- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN News Alert -- Webinar: Briefing About the Upcoming Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
by Alan Greenberg April 24, 2014

April 24, 2014

The next series of organizational reviews is starting and the GNSO is first. If anyone is interested in what will be happening, see the following webinar announcement. Alan > >News Alert > > > ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm > >---------- > > >Webinar: Briefing About the Upcoming Review of >the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) > > > >23 April 2014 > >Date: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 Time: 13:00-14:00 >UTC (time converter: ><http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…) > >You are invited to a webinar regarding the >upcoming Review of the Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO). This briefing will provide >the GNSO community with information about the >GNSO review process, collect feedback from the >community and answer questions concerning this process. > >The webinar will be recorded and available for >those who may not be able to join the session live. > > >Review of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) > > > >The objective of the Review is to examine >organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, >including its structure components (GNSO >Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder >Groups and Constituencies). The review will be >tightly scoped based on objective and >quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > >The work methods are expected to include the >examination of documentation, records and >reports; outcomes from the 360 Assessment; and >limited interviews. The 360 Assessment is an >online mechanism to collect and summarize >feedback from members of the GNSO community a >"self-review relative to objective and >quantifiable criteria. Interested members of >other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also >may offer feedback. Relevant assessments of the >Second Accountability and Transparency Review >Team 1 regarding the GNSO policy development >process will be factored into the review. > > >GNSO and community participation > > > >Involvement of the GNSO community as well as >input and participation from the broader >community are important components of this review process. > >As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the >Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is >requesting that a GNSO Review Working Party be >assembled to function as a liaison between the >GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to >provide input on review criteria and the 360 >Assessment, coordinate interviews and >objectively supply clarification and responses >to the draft findings and recommendations. Once >a final report is issued and the Board takes >action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >Working Party is expected to coordinate with the >GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan >and champion implementation of improvement >activities. More information about this will be provided shortly. > > >Review Criteria > > > >Objective and quantifiable criteria will cover the following areas: > * Achievement of mission, compliance with agreed upon rules and processes > * Accountability and transparency to the public > * Membership processes and participation > * Structural support toward achievement of mission > * Governance and management: effectiveness of execution > * Quality and evaluation/measurement of outcomes > * Communication > * Effectiveness of implementation of prior review recommendations > > >Webinar Details > > > >Please join the webinar on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 >at 13:00-14:00 UTC (time converter: ><http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…>http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Request+for+Propos…) >The webinar will be recorded and available for >those who may not be able to join the session live. > >The webinar will be run in an Adobe Connect room >with a brief slide presentation to frame >interactive discussion, along with a dial-in >conference bridge for audio. The session will be conducted in English. > >Please register via email to ><mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org>matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org >by Tuesday, 6 May 2014 23:59 UTC too receive >the dial-in details. A reminder with log-in and >dial-in details will be sent to you prior to the call. > > >Webinar Materials > > > >Wednesday, 7 May 2014: > * Recording: TBP > * Transcript: TBP > * Chat Transcript: TBP > > >This message was sent to alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca from: > >ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

2nd level IDN names
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2014

April 20, 2014

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/rslc-gop-request-18apr14-… http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/i-registry-onl-request-11… http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/pir-xn--i1b6b1a6a2e-reque… are requests for approval to allow IDN 2nd level names. I hadn't realized that a special request was required for this, even if the TLD is IDN! Alan

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on Maximal Starting Repertoire
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 19, 2014

