiative proposed in good faith and which can be assisted and supported by ICANN as envisaged in the NTIA announcement. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair, ICANN GNSO Council

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [IDN-WG] The Problem of IDNs
by Rafid A. Fatani May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Thank you Rinalia and all, To carry on from Edmons comment, I think the advocacy side of this argument is crucial in order for this agenda item to be handled at the right level. I also agree that this is and should rightfully be attached to the universal acceptance issue. I think Leon point with the RALO's is a valid one, but let's not delude ourselves here, much bigger influencing and marketing forces are required if we are serious about this. So maybe a good starting point to the 'moving forward' discussion needs to take place at ATLAS II - Can this be part of the formal agenda, or is it too late now? Raf On 12 May 2014, at 06:26, Edmon <edmon(a)isoc.hk> wrote: > I think it is very important for ICANN to take the issue of "Universal Acceptance of IDN" seriously and take a central role in the coordination and facilitation of bringing together the stakeholders so that the issue can be addressed. > > The issue in my mind is 2 fold, including 1. a technical side and 2. an advocacy side > > After many years of discussion, I strongly believe ICANN is the right forum and place for this coordination and gathering of stakeholders to take place, even as ICANN itself nor its immediate community can "solve" the issue. > > Following from the JIG Final Report on the issue, of which of course I was very much involved, I hope that ICANN could make this a strategic item, at the level (at least) of advocating for IPv6 and DNSSEC. > > Also, we must start with our own community, the registries and registrars and make sure we have those systems for which ICANN policies can directly influence to be fully IDN aware so that users can not only register IDNs but use them at least to setup nameservers, dns hosting, web hosting and emails. > > In my mind, the ideal approach ICANN could take would be to convene a community wide steering group that would include participants from all organs of ICANN, including ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC, RSSAC in fact ASO as well, but not stop there, ICANN should also help invite participants from other parts of the Internet community including application level organizations e.g. WITSA, as well as W3C, IETF, etc. > > The group should work with an ICANN staff team to produce: > 1. A set of best practices for IDN Acceptance in systems (based on and consolidating from the experience already in the community) > 2. Set of measurements of IDN Acceptance (so we can continue to track and measure our progress) > 3. Continued study measuring IDN Acceptance on the internet (including domain registries and registrars) > > The group does not need to meet all the time like GNSO working groups, we just need to meet maybe 2-3 times a year and keep track of the progress and to make sure we move forward methodically. Such meetings could ideally coincide with ICANN meetings, again where we would invite other parts of the internet community to join. > > Well... the above is my wish :-D > ICANN board seems have not considered the JIG report yet and am not sure what their schedule or priority level is on the issue... Though, here at the APTLD meetings, I heard encouraging presentation from Ed Lewis of ICANN that finally there is a change in the attitude of ICANN staff that ICANN has a role to play in this. > > In any case, as mentioned briefly in Singapore, I think maybe ALAC can take the lead on forming that community wide steering group... > > Edmon > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge- >> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rinalia Abdul Rahim >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:36 AM >> To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >> Cc: Carlton Samuels; No name; ALAC Working List; Don Hollander; apralo >> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC] The Problem of IDNs >> >> Hi, Leon. >> >> A cross-RALO collaboration would be excellent if there is interest in the respective >> RALOs to take on this issue. In the past, RALOs have had different prioritization >> for IDN related issues. I think some awareness-raising is needed among RALOs >> to help them understand the nature of the problem. It is a problem of relevance to >> users worldwide. >> >> A webinar before ATLAS II in London and / or discussion during ATLAS II in >> London would be a good opportunity to do it. Would you be willing to help >> shepherd process (i.e., make sure a discussion happens on the topic)? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:12 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < >> leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> >>> Good information. Thanks Rinalia! >>> >>> I might be stating the obvious, however, this is not a problem that is >>> exclusive to the AP region but to the rest of the regions as well. I >>> see it as a chance to advance in a cross-regional effort in order to >>> create awareness and engage different users and technical communities >>> towards addressing the issue. >>> >>> Could we think of ways in which we could collaborate across RALOs to >>> help solve the problem? Maybe a cross-regional workshop at some forum? >>> >>> What are your thoughts? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> El 09/05/2014, a las 10:07, Carlton Samuels >>> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >>> escribió: >>> >>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >>>> rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application >>>>> level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs >>>>> is >>> arguably a >>>>> success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in >>> seeing >>>>> IDNs succeed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe. But if ICANN were to understand that the application issues >>> impacts >>>> not just the health but a 'stable, secure.....' ecosystem then ICANN >>> would >>>> be well-advised to find a corner and get to working. >>>> >>>> In this era of roiled sensibilities and sensitivities ICANN no >>>> longer has the luxury of being Potiphar's wife; make a claim to be above >> reproach. >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing, Rinalia. Much obliged. >>>> >>>> -Carlton >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================== >>>> Carlton A Samuels >>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >>>> ============================= >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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+Committe >>> e+(ALAC) >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IDN-WG mailing list >> IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg >> >> IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3931/7441 - Release Date: 05/05/14 > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.

