- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

>To: IGO INGO <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 >September, 23.59 UTC > >Attached is my position on the Consensus Call issues. > >The positions have been agreed to by those on the ALAC who have been >most closely following the issue, and I have received no >disagreements from others, but this has not been subjected to a >formal ratification of the ALAC. If such a vote were taken, my >expectation is that it would pass. > >If a two cases, I indicated support, but only if certain other >conditions were met. Specifically: > >- We support fee waivers or reduced pricing for the TMCH, but NOT if >they are paid for by other TMCH users. Subsidy by ICANN, the only >expected alternative, is acceptable. >- We support a permanent claims notice, but only if it is available >for Trademarks as well. To implement it just for IGO-INGOs does not >seem reasonable. > >We will leave it up to Thomas and Berry or the WG to decide whether >these map into Support or No Support. > >In a few cases, we felt that an explanation is necessary and >included it. It does not alter the answer. > >In many cases, we answered "Can live with". This can be treated as >"Support", but we felt it was necessary to reiterate that we either feel that: >- the protection is not needed or >- we do not actively support this but it will do little actual harm >and we will not object. > >Alan

1 0

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

3 2

Re: [ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment DisputeResolution Procedure
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

Hi Rinalia - and everyone In the ALAC meeting, did you manage to discuss the schedule for the BA meeting? I am hoping that we will continue with a Multi Stakeholder Forum - the two we have had have been really popular and successful (with deep congratulations to Rinalia). For BA, while I suggested that it would be a good time to look at EWG, it would be an even better time to look at the gTLD processes (or lack thereof) and - at this late stage - see what can still be rescued. I hope this idea was discussed and adopted Holly On Wed 28/08/13 5:24 PM , Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com sent: The logical guess would be because the text is being negotiated by the parties, Olivier. Alan may know more. Rinalia On Aug 28, 2013 3:47 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" wrote: > Dear Rinalia, > > thank you for flagging this and monitoring it. It is clear that if the > draft remains as is to become policy, it is unacceptable. I have > actually touched on this in my meeting with Compliance in the Los > Angeles ICANN offices in August. > > > On 28/08/2013 03:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > *What is interesting:* > > 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that > > files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed). > > I told Compliance this was unacceptable. > > 2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear > > the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN > tends > > to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. > At this stage, nobody could give me an answer on this. > > 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and > > complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a > > "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter > > doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. > I told Compliance this was unacceptable. > > 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, > > which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. > I told Compliance that they had no legal basis to be able to do this. It > is outside their mandate to "ban" someone from a system since the only > parties they can "ban" are parties they have a contract with. > If they do restrict use of the tools with Acceptable Use Policies they > will need to demonstrate that these tools do no restrict the ICANN > Public Interest mission. > > The ALAC filed a Statement about this in April 2013: > https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg [2] > Clearly, the current draft does not appear to have taken the ICANN > Statement in account. Oje cannot fault the ICANN Staff summary of > comments which was, it appears, well executed: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html [3] > > So how did things remain as they were circulated by ICANN Staff to > Registries? > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [4] 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] mailto:ocl@gih.com [2] https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg [3] http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html [4] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [5] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [6] http://www.atlarge.icann.org [7] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Re: [ALAC] RCRC-IOC-IGO-INGO Consensus Call
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

