- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Data Protection and Privacy Working Draft
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear All, In case you have comments on this current Draft, see attachment. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal(a)pir.org> > Date: April 24, 2013, 12:29:39 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "Thick Thin PDP (gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg(a)icann.org)" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg(a)icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Data Protection and Privacy Working Draft > > Mikey asked me to send the subteam's current working draft for today's call. We are almost finished, but still have a little some cleaning up to do. It may turn into a lot of cleaning up, depending on what data protection changes are in the draft RAA that was published for comment last night. Some provisions stand out as relevant but we need to take a closer look. > > I'm in Buenos Aires for a conference so I won't be on the call. The timing is entirely coincidental. > > Don

1 0

Fwd: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print
by Evan Leibovitch April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: 27 March 2013 01:15 Subject: Actually ICANN is creating new rights for THOUSANDS of derivations of a big brand TM, not 50 like staff claims in the large print. It is TM+50 derivations of each trademark label in the small print To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu It was revealed today during ICANN's new gtld webinar that ICANN is in fact creating rights to much more than the TM+50 derivations of that mark in its trademark clearinghouse. The fine print of this new right reads closer to "trademark + 50 derivations of that mark *for each trademark label".* So for example, for big brand companies like Apple, who will have a trademark registration in 30 countries for the word IPOD, ICANN will be assigning each of those separate registrations for the same trademark a new "trademark label", and *each trademark label* will be allowed to block registrations of the trademark +50 derivations. So in the Apple/IPOD example, Apple will be able block registrations for the TM + 1500 derivations of that mark (30 countries x 50 derivations = 1500). And ICANN staff confirmed that this is how staff's policy is designed to work on the webinar today. So this very practical example shows how half-baked staff's proposal truly is. Had the community ever been allowed to develop this proposal, these little "oopsies" could have been avoided. Of course it isn't an "oopsy" for the TM lobbyists who created the proposal - its a gigantic windfall of rights that exist no where in law, obtained no community consensus, and chill the speech of thousands of other lawful uses of a word. This very important distinction between a trademark and trademark label shows how big brands will in fact be able to block thousands of unrelated, lawful expression in the DNS. But ICANN promised that it won't be creating new rights with its policies, so I guess we don't have to worry and should trust them.... Sigh, Robin IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 1

Fwd: German Federal Internet Commission Report
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro April 22, 2013

April 22, 2013

Dear All, As you can imagine some of the continuing issues permeating through increasing reliance on the Internet are issues of Data Protection and Privacy. One of the latest developments in Europe, specifically Germany is the release of the report by a Commission that was established by their Parliament. A Special Internet and Digital Society Commission has made numerous recommendations and one of it includes the establishment of the Internet Commissioner in Germany. To read the Article, visit: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-in… To read the Final Report visit: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

3 3

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Final GAC Communique - Beijing
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Soac-infoalert] Final GAC Communique - Beijing Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:54:25 -0700 From: Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org> To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Please find attached the final GAC Communique from Beijing. Best regards, Jeannie Ellers Jeannie Ellers Manager, GAC Coordination Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 USA Ph. +1 310 302 7552

1 0

Share Taxi early morning?
by Wolf Ludwig April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Hello, it's almost over again -- snivel ... Fouad and I realized that we have to leave early tomorrow (Friday) morning to the airport. As our flights are scheduled for around 7:00 AM, we have to leave the hotel here around 4:00 AM (a real nightmare) ... counting on 1 hr to the airport ... Anybody else from the ALAC crowd who needs to join us and want to share a taxi with us? Let me take the opportunity to say thanks and good bye to all of you (or at least those I won't cross at the Wrap-up Cocktail ;-) Wish you save flights and relaxed returns! Best, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

3 2

Revised statement on the PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

The original draft and discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. Thanks to Rinalia and Evan for a great revision (which I have slightly tweaked here). ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure The ALAC is deeply troubled/concerned by the proposed enforcement mechanism for the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments, which appears to be ineffectual by design. Although described as a Dispute Resolution Procedure, the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) was introduced to the community as a process that could be enforced by ICANN (<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm) Many in our community were led to believe that enforced by ICANN meant that the PIC process would include an ICANN Compliance connection and that ICANN itself would carry out the enforcement. As the PIC is currently presented, the process: * Requires possibly significant fees with magnitudes that are currently unknown; * Requires that the complainant demonstrates measurable harm due to the violation; * May be filed by ICANN, but without any obligation for it to do so. Given that no exception is noted in the PIC process, ICANN could presumably only file an objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurably harmed. This situation recalls the sad period when ICANN applied RAA sanctions only when it was not paid. The UDRP, where decisions are outsourced like those of the proposed PICDRP, was deliberately designed to operate independently the opposite of "by ICANN" as claimed by ICANN for the PIC. And unlike trademark claimants using the UDRP, members of the public should not be expected to have financial or even direct interest in order to complain when PICs are not being fulfilled. The ALAC believes that ICANN made a serious mistake in not requiring all new gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises in the form of contractual compliance. We expected that the PIC, despite being a late addition to the application process, would be used as a crucial mechanism to uphold the interest of the public and the end user. As proposed, the PIC implementation is weak with features that actively discourage and penalize complainants. The PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure as it is currently presented provides little leverage for the Global Public Interest and it is therefore unacceptable. We firmly believe that ICANN must bestow upon the PIC process the true force of responsible and competent enforcement.