1 0

The Problem of IDNs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 12, 2014

May 12, 2014

Colleagues, This is the link to a recent APTLD Report on a survey involving ccTLDs regarding use of IDNs - http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p…. It has statistics from the Asia Pacific and European regions. End user awareness is scored lowest and there is feedback on barriers that limit broad adoption by end users. At the basic level, the problem is that IDNs are not available for use in email, browsers and other applications used by users. Efforts to address the problem are distributed among many parties and they are un-coordinated. There has been some discussions at ICANN on what needs to be done and the role of ICANN. The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably a success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing IDNs succeed. Various suggestions have been made on ICANN's role including convene meetings on the topic, raise awareness about the problem through communications channels, gather and centralize information on efforts underway to inform the community, and coordinate the disparate efforts of un-connected parties, etc. *If there are thoughts on what the role of ICANN should be vis-a-vis the role of the community to address the problem of IDN adoption (as part of solving the Universal Acceptance problem), please share.* *APRALO and APTLD: Perhaps a collaboration on way forward to enhance end user awareness and encourage applications developers to meet the market demand? * Best regards, Rinalia <http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p…>

4 4

WG: [IAMCR] PINGO
by Wolf Ludwig May 11, 2014

May 11, 2014

Hello, let me forward this excellent analyses from Wolfgang Kleinwächter on the NetMundial outcomes reflected in a broader holistic context. This paper could serve as sort of “must read” for participants joining ATLAS II next month in London. Enjoy! Best, Wolf Kleinwächter, Wolfgang sent Sun, 11 May 2014 10:48: >Hi, > >here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sao Paulo Declaration. > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_… > >wolfgang > > > > >-- >International Association for Media and Communication Research | http://www.iamcr.org > >Join IAMCR | http://www.iamcr.org/join >IAMCR 2014 | http://iamcr2014.org/ >IAMCR on Facebook | http://www.facebook.com/iamcr.org >IAMCR 2014 on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/events/173780362805985/ >@IAMCRtweets on Twitter | http://twitter.com/IAMCRtweets > >Announcements mailing list information and policies: http://iamcr.org/mailman/listinfo/announcements_iamcr.org >Unsubscribe: http://iamcr.org/mailman/options/announcements_iamcr.org > 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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Alan Greenberg May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Note that the non-compliant issues 1, 2 and 3 are all associated with an audit to ensure that registries comply with the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the result of the PEDNR PDP that ALAC initiated and saw through. Compliance has been citing a number of registrars in recent days over these issues. It is worthy of note that for some of the Whois accuracy issues that we raised, they fixed these by moving the "proxy service" from non-existent French addresses and non-existent e-mail addresses to a new address is Moscow (probably valid based on Google) and a new e-mail address that at least has a valif domain name. All "interesting" to say the least. One thing I noted that we may want to act on. The e-mail domain address associated with this Russian proxy service is registered via the same proxy service. Holly: Should this be allowed under the new P/P rules being developed. Or even registering their contact address via ANOTHER P/P service. Shoe we make an additional statement to the WG? Alan At 08/05/2014 10:06 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Dear All, > >BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues raised >by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. >See >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-en.pdf > >Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular registrar >appear to have been included in the breach notice, including the systemic >Whois inaccuracy complaints. > >Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. > >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] The Problem of IDNs
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