Thanks Carlton, my comments to yours follow: Variants for RCRC names - they are already included in the list the GAC supplied and already in the Guidebook. A-5/6 5 is for the full name, 6 for acronym. The 189 country names were never mentioned until Durbin, and then only for the "formal name" - they later added the normal names (ie Canadian Red Cross Society vs Canadian Red Cross). The group generally lost patience and said if they were not paying attention to what was protected in the AG, then tough. So the token being tossed is the weak protection in the TMCH. It is pretty much assumed that the Scope 1 names will have stronger protection. C-6: The TMCH is now obliged to honour variants if the registry does. That being said, it is unclear how many IGOs will put forward the name in Chineses (current provision in the recommendation is only for 2 languages). D-6: not sure whether the concept of acronyms applies in pictogram languages! F-1: If adopted, this would place IGO acronyms such as WHO and ISO as ineligible for TLDs. F-2: I supported this because it is far preferable to simply blocking these names at the top level which is the current Board default. A fee waiver presumes there is NO blocking, something that we have strongly supported. A means test is not likely going to fly. F-5: A means test to avoid a charge in the hundreds of dollars? Regardless, I don't know how you apply a means test to organizations, such as Unicef or the Red Cross which have huge budgets. If a few who don't deserve it squeak through, so be it. Alan At 28/08/2013 01:29 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Hi Alan: >Please see my comments. Where I follow your position I note 'CAS: >Support'. And in cases where I think additional requirements must >be considered to support your position, I have asked the question. > >Best, >-Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I should have mentioned this on the ALAC call today, but forgot. > >The IGO-INGO PDP WG has issued a consensus call on a number of types >of support for protection of IGO-INGO names and acronyms. > >I am attaching my position here, and would welcome input on to what >extent others support these views. > >By way of explanation, I answered a number of them as "Can live >with". This tends to have one of two meanings: >- I think it is stupid, but not harmful. An Example is allowing the >future application for TLDs such as >.unitednationsinternationalchildrensemergencyfund or .worldhealthorganization. >- I think that there is simply no need. An example is the blocking >of .redcross, when we could simply have a free objectiopn process to >ensure that such a TLD is only allowed by the IGO-INGO. > >I presume it will be treated as "support" in the final analysis. > >I supported all use of the TMCH. This is a very weak form of >protection and do not think it will cause any real harm. I did not >support Permanent claims notices unless TMs are also granted this (no chance!). > >I am prepared to present these as my personal positions, but would >be glad to include some or all ALAC members if support is provided >to me. There is not sufficient time to do a formal vote. You can >agree or disagree with some or all of my positions. And given a good >rationale, I am pleased to change any of them (they were answered >VERY quickly!) > >If you have any questions, each item has an identifier of the form >A-1 (for the first item) and F-7 for the last). > >As an aside, this set of protections, even if all approved, is not >likely to satisfy the GAC. Even the Board has suggested that SOME >IGO acronyms may be worthy of protection. It does go further than >the GAC proposals in that it does provide some level of support for >INGOs such as OXFAM or MSF. > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >Content-Type: >application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; > name="IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments from" > Carlton.docx" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename= > "IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag with comments > from Carlton.docx" >X-Attachment-Id: f_hkwtipk41

1 0

CIRA - The Internet as we know is dead
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

Um, well... http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Eg… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

RCRC-IOC-IGO-INGO Consensus Call
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

I should have mentioned this on the ALAC call today, but forgot. The IGO-INGO PDP WG has issued a consensus call on a number of types of support for protection of IGO-INGO names and acronyms. I am attaching my position here, and would welcome input on to what extent others support these views. By way of explanation, I answered a number of them as "Can live with". This tends to have one of two meanings: - I think it is stupid, but not harmful. An Example is allowing the future application for TLDs such as .unitednationsinternationalchildrensemergencyfund or .worldhealthorganization. - I think that there is simply no need. An example is the blocking of .redcross, when we could simply have a free objectiopn process to ensure that such a TLD is only allowed by the IGO-INGO. I presume it will be treated as "support" in the final analysis. I supported all use of the TMCH. This is a very weak form of protection and do not think it will cause any real harm. I did not support Permanent claims notices unless TMs are also granted this (no chance!). I am prepared to present these as my personal positions, but would be glad to include some or all ALAC members if support is provided to me. There is not sufficient time to do a formal vote. You can agree or disagree with some or all of my positions. And given a good rationale, I am pleased to change any of them (they were answered VERY quickly!) If you have any questions, each item has an identifier of the form A-1 (for the first item) and F-7 for the last). As an aside, this set of protections, even if all approved, is not likely to satisfy the GAC. Even the Board has suggested that SOME IGO acronyms may be worthy of protection. It does go further than the GAC proposals in that it does provide some level of support for INGOs such as OXFAM or MSF. Alan

2 1

New draft on Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues, See attached as FYI - Latest draft on new gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) sent by ICANN staff to Registries recently and will be up for discussion during the Registry call on Thursday. *What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed). 2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. Interesting reading. The ALAC (and possibly the GAC) may want to make a case (jointly or separately) for third party reporting when comments are called for. At the moment, this is a draft for consideration based on discussions in Durban by the relevant parties, but it would be good to keep an eye on its progress. Best regards, Rinalia ** **

4 4

Re: [ALAC] At-Large comment on EWG
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