2 1

Possible joint ALAC-NCSG statement at Open Forum
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

At the ALAC-NCSG meeting on Monday, a decision was taken to attempt to draft a statement on the proposed new rights protection mechanisms (originally the "strawman" proposal) and more specific all the allowing into the TMCH variations of trademarks that had been found to be abusive by a UDRP or Court. A number of drafts were circulated and the statement below was the result: >We are deeply concerned about the flawed process that led to the >creation and adoption of the so-called strawman proposal for new >gTLD rights protection mechanisms. Despite assurances that staff >would not create or alter community-developed Policy, some aspects >of this proposal were adopted outside of the appropriate policy >development processes. > >While we appreciate staff's admission that this particular proposal >was a policy issue and not an implementation detail, the >explanations provided for the adoption of the policy that the GNSO >Council did not support and that the ALAC deemed to require GNSO >development have been woefully inadequate. Circumvention of the >bottom-up model is a serious issue that deserves attention and >redress. We call upon ICANN to reverse this trend and respect the >community-led bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process >that ICANN claims to champion. Following this, an extensive discussion was held during the open GNSO meeting. One of the issues that came out of this was that many (but certainly not all) GNSO Council (and presumably GNSO) members feel that the salient issue is not that the Board has chosen to override the majority position of the GNSO that some of the strawman issues were definitely policy, but rather that it was done without at least the courtesy of telling the GNSO that they were planning to do so, explaining the rationale in detail, and giving the GNSO an opportunity to interact with the Board and staff before the definitive decision was taken. I would suggest that this is closer to the message that we want to deliver to the Board. I have told Robin Gross, that we would let her know prior to the Open Forum whether we support the above joint statement or not. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .patagonia
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Dear Sergio, the ALAC Executive Committee had lunch with the GAC Leadership today and we raised the issues of .amazon, .patagonia and .cba At this stage, the ALAC is unable to raise objections since we are past the deadline for filing ALAC objections. The GAC has been considering the list of GTLDs applied for and their work continues throughout the week. Whilst we were not told which strings are currently being considered for objection, since the GAC's work is ongoing, I would remind you and your colleagues that there are several GAC representatives from the countries affected by the above strings and a natural course of action could be for you to write to your representatives. The GAC's work is scheduled to complete by the end of the ICANN week, hence the earlier you write, the better. But keep in mind that the GAC is approaching closure and will not consider new objections, so it really depends on the strings that the GAC has considered so far. I hope this helps in your approach. Best regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/04/2013 08:37, Presidencia Internauta wrote: > Dear Members of ALAC, > > Attached you will find a requirement of three > members of LACRALO order request to ALAC to advise the Board of ICANN > to reject the application for the '.patagonia'. > > Also, during the day we will send a similar request regarding the > domain '. Amazon' > > Thanking you in advance. > **Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > > > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> > > > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819** > **"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano** -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .patagonia
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Dear Sergio, the ALAC ExCom is having a lunch with the GAC leadership today. I will inform them of the initiatives currently taking place. Kind regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 08/04/2013 08:37, Presidencia Internauta wrote: > Dear Members of ALAC, > > Attached you will find a requirement of three > members of LACRALO order request to ALAC to advise the Board of ICANN > to reject the application for the '.patagonia'. > > Also, during the day we will send a similar request regarding the > domain '. Amazon' > > Thanking you in advance. > **Sergio Salinas Porto > Presidente Internauta Argentina > > > Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar> > FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org/> > > > facebook:salinasporto > twitter:sergiosalinas > MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... > Skype:internautaargentina > Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819** > **"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano** -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

ALAC Statement on Draft RAA statement
by Alan Greenberg April 7, 2013

April 7, 2013

The final version has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/xZRwAg. The substantive changes made to the previous version are: - The trigger action requiring Registrar action of inaccurate Whois (Section 5 of the Whois Accuracy Specification) has been slightly changed. We are recommending that replacing the "Upon the occurrence of a" with Upon a validated report or discovery of a, or alternately, "Upon learning of a...". - Changing the Registrar Whois Port 43 requirement to require Port 43, but only until there are no longer any Thin registries. Alan

4 4