I agree totally that this problematic issue also opens up opportunity especially for collaborative approaches to some Regionally 'home grown ' solutions... Perhaps we should workshop some ideas in a fora at APrIGF as a complementary activity to Satish's w'shop, as well as other opportunities... The APNIC #38 meeting in Sept in Brisbane perhaps they have called for papers today... CLO from my Mobile phone On 09/05/2014 2:25 pm, "Satish Babu" <director(a)icfoss.in> wrote: > Thanks Rinalia. These are real problems indeed, and the end user community > has yet to benefit from the IDN programme, particularly in the Asia-Pacific > region. > > We are planning a workshop at the forthcoming Delhi APrIGF around the theme > of challenges in implementing IDNs, particularly from the South Asia > perspective (as it has perhaps the highest linguistic diversity in the > world). I'd request you to share your thoughts at the APrIGF on the ways of > addressing these issues. > > > > > > > satish > > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Colleagues, > > > > This is the link to a recent APTLD Report on a survey involving ccTLDs > > regarding use of IDNs - > > > > > http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p… > > . > > > > > > It has statistics from the Asia Pacific and European regions. End user > > awareness is scored lowest and there is feedback on barriers that limit > > broad adoption by end users. > > > > At the basic level, the problem is that IDNs are not available for use in > > email, browsers and other applications used by users. Efforts to address > > the problem are distributed among many parties and they are > > un-coordinated. There has been some discussions at ICANN on what needs > to > > be done and the role of ICANN. > > > > The challenge for ICANN is that it doesn't deal with application level > > problems. Nevertheless, the successful adoption of IDN TLDs is arguably > a > > success measure for ICANN's TLD programme, so ICANN has a stake in seeing > > IDNs succeed. > > > > Various suggestions have been made on ICANN's role including convene > > meetings on the topic, raise awareness about the problem through > > communications channels, gather and centralize information on efforts > > underway to inform the community, and coordinate the disparate efforts of > > un-connected parties, etc. > > > > *If there are thoughts on what the role of ICANN should be vis-a-vis the > > role of the community to address the problem of IDN adoption (as part of > > solving the Universal Acceptance problem), please share.* > > > > *APRALO and APTLD: Perhaps a collaboration on way forward to enhance end > > user awareness and encourage applications developers to meet the market > > demand? * > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > > > > > < > > > http://aptld.org/system/files/survey_report_-_launch_and_use_of_idns_2014.p… > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IDN-WG mailing list > > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > > > IDN WG Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy > > > _______________________________________________ > IDN-WG mailing list > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > IDN WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy >

1 0

ICANN Compliance serves breach notice on BizCN registrar
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh May 9, 2014

May 9, 2014

Dear All, BizCN registrar, the focus of many of the compliance related issues raised by the ALAC in the past few months has been served with a breach notice. See http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/serad-to-guanghui-08may14-en.pdf Many of the concerns raised by the ALAC regarding this particular registrar appear to have been included in the breach notice, including the systemic Whois inaccuracy complaints. Kudos to all those involved that worked hard on this to get some results. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh

2 1

Public Interest Commitment - Public Comment
by Evan Leibovitch May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Hello everyone, As you may know, the ALAC voted top create an ICANN Public Comment process on the topic of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and a possible replacement, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB). The web page for the PCP is here.<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pab-new-gtld-strings-21mar14-e…> The reply period for this process is at its deadline. However, it has come to my attention that a number of groups proposing replies are unable to submit before this deadline and have suggested an extension. I believe this is reasonable, considering all the new work on everyone's plate (Netmundial, IANA transition, ATLAS2, etc). If there is no objection, I will call on ALAC staff to add a two-week extension to the current reply period. Thanks! -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

3 2

RE : Public Interest Commitment - Public Comment
by jjs May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

Agreed. Jean-Jacques. <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> </div><div>Date :07/05/2014 23:23 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>A : ICANN ALAC list <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> </div><div>Objet : [ALAC] Public Interest Commitment - Public Comment </div><div> </div> Hello everyone, As you may know, the ALAC voted top create an ICANN Public Comment process on the topic of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and a possible replacement, the Policy Advisory Board (PAB). The web page for the PCP is here.<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pab-new-gtld-strings-21mar14-e…> The reply period for this process is at its deadline. However, it has come to my attention that a number of groups proposing replies are unable to submit before this deadline and have suggested an extension. I believe this is reasonable, considering all the new work on everyone's plate (Netmundial, IANA transition, ATLAS2, etc). If there is no objection, I will call on ALAC staff to add a two-week extension to the current reply period. Thanks! -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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