Hi Everyone Sorry about the anonymous bit. And sorry for the mix up - but glad that - belatedly - there is something people can comment on that will be an ALAC position. And please do comment. What I did was a bit of a rush job - just to get something in place as a starting position. What is there is largely the notes I made after a very long discussion Carlton, Evan, Garth, Rinalia and I had rather late in the Durban meeting. I'm not sure I will have time to do further work (I am supposed to be on holidays) so any help - that includes Garth - will be really welcome. And I am sorry to have missed the ALAC call. I was on the road, travelling to stay with very old friends. And a question to everyone. A lot of the discussion on the list does involve GNSO policy processes. Both Alan and I are on the GNSO WG on Policy and Implementation - in which some of the issues being raised on the list could be raised in the WG. Rinalia's statement is a perfect example of that. So please - any ideas on GNSO policy ought to be aired. The Charter of that WG (I chaired the drafting team for the charter) is wide enough so that many of the issues raised on this list could be raised in discussion in that WG. Holly On Wed 28/08/13 4:47 AM , Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com sent: ...and so she has, as Anonymous! My apologies to Holly.....she was on the job within hours of our last communique and I didn't update myself. ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hello all, I don't understand both of your enquiries/concerns. Holly has already put a first draft on the WIKI. https://community.icann.org/x/Xz5-Ag [1] Kind regards, Olivier On 27/08/2013 20:04, Carlton Samuels wrote: Hi Rinalia: Yes, I had already indicated on the Ex-Com call I would recuse myself from active involvement in the response but would be willing to provide background, as necessary, to the person holding the pen. We said then that per the interactions on the list, it looks like Holly will lead. Since then I've had communication with her and advised that Alan might be a good collaborator, seeing he's voiced something akin to having 'significant' concerns. She mentioned she'd be on vacation for a few days, hence I think the delayed response. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 [2] Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hi, Holly and Carlton. At the ALAC meeting on 27 August, the following action item was flagged: At-Large Large Regulatory Issues * Carlton Samuels [3] is to ensure that the Regulatory Issues Working Group that will prepare a response to the Expert Working Group that addresses the promise of its development but also places it in context of the current status of WHOIS. Garth raised the issue that it would be a conflict of interest for Carlton to do this. So the question is who would pick up the ball. Holly might be in a good position to do so and Garth has also volunteered to help. I am passing the message. Best regards, Rinalia -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [4] Links: ------ [1] https://community.icann.org/x/Xz5-Ag [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/tel:876-818-1799 [3] https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ecarlton.samuels [4] http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Rinalia's message to the ATRT
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

Spot on and so well written. I totally support Rinalia's statement Holly On Wed 28/08/13 8:17 AM , Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca sent: While a formal vote (or additional me toos!) could add a bit of weight, both Olivier will pass on the message and call for an emergency vote if we really get pushback. At 27/08/2013 05:45 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >Dear Evan, > >thanks for your full support. I think that at this stage (and both Alan >and Avri are welcome to contradict me if they feel I am wrong) the input >from Rinalia holds as much weight with or without a formal Statement. >All input is considered evenly by the ATRT2 and many of the concerns >which Rinalia has expressed have been also expressed by other people. >I fully expect the ATRT2 to take Rinalia's input very seriously indeed, >just like all input the ATRT2 has received is considered very seriously. > >Kind regards, > >Olivier > > >On 27/08/2013 23:19, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > My only comment is "I wish I had said all that". > > > > I heartily support the statement. If it would add value I would easily call > > for formal ALAC endorsement without changing a word. > > > > Spectacular work, Rinalia. > > > > > > On 27 August 2013 12:14, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > >> Rinalia's message is attached. Any further comments to the ATRT should be > >> sent to . Quickly. > >> > >> Alan > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

