- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Dear At-Large Community, the recent Statement which was sent to the Public Comment process regarding the Trusted Community Representatives (see call for comments below) has shown that there are differing views in our community. After reading our Community's input, Leo Vegoda has asked if it was possible for the individual commenters who have provided their input to the ALAC process to send in their personal point of view directly to the Public Forum. The ICANN Page for this is: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tcr-dnssec-key-signing-21jan14-… As this Public Comment process is in its reply phase, your follow-up to the ALAC's Statement would be really appreciated before 4 March 2014. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 20/02/2014 02:35, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Review of Trusted > Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. > > On 18 February 2014, Staff confirmed that the online vote resulted in > the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes > against, and 0 abstentions. You may review the result independently > under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3671kiPvCmIyu7uGxuVFEMwg. > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Ariel Liang, Gisella > Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in > support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <Regards,%0A%20%0AHeidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALAC%0Amailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

At-Large Summit II Travel Database
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear All, The ATLAS II Travel Database is currently being completed by staff. For the ATLAS II event in London in June, each ALS will be able to send one representative. Elected ALAC members and Regional Officers will be serving as the member from their ALS as they officially represent their ALS in addition to their leadership role. In the situation where an ALAC member was appointed to its role by the Nominating Committee (NomCom), and therefore does not officially represent their ALS, the ALS may select one other member from among its membership to represent their ALS. In addition, ALSes which have an ALAC voting delegate to the NomCom as their current representative have been asked by staff to nominate another member from their ALS to represent it at the ATLAS II. This is due to the NomCom schedule at the ICANN Meeting in June being very full and it would be unlikely that a NomCom member would have the time to fully represent their ALS at the ATLAS II. Regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2014