April 19, 2014

Colleagues, A draft statement regarding the implementation of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules Project and the Maximal Starting Repertoire is pasted at the bottom of this mail and posted on the At-Large Policy Development wiki - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47257418# The draft is prepared based on observations as well as input gathered from language community representatives during the At-Large IDN Working Group meeting in Singapore, which was co-chaired by Edmon Chung and myself. Please comment on the wiki. Best regards, Rinalia *ALAC Statement on **IDN Variant TLDs – LGR Procedure Implementation – Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1* The ALAC notes the progress made in the implementation of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) Project, specifically: - Issuance of the Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1 by the Integration Panel; - Completion of a standardized XML format to represent Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone; - Responses from Language Communities in forming script Generation Panels. We recognize that the project is crucial for ensuring that the Root Zone is able to support IDN variants, which are applicable for major languages used by the global population of Internet users. We are greatly encouraged by the success of the Arabic script community in forming a Generation Panel to address a script that is shared by many languages across Africa, North Africa, East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. We are also heartened by indications of mobilization by the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic communities towards forming their script Generation Panels. Based on our observations as well as feedback received from various language communities, we wish to highlight some issues of concern that require urgent attention in moving the project forward. *Meeting Demand for IDN TLD* The Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1 covers 18 scripts requested by new IDN gTLD applicants. The Generation Panels already formed and in the process of being formed do not match the demand. We view the lack of response from the Cyrillic, Greek, Georgian, Hebrew, Lao, Latin and Thai communities as of the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore to be a matter of concern. We urge ICANN to take action to address the gap. Our recommendations to the ICANN IDN Variant TLD Program Team: - Work together with the ICANN Global Stakeholder Engagement Team and reach out to the target language communities to raise their awareness about the project and encourage Generation Panel formation. - Provide a briefing to the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Country Code Top Level Domain community and regional associations as well as the At-Large Regional Organizations to seek their support in reaching out to the target communities. - Work with the ICANN Communications Team to simplify key documents related to the Root Zone Project to aid community understanding and community-initiated outreach. - As part of the community briefing kit, provide concrete examples of how Generation Panels can be formed by sharing/highlighting the successful experience of Generation Panel/s already formed. - Facilitate or enable appropriate facilitation to support the collaboration of language communities that share a script to form a Generation Panel or for communities with related scripts to resolve joint issues if a request for facilitation is received. - Leverage on the Internet Governance Forum (global and regional) to widen awareness about the project and the need for language community participation. *Feedback on Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 1* We commend the Integration Panel for producing a Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) in a format that is easy for language communities to understand and manage. The MSR clearly outlines the set of code points that is ineligible for the Root Zone. It also clearly outlines the set of code points that the Integration Panel has defined as possible for inclusion as well as those that should be excluded based on provided rationale. We note that the MSR will serve as a “fixed collection of code points from which Generation Panels may make a selection in constructing the repertoire for their respective LGR proposals” based on what the Integration Panel has determined to be possible for inclusion. We also note that the Integration Panel intends to “freeze” the MSR version 1 after this call for public comment. We advise against freezing script segments of the MSR without receiving sufficient input from language communities (i.e., via a script Generation Panel or from the script community in general if no Generation Panel has been established). For subsequent versions of the MSR and LGR, we support the suggestion that there be a designated release timeline (i.e., a designated time period for release of updated versions where language communities can plan their submissions as well as expect updates to be published). We also request that the Integration Panel provides confirmation that subsequent versions of the MSR may include a superset or expanded set of possible code points based on the review and input received from language communities. END

1 0

ALAC & Regional Leaders SOIs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

Hello everyone, just to let you know that Ken Bour is currently performing some essential maintenance on our SOI Wiki pages, so you might receive some emails notifying you of his changes. Please be so kind to ignore these emails as it is an entirely standard but needed procedure. Kind regards, Olivier

1 0

Statement on Whois Accuracy Monitoring System
by Alan Greenberg April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014

A draft comment has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/vhzRAg. Alan

1 0

ICANN proposal for NTIA transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

Heads up: Summary of principles and mechanisms for conducting the IANA transition consultation has been published by ICANN here - http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a… . Scope of task is at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr… Proposed structure to oversee process: ICANN SO/ACs + affected parties to designate 2 reps each to form a steering group to shepherd process. Have a look also at the artistic sketch at the bottom of the principles and mechanisms page. Summary open for public comment. Best regards, Rinalia

2 1

Day Five ICANN Singapore
by Glenn McKnight March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157642954212553e Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Compliance PIC enforcement
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Agree- good catch and yes, a formal letter is a good suggestion - happy to let Alan with his knowledge of this do the hard yards Holly On Wed 26/03/14 5:17 PM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: Good catch, Alan. I agree that such a question should be filled. On Mar 26, 2014 11:53 AM, "Alan Greenberg" wrote: > At the meeting between Compliance and ALAC on Sunday, Maguy reported that > there is a form on the ICANN web site for reporting alleged PIC violations. > > At the public compliance session today, it became clear that this form was > related to the PICDRP (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ [1] > applicants/agb/picdrp-19dec13-en.pdf). > > The PICDRP is ostensibly applicable only if the complainant can claim it > has been harmed by the alleged non-compliance. > > To quote: "1.1 Any person or entity that believes they have been harmed as > a result of a Registry Operator's act or omission in connection with the > operation of its gTLD that is non-compliant with its PICs may report such > alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator ("Reporter")." > > During the session question period, I explicitly asked whether the process > was applicable if the complainant does not claim any harm to the > complainant. > > The answer was less than crystal clear. We were told that Compliance would > evaluate the complaint and decide whether it had merit (including following > up with the complainant if the submitted information was insufficient). On > specific questioning of whether they would consider it a valid complaint if > no harm was demonstrated, there was not a definitive answer. Related to > this is my understanding that even if a complaint *was* forwarded to the > Standing Panel, the rules under which it will operate would not allow it to > find for the complainant with harm being demonstrated. > > I would suggest that the ALAC file an explicit written question with > compliance on this issue, since it is effectively the SAME question that we > have been asking for over a year now. > > I would be happy to draft such a letter. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [2] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large [4]+ > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [7]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fnewgtld… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [4] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [5] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [6] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [7] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Compliance PIC enforcement
by Alan Greenberg March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