Hi, I have posted my views on the wiki. For ease of reference, am copying my contribution here as well: To: ALAC Cc: Members of At Large Re: *Comments on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines* Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the difficult work and task in creating the guidelines. I have no problems with the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU)and think that they are better candidates at prescribing guidelines without getting emotionally involved. The Unit is universally recognized and their Publication – The Economist is read in most countries if not all. Their team namely Leo Abruzesse[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn1>, Phil Todd[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn2>, Manoj Vohra[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn3>, Lucy Hurst[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn4>have a combined synergistic experience that makes them perfect for creating the Guidelines. Their knowledge of market segmentation, emerging markets, ICT make them perfectly competent to carry out the task of preparing Guidelines. ICANN made a great decision to choose an organization that is independent from the gTLD application process so that there is no hint of impropriety, impartiality that would possibly open the scope for lawsuits against ICANN. Given that all applications by ICANN are fully transparent, it would be helpful to know how EIU intend on selections where they find that there is a situation where they are conflicted. On the matter of the CPE, kindly find my comments on the Guidelines below. I have only commented on bits that I felt were relevant. *Comments on Guidelines* * *I acknowledge that the task of creating the CPE is challenging given the diversity of possible contexts and variables. I note that in forecasting the guidelines, they would have identified the range of potential applicants, and they refer to this in the guidelines when describing “size” and “considerable size”. *Criterion 1 Community Establishment* *Comments on 1A* I note that the whole purpose of the CPE is to provide guidelines for an evidence evaluation process. My comments on delineation, is that whilst it is important to establish this clearly. History within the gTLD market shows us that this on its own is not enough. Further indicators (markers) should be added to 1A and if there are two competing applicants purporting to represent a “community”, then there should be other markers. Care should be taken to protect “traditional knowledge” and “indigenous communities” that may not have the technological savvy to navigate the systems effectively. For example, should Louis Vuitton decide to apply for .maasai and where a Maasai Elder is in the process of protecting their traditional name. Ron Layton of Light Years IP argues that the Maasai brand is worth $10million[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftn5>. Intellectual Property and Traditional cultural expressions have been the subject of global discussions as early as 1967 when there was an amendment to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works for the protection of unpublished and anonymous works. Whilst Trademarks work in a manner where it is first come first serve, there has to be some level of moral and ethical consideration where it comes to reservation of names for communities and not allowing them to be exploited. Some would argue that open waters means every thing is fair game but I would submit that there are communities who need protection through leadership and foresight. *Comments on 1B* . “Considerable size” here is vague. This needs to reflect the diverse contexts. For example, Niue is a territory that has 1300 people on the island. Papua New Guinea is a country that has 8 million people. Likewise communities differ in size. Whilst the definition of size states that it relates to both members and geographical reach, this should be made clearer. Tuvalu (.tv), Palau (.pw), Tokelau (.tk) and Niue (.nu) are examples of small countries. Whilst their domain names were protected by virtue of them being country codes, there may be community applications from small countries and the matter of “considerable size” may differ. Large in terms of membership as an indicator, should a rough percentage be given in terms of the context or would that make it absurd. Large is relative on its own. Large in comparison to what? *Criterion 1 Community Establishment* *Comments on 2A* * * The “overreaching” component can be made a little clear and less ambiguous. There are some challenges that can be foreseen. Where there are multiple applications from situations where you have diasporas, how do you prioritise components showing “nexus”. For example, a country like Niue has 1300 people on the island but about 3500 live in New Zealand and were you to have a competing application to show “Nexus” what would be the demarcating factor? Similarly, the Chinese diaspora is global and the two indicators on “considerable size” may not be as efficient and if there are instances where the string identifies the community, there could be challenges in terms of internet searches. What if the information exists but is not available through internet searches. *Criterion 4 Community Endorsement* * * *Comments on 4A* There is no mention of individuals or government. There are some individuals who may not be part of an institution or organization but could potentially rally to make an endorsement or object. There should be instances where it is also not just about the majority because if there was insufficient notice to the communities to respond, those who understand the mechanics may be the first to lend their support. Care should be taken that this was gazetted and published in the newspapers in the countries affecting the communities in their respective languages and space for people to send their objections or support and a proof of this to be shown to ICANN. Just because they appear to be the majority does not necessarily make them the majority until proper notices are published within the countries. ------------------------------ [1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref1> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LeoAbruzzese.aspx [2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref2> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref3> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/PhilTodd.aspx [4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref4> http://research.eiu.com/OurTeam/LucyHurst.aspx [5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/s00006837/My%20Documents/Comments%20on%20the%20Community%20Priority%20Evaluation%20(CPE)%20Guidelines.doc#_ftnref5> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22617001 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn>wrote: > Good morning Olivier, > > > > Sure, my comment will be before 31 August. I’m already on the guidelines > and will give my comments shortly. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] > Envoyé : mardi 27 août 2013 22:37 > À : tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn > Cc : 'Rinalia Abdul Rahim'; 'ALAC Working List' > Objet : Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement > on the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines Update > > > > Dear Tijani, > > > > On 27/08/2013 19:38, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote: > > > Rinalia, I'm working on the guidelines and will provide you with my > inputs > > > The deadline is extended to 7 September. > > Thanks for looking into this. > > > > The deadline was indeed moved to 7 September due to our note to ICANN > > Staff that this was a comment period that was less than 21 days in > > length. There is no reply comment period. So the schedule which I laid > > out, with a closing time for At-Large Comments on 30 August still stands > > if we wish to remain on-track for a 5 working-day ALAC vote. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > _______________________________________________ > 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… > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

1 0