Feb. 19, 2014

Carlton's EWG is looking at whether T/T is needed in a new registration database. I can easily see them deciding that T/T is not needed. If the registration data is in Chinese and Arabic, simply put that into the equivalent of Whois, and if someone needs to read it, it is their problem to decypher it. My understanding is that the current T/T is focused on today's world of an ASCII Whois which cannot represent Whois information that is purely in a language/script that cannot be formatted in 7-bit ASCII. At issue is the usability of Whois information for these domains. Alan At 18/02/2014 01:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I hadn't planned to get involved in this discussion, but I see some >hot buttons being pushed. > * The question of "should it be done" rather than "who pays" is > being dealt with at the EWG, as Carlton says, and I am hesitant to > comment on that matter until their work is done. > * Regarding "who pays": unless registries are to be subsidized > by ICANN for T/T functions, I'm not sure it is at all viable, let > alone reasonable, to demand that costs not be borne by those who > ultimately are using the services. Demanding that registrars and > registries not have the flexibility to adjust prices based on their > expenses is dangerous territory. A requirement that such costs not > be levied as a separate fee -- but rather be buried in the core > prices -- is a form of financial micromanagement that is not > necessarily worth the effort. > * In domains, T/T is not IMO necessarily a right. I don't expect > to be able to demand English processes from a site regarding a TLD > catering to a non-English audience. If it is provided, that is an > extra service -- an optional one, for which I might expect to pay > more (or use an external translation service). In a competitive > environment comprising hundreds of TLDs, some will cater to my > particular needs -- linguistic and otherwise -- more than others. > That is the design of the program. > * As for "end users" versus "registrants" as the core of > At-Large's concern, that is a thorny issue but one that comes up > frequently. I am interested to see if the registrant side of the > GNSO -- the BC, NCUC and NPOC, to be specific -- share this concern > about who bears the costs of T/T. I would be hesitant to make any > pronouncement in support of registrants that does not have at least > noticeable support within ICANN's existing registrant stakeholder groups. > * In the absence of such support from elsewhere in ICANN, I am > hard pressed, from the Internet end-user-centric viewpoint, to make > a case either way regarding who pays for T/T functions and how it is paid. >So I would suggest that we can wait for a statement until the EWG >and approproate At-Large working groups are further along. As >Rinalia says, there will be future opportunities to comment once the >new information is in our hands. > >And ... it is IMO redundant to make a statement simply saying we >reserve the right to comment later. > >- Evan > > > >On 18 February 2014 12:39, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, Alan. > >Your detailed knowledge is always enriching and very useful. > >I don't believe we are in disagreement. It is more a matter of approach. > >I don't think I have seen the push-back in the At-Large in supporting >registrants. This may have predated my engagement. In principle, I see >some value in supporting registrants in that they provide content and >services for end users. And certainly we should not be supporting them in >cases where it harms end users. > >In moving forward on this, I think the ALAC needs to make a decision. As >you mentioned there is a myriad of activities on the topic from various >groups. I don't believe we are ready with detailed responses on each of >the questions - it is also possible that end user comments on most of the >questions are non-existent. What might be helpful to "influence" the >thinking on policy options within those groups is to convey what the ALAC >considers as the principle early on. If the principle is conveyed, then >the ALAC can see what policy options are generated and say "yes, we support >this" or "no, we reject this" based on the principle. > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee is > > charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately largely > > funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy to registrar > > and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars subsidize > > registrations with income from other lines of businesses, but that is > > beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T cost, it is > > ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not likely in my mind) > > or buried in the overall costs of the registration. > > > > I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since most > > costs associated with registrations are incorporated in registration fees, > > we need more specificity than simply saying the registrant shall not pay. > > > > In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an ASCII > > Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in some other > > script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. Today, to the extent > > that they honour the RAA requirement, the registrar needs to create ASCII > > text that goes into the Whois record. So they bear the cost. If I > > understand your point, you are saying that this cost must be born by the > > registrar as a cost of doing business and should not explicitly be levied > > on the registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no > > way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more expensive in > > Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost (as opposed to cost > > of rent or taxes or bribes!). > > > > Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of just > > "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I advocated such > > actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not violated in this case) > > is that to the extent that advocating for registrants does not measurably > > harm non-registrant users, then we are definitely in the business of > > supporting registrants. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > > > Alan, > > > > What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets confused > > in ICANN. > > > > On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for translation > > and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an assumption based on > > examples in other areas implicating registrants or are there registrants > > that are currently required to translate or transliterate when they > > register? > > > > Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation and / > > or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or specialized > > use. If the former, the principle should be that the cost is borne by the > > process that collects the information (i.e, registry/registrar). If the > > latter, the entities requiring translated/transliterated data pay for the > > specialized service. The key issue is whether or not the principles can be > > enforced so that the cost is not transferred to registrants. > > > > The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the registrants, > > who comprise part of the consumer group that it advocates for. It should > > begin by saying that under no circumstances should the Registrants have to > > pay for it and steps must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred > > to registrants (which among others would include the requirement of > > information transparency to track price differentials etc as you mentioned > > in your mail). > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the only > > significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that I see) is > > how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing any > > translation/transliteration cost and whether the registry/registrar can be > > seen to be charging differential fees based on whether T/T is needed. The > > only other potential funder is those who look at the data, and that is a > > MUCH smaller pool by several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful > > source for funding what may be a significant cost. > > > > Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an assumption > > that the great new registration system in the sky will not be limited to > > 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking at is different from the > > one today where we are, for the known future, subject to that limitation. I > > note that there is ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the > > T/T issue in parallel with the PDP. > > > > NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the workspace to > > PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background documents were lost. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > Thanks for the information, Carlton. > > Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG > > at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > > > > An option to consider: > > For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC > > firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost > > burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact > > data. > > > > The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, > > the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will > > take time. > > > > There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation > > Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future > > opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the > > issue. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" < > <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in > > the > > > EWG. > > > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > Carlton A Samuels > > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Olivier, > > >> > > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > > >> beyond > > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may > > have > > >> a view on some of the key issues. > > >> > > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > > >> level > > >> issue. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> Dear Staff, > > >> > > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the > > request > > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > > >> buried > > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > > >> > > >> Action Needed: > > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > > >> prominently on the wiki page. > > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones > > that > > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > > >> analyze the response. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > > >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > > >> > > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of > > Contact > > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > > >> > <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > > >> gather > > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > > >> > > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments > > function > > >> by *28 > > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > > >> > > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > >> > > > >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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… > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2014