At the meeting between Compliance and ALAC on Sunday, Maguy reported that there is a form on the ICANN web site for reporting alleged PIC violations. At the public compliance session today, it became clear that this form was related to the PICDRP (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/picdrp-19dec13-en.pdf) The PICDRP is ostensibly applicable only if the complainant can claim it has been harmed by the alleged non-compliance. To quote: "1.1 Any person or entity that believes they have been harmed as a result of a Registry Operator's act or omission in connection with the operation of its gTLD that is non-compliant with its PICs may report such alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator ("Reporter")." During the session question period, I explicitly asked whether the process was applicable if the complainant does not claim any harm to the complainant. The answer was less than crystal clear. We were told that Compliance would evaluate the complaint and decide whether it had merit (including following up with the complainant if the submitted information was insufficient). On specific questioning of whether they would consider it a valid complaint if no harm was demonstrated, there was not a definitive answer. Related to this is my understanding that even if a complaint *was* forwarded to the Standing Panel, the rules under which it will operate would not allow it to find for the complainant with harm being demonstrated. I would suggest that the ALAC file an explicit written question with compliance on this issue, since it is effectively the SAME question that we have been asking for over a year now. I would be happy to draft such a letter. Alan

3 2

Fwd: At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Pls note change of meeting room for IDN WG meeting today. 5-6pm in Hullet Room (not VIP Room). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Gisella Gruber" <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org> Date: Mar 26, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore To: "rmohan(a)afilias.info" <rmohan(a)afilias.info>, "Ram Mohan" < ram.mohan(a)icann.org>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia>, "jothan(a)gmail.com" <jothan(a)gmail.com>, "sarmad.hussain(a)kics.edu.pk" <sarmad.hussain(a)kics.edu.pk>, "jordyn(a)google.com" <jordyn(a)google.com>, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele(a)blacknight.com>, "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, " hotta(a)jprs.co.jp" <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp>, "Youn Jung Park" <yjpark21(a)gmail.com>, "ethan(a)kisa.or.kr" <ethan(a)kisa.or.kr>, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: When: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:00 PM-6:00 PM. Malay Peninsula Standard Time Where: 17:00 - 18:00 / HULLET Room *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Change of MEETING ROOM - now in HULLET Apology from Hiro Hotta Hello everyone, Please find below the agenda for the At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting in Singapore. Thank you for confirming your participation and look forward to see you there. I will request ICANN staff to send out calendar invites so that you have this event in your calendar. At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore Date: 26 March 2014 (Wednesday) Time and Venue: 5.00pm-6.00pm VIP Room Meeting Co-Chairs: Rinalia Abdul Rahim and Edmon Chung Agenda: 1. Welcome by Co-Chairs 2. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs: A discussion on collaboration and coordination needed for the universal acceptance of IDN TLDs worldwide to benefit end users Discussants: Ram Mohan (Afilias), Jothan Frakes (Mozilla), Jordyn Buchanan -TBC (Google), Sarmad Hussein (Al-Khawarizmi Institute for Computer Science, Pakistan), Michele Neylon (Blacknight Solutions), Andrei Kalesnikov (ccTLD.ru) and Edmon Chung (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group) 3. Root Zone LGR Project Generation Panel Development: Language Community Issues - Arabic script community (Sarmad Hussein - KICS Pakistan) - Chinese language community (Edmon Chung - dotAsia) - Japanese language community (Hiro Hotta - JPRS) - Korean language community (Joo Young (Ethan) Kim / YJ Park - KISA) - Cyrillic script community (Andrei Kalesnikov - ccTLD.ru) Best regards, Rinalia

1 0