Feb. 18, 2014

No, I din't think we are violently disagreeing, but my concern was that we not make a statement that does not bear up to scrutiny. On the issue of users vs registrants, yes, it predates you. Registrants are represented in the GNSO, as both the CSG and NCSG use the word users, but their charters make it clear that it is registrants that is their focus (with the possible exception of the ISP const.). We are often in alignment with the Business Const, and even the IP const a lot of the time. But the NCSG has tended to focus on privacy issues more than other user-related issues, and we have therefore been at odds with them at times (an example of how protecting registrant rights could negatively impact regular users - Whois privacy). Which to some extent has convinced some in At-Large that we need to focus on some registrant issues. And since regular users are the customers of web sites and such, they are impacted by things that adversely affect registrants (such as losing their domains for some reason). Expiration issues and more recently hi-jacking are examples. Regarding the specifics, in my mind, the entire issue focuses on the usability of Whois. If a registration is carried out in a language/script which cannot be rendered in 7-bit ASCII, then as long as Whois is stored and presented in 7-bit ASCII, what is in Whois must be a meaningful and usable version of the original data. Alan At 18/02/2014 12:39 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Hi, Alan. > >Your detailed knowledge is always enriching and very useful. > >I don't believe we are in disagreement. It is more a matter of approach. > >I don't think I have seen the push-back in the At-Large in >supporting registrants. This may have predated my engagement. In >principle, I see some value in supporting registrants in that they >provide content and services for end users. And certainly we should >not be supporting them in cases where it harms end users. > >In moving forward on this, I think the ALAC needs to make a >decision. As you mentioned there is a myriad of activities on the >topic from various groups. I don't believe we are ready with >detailed responses on each of the questions - it is also possible >that end user comments on most of the questions are >non-existent. What might be helpful to "influence" the thinking on >policy options within those groups is to convey what the ALAC >considers as the principle early on. If the principle is conveyed, >then the ALAC can see what policy options are generated and say >"yes, we support this" or "no, we reject this" based on the principle. > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee >is charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately >largely funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy >to registrar and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars >subsidize registrations with income from other lines of businesses, >but that is beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T >cost, it is ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not >likely in my mind) or buried in the overall costs of the registration. > >I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since >most costs associated with registrations are incorporated in >registration fees, we need more specificity than simply saying the >registrant shall not pay. >In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an >ASCII Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in >some other script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. >Today, to the extent that they honour the RAA requirement, the >registrar needs to create ASCII text that goes into the Whois >record. So they bear the cost. If I understand your point, you are >saying that this cost must be born by the registrar as a cost of >doing business and should not explicitly be levied on the >registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no >way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more >expensive in Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost >(as opposed to cost of rent or taxes or bribes!). >Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of >just "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I >advocated such actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not >violated in this case) is that to the extent that advocating for >registrants does not measurably harm non-registrant users, then we >are definitely in the business of supporting registrants. >Alan > >At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Alan, >>What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets >>confused in ICANN. >>On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for >>translation and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an >>assumption based on examples in other areas implicating registrants >>or are there registrants that are currently required to translate >>or transliterate when they register? >>Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation >>and / or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or >>specialized use. If the former, the principle should be that the >>cost is borne by the process that collects the information (i.e, >>registry/registrar). If the latter, the entities requiring >>translated/transliterated data pay for the specialized >>service. The key issue is whether or not the principles can be >>enforced so that the cost is not transferred to registrants. >>The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the >>registrants, who comprise part of the consumer group that it >>advocates for. It should begin by saying that under no >>circumstances should the Registrants have to pay for it and steps >>must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred to >>registrants (which among others would include the requirement of >>information transparency to track price differentials etc as you >>mentioned in your mail). >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >> >> >> >>On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the >>only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue >>(that I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and >>attributing any translation/transliteration cost and whether the >>registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees >>based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is >>those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by >>several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for >>funding what may be a significant cost. >>Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an >>assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will >>not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are >>looking at is different from the one today where we are, for the >>known future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is >>ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue >>in parallel with the PDP. >>NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the >>workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background >>documents were lost. >>Alan >>At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Thanks for the information, Carlton. >>Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >>at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. >>An option to consider: >>For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >>firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >>burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >>data. >>The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >>the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >>take time. >>There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >>Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >>opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >>issue. >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >>On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" >><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >> > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for >> > registration data for directory services is under active >> discussion in the >> > EWG. >> > >> > -Carlton >> > >> > >> > ============================== >> > Carlton A Samuels >> > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >> > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> > ============================= >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >> > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Olivier, >> >> >> >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation >> >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny >> >> beyond >> >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among >> others, may have >> >> a view on some of the key issues. >> >> >> >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, >> >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the >> >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher >> >> level >> >> issue. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Rinalia >> >> Dear Staff, >> >> >> >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which >> the request >> >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are >> >> buried >> >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. >> >> >> >> Action Needed: >> >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight >> >> prominently on the wiki page. >> >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the >> ones that >> >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and >> >> analyze the response. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < >> >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, >> >> > >> >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration >> of Contact >> >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< >> >> >> <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> >> >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to >> >> gather >> >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request >> >> > >> >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the >> comments function >> >> by *28 >> >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >> >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen >> >> > >> >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> >> > >> >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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… >> >> >> >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ >>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… >>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2014

Feb. 18, 2014

I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee is charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately largely funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy to registrar and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars subsidize registrations with income from other lines of businesses, but that is beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T cost, it is ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not likely in my mind) or buried in the overall costs of the registration. I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since most costs associated with registrations are incorporated in registration fees, we need more specificity than simply saying the registrant shall not pay. In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an ASCII Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in some other script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. Today, to the extent that they honour the RAA requirement, the registrar needs to create ASCII text that goes into the Whois record. So they bear the cost. If I understand your point, you are saying that this cost must be born by the registrar as a cost of doing business and should not explicitly be levied on the registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more expensive in Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost (as opposed to cost of rent or taxes or bribes!). Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of just "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I advocated such actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not violated in this case) is that to the extent that advocating for registrants does not measurably harm non-registrant users, then we are definitely in the business of supporting registrants. Alan At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Alan, > >What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets >confused in ICANN. > >On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for >translation and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an >assumption based on examples in other areas implicating registrants >or are there registrants that are currently required to translate or >transliterate when they register? > >Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation >and / or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or >specialized use. If the former, the principle should be that the >cost is borne by the process that collects the information (i.e, >registry/registrar). If the latter, the entities requiring >translated/transliterated data pay for the specialized service. The >key issue is whether or not the principles can be enforced so that >the cost is not transferred to registrants. > >The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the >registrants, who comprise part of the consumer group that it >advocates for. It should begin by saying that under no >circumstances should the Registrants have to pay for it and steps >must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred to >registrants (which among others would include the requirement of >information transparency to track price differentials etc as you >mentioned in your mail). > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the >only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that >I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing >any translation/transliteration cost and whether the >registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees >based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is >those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by >several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for >funding what may be a significant cost. > >Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an >assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will >not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking >at is different from the one today where we are, for the known >future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is ANOTHER >expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue in >parallel with the PDP. > >NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the >workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background >documents were lost. > >Alan > > >At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Thanks for the information, Carlton. >Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > >An option to consider: >For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >data. > >The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >take time. > >There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >issue. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in the > > EWG. > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > ============================= > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Olivier, > >> > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > >> beyond > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have > >> a view on some of the key issues. > >> > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > >> level > >> issue. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Rinalia > >> Dear Staff, > >> > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > >> buried > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > >> > >> Action Needed: > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > >> prominently on the wiki page. > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > >> analyze the response. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > >> > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > >> > <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > >> gather > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > >> > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function > >> by *28 > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > >> > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> > > >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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… > >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing any translation/transliteration cost and whether the registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for funding what may be a significant cost. Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking at is different from the one today where we are, for the known future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue in parallel with the PDP. NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background documents were lost. Alan At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Thanks for the information, Carlton. >Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > >An option to consider: >For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >data. > >The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >take time. > >There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >issue. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in the > > EWG. > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Olivier, > >> > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > >> beyond > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have > >> a view on some of the key issues. > >> > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > >> level > >> issue. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Rinalia > >> Dear Staff, > >> > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > >> buried > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > >> > >> Action Needed: > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > >> prominently on the wiki page. > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > >> analyze the response. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > >> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > >> > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > >> https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > >> gather > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > >> > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function > >> by *28 > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > >> > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> > > >> > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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… > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

2 1

Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

Dear Olivier, I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny beyond the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have a view on some of the key issues. The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher level issue. Best regards, Rinalia Dear Staff, I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are buried in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. Action Needed: 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight prominently on the wiki page. 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and analyze the response. Thanks. Rinalia On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by *28 > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > >

2 2

Fwd: Response to Willett letter re: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 15, 2014

Feb. 15, 2014

Dear colleagues, please be so kind to find the response which the co-signatories have agreed to, re-emphasizing the points they have made. I believe it has taken into account much of the dismay and remarks conveyed on this mailing list regarding the original response received. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Response to Willett letter re: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:43:39 -0500 From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org> CC: <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl(a)gih.com>, "'Alan Greenberg'" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, <evan(a)telly.org>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, "'Christine Willett'" <christine.willett(a)icann.org> Dear Cherine, Please find our response to Christine Willett's letter of 02 February 2014 attached. On behalf of the signatories and many many others in the ICANN community we trust that the NGPC will give due reconsider to our request to give the larger community an opportunity to comment on the safeguards recommended in the Policy Advisory Board model. Thank you taking this up within the NGPC. Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *RNA Partners* *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *

2 2

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: FW: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

As another of the signatories, I am more than a bit discouraged that such an issue of public interest was seemingly fully delegated to a staff function without due action by the Board. I find particularly disturbing, the following excerpt from the minutes of the NGPC discussing the issue: >The Chair asked for input on merits of an >alternative proposal (the Policy Advisory Board >Model) submitted by a community member on how to >implement the Category 1 Safeguards. Christine >Willett and Dan Halloran provided an overview of >the Policy Advisory Board model, and noted that >the model represents a departure from the role >of the registry operator as contemplated in the >Applicant Guidebook and Registry Agreement. > >The Committee considered whether it was more >appropriate for individual registry operators to >implement a Policy Advisory Board model, as >opposed to ICANN imposing such a model on all of >the registry operators for strings listed in the >Category 1 Safeguard advice. Dan noted that some >individual applications already include >structures similar to the Policy Advisory Board model. > >Heather indicated that the Policy Advisory Board >proposal was circulated to the GAC and it may >generate discussion during the Committee's >upcoming meeting with the GAC. Ray Plzak >suggested that the Committee be on the same page >when approached by the community about this issue. The PAB is indeed a departure of the model envisioned by the Applicant Guidebook. THAT IS WHY IT WAS PROPOSED! Alan At 05/02/2014 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >As a signatory to the original letter and having contributed to its text, I >share Olivier's exasperation at how quickly and cavalierly this bottom-up, >innovative proposal has been dismissed. > >I had eventually come around to the view of Carlton Samuels and others that >the ICANN Public Interest Committment regime is little but a toothless >public relations stunt. The PAB proposal seems like one that could have a >real effect, one that is sufficiently independent of ICANN to have real >credibility. > >I invite At-Large members to look at the proposal -- the original letter >from members of At-Large and the Business >Community<<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan…>https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan…>-- >and offer feedback. IMO, this is something worth advancing. > >- Evan > > > > > >On 5 February 2014 10:44, Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl at gih.com> wrote: > > > Dear ALAC Colleagues, > > > > further to the email below and the letter that was sent to the Board to > > call for a Public Consultation about the proposal of a Policy Advisory > > Board model, please be so kind to find attached the (very fast) response > > received from Christine Willett, Vice President of the gTLD Operations. > > > > In summary: > > It's a "negative" with regards to a Public Consultation. > > It's "optional" if registry operators want to voluntarily implement such > > a model. Actually, it's a less than "optional"... it's a "not prohibited". > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 29/01/2014 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > Dear ALAC colleagues, > > > > > > please be so kind to find below and attached, a letter which was sent by > > > Ron Andruff to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN New gTLD Program > > > Committee (NGPC) requesting a Public Consultation to take place about > > > the Policy Advisory Board model proposal which the ALAC has supported in > > > the past. > > > > > > Due to very short time-lines for a reply and since the letter asks for a > > > Public Consultation in which the ALAC will be able to expand on the > > > shortcomings of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) which we have > > > already pointed out but were ignored, the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) has > > > given me the green light to sign the letter on their behalf. You'll also > > > find a couple of people from our community co-signing in their > > > individual capacity too. Indeed, many of the PICs filed are so weak, > > > including clauses reserving the right for the gTLD Registry to ignore > > > the commitments altogether, that this process is being grossly > > > mishandled and the ALAC need to voice its concerns. > > > * > > > *Kind regards, > > > > > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > > > ALAC Chair > > > ** > > > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > > > *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 18:36 > > > *To:* > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby > at icann.org' > > > *Cc:* > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden > at ic.gc.ca; > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold > at dbcdd.gov.au'; 'Alan > > > Greenberg'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; Marilyn Cade > (<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>marilynscade > at hotmail.com) > > > *Subject:* RE: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation > > > *Importance:* High > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Cherine, > > > > > > > > > > > > Following on from discussions held in Beijing and Buenos Aires with a > > > broad cross-section of the ICANN community, we understand that > > > SGs/ACs/Constituencies want to provide public comments on how ICANN > > > manages the proper roll out of regulated industries/sensitive string new > > > gTLDs. The concept of the Policy Advisory Boards is currently being > > > circulated more broadly within the community so the purpose of this > > > email and attached letter is to follow up with the NGPC on this matter > > > in support of the GAC Buenos Aires Communique reference to Public > > > Interest Commitment Specifications (PICS). > > > > > > > > > > > > We look forward to your response in due course. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > RA > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > > > > > *RNA Partners* > > > > > > *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> * > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 18:41 > > > *To:* > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby > at icann.org' > > > *Cc:* > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden > at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>; > > > > '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold > at dbcdd.gov.au'; Olivier Crepin-Leblond > > > *Subject:* Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory > > > Board model > > > *Importance:* High > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Cherine, > > > > > > > > > > > > During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at > > > ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from > > > regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how > > > they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of > > > those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such > > gTLDs. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, > > > or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing > > > the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants > > > will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact > > > of their applications, I have been working with others to develop > > > approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This > > > approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with > > > regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such > > > as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and > > > enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their > > > respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should > > > reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest > > > organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs > > > applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as > > > possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be > > > established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the > > > practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable > > > registrants and uses. > > > > > > > > > > > > The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism > > > by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can > > > be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains > > > at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and > > > professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide > > > entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach > > > establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive > > > string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy > > > Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns > > > associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and > > > implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy > > > Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility > > > criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be > > > incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments > > > Specifications (PICS) for the registry. > > > > > > > > > > > > The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard > > > threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a > > > standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf > > > of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC > > > deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that > > > would be of benefit to your Committee. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > RA > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ron Andruff* > > > > > > *RNA Partners* > > > > > > *www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC > at 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+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC > at 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+%28…>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

4 3

ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Of note: - Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC. - As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO recommendations on IGO/INGO names, but ther recommendations are not something that they could simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done. - They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom. - They approved the recommendation on Thick Whois! Note that this was not on the consent agenda so it will be interesting to see the minutes and whether there was any substantive discussion. Alan From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board 7 February 2014 1. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership 2. Main Agenda a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations 1. Consent Agenda: a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership 2. Main Agenda: a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the PDP Working Group Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf [PDF, 189 KB]. Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Working Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached consensus on twenty-five recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in its Charter. Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations of the IGO-INGO WG, and adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ). Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held on the approved recommendations, and the comments received have been summarized and published (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov1… ). Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the Buenos Aires CommuniquÃ© that it remained committed to continuing the dialogue with the NGPC on finalizing the modalities for permanent protection of IGO acronyms at the second level, and the NGPC is actively working on the issue. Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges receipt of the GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the IGO-INGO WG's Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf [PDF, 644 KB]), and requests additional time to consider the recommendations so that it may take into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic. Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee to: (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs; and (2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting. b. Formation of Board Working Group on Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition Whereas the Board previously received the Final Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working Group on 12 March 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm) , which called for a review in three-years' time of issues of the composition, size and recruitment function of the Nominating Committee. Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) recommends that it is time to complete the follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report and that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose. Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the establishment of a Board Working Group on Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance with the Charter recommended by the SIC, the membership of which will be addressed by the Board Governance Committee. Related materials: Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization Group issued in January 2010 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg… Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation Project Plan adopted in March 2012 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-improvements-implement… c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set forth at https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag) >Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP >procedures as stated in the Bylaws and due >process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013. > >Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG) >reached full consensus on the recommendations in >relation to the issues outlined in the Charter. > >Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed >the recommendations of the Thick Whois PDP WG, >and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October >2013 by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see >http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131031-1) > >Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the >required voting threshold set forth in the ICANN >Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN contracted parties. > >Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a >Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to assist >ICANN Staff in developing the implementation >details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. > >Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public >comment period was held on the approved >recommendations, and the comments received >strongly supported the recommendations >(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06n…) > >Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the >GNSO Council Policy Recommendations for a new >Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in >section 7.1 of the Final Report (see >http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf >[PDF, 1.23 MB]). > >Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the >President and CEO to develop and execute on an >implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy >consistent with the guidance provided by the >GNSO Council. The President and CEO is >authorized and directed to work with the >Implementation Review Team in developing the >implementation details for the policy, and to >continue communication with the community on such work.

6 7