- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board Addresses WHOIS
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

19 November 2012 For Immediate Release ICANN Board Launches New Effort to Tackle gTLD Registration Data Challenges Based on Policy Review Team Report Approved resolution also reconfirms full support for Enforcement of WHOIS policy and obligations Los Angeles, California The ICANN Board of Directors has directed the Chief Executive Officer to launch a new effort to re-examine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) registration data. The move follows the recommendations of a review team that examined implementation of WHOIS data policy. WHOIS is a listing of domain registrants and their contact information. WHOIS began more than 25 years ago, before there was even a World Wide Web and its purpose was far more technical than it is today, said Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, ICANN Board Chair. Its clear that we have to take a thorough look at WHOIS from the ground up, and thats what were asking the CEO to do - what should WHOIS be and how can we best improve its accuracy? The Board tasked the CEO to go beyond the existing WHOIS protocol and start a new initiative focused on directory services. In response CEO Fadi Chehadé will convene an expert working group to help lay the foundation for new policy development work. The Board resolution also directs the CEO to continue to fully enforce the contractual conditions that relate to the current collection, access and accuracy of gTLD registration data, and increase efforts to communicate and conduct outreach ensuring compliance with existing WHOIS policy and conditions. Its basically a two-track approach, said Crocker. In addition to a full examination of WHOIS, the Board wants to make certain that enforcement of existing WHOIS reporting requirements is strengthened in conformance with the Affirmation of Commitments and the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team. The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) is an agreement signed by ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce in 2009 that, among other things, commits ICANN to enforcing existing policies relating to WHOIS. ## To read the Board resolution on WHOIS, go here: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm#1>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm#1 To read the report of the WHOIS Policy Review Team, go here: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12… MEDIA CONTACTS: Brad White Director of Global Media Affairs Washington, DC, USA Tel. +1 202.570.7118 <mailto:brad.white@icann.org>brad.white(a)icann.org Andrew Robertson Edelman Public Relations London, U.K. Tel. + 44 (7811) 341 945 <mailto:andrew.Robertson@edelman.com>andrew.Robertson(a)edelman.com About ICANN: ICANNs mission is to ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internets unique identifiers. ICANN doesnt control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesnt deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internets naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. For more information please visit: <http://www.icann.org>www.icann.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from ICANN, let us know by clicking <http://ICANN.pr-optout.com/OptOut.aspx?523509x19831x89344x1x3785396x24000x6…>here. ICANN, 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094 United States

3 2

ALAC Input into policy discussions?
by Holly Raiche Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

Hi Everyone I was looking through the issues that are open for comment on the ICANN website. While there is an ALAC response on the strategic plan and Alan is looking at the Expired Registration Recovery Period, I don't see (on the ALAC work space) that anyone is doing anything on either the IRPT Part C (due 3 Dec) or IRTP Part D (due 14 Dec). Has a decision been made that we are not commenting, or is someone doing work on either or both. Given that we have commented on Part B, maybe we should be following up on Parts C and C. (and yes, I'd be happy to have a look and draft something) Thanks HOlly

2 1

Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/engli...
by Holly Raiche Nov. 18, 2012

Nov. 18, 2012

So what is the process this 'Independent Objector' will follow - particularly since he can file objections on 'community and public interest' grounds. Any ideas on whether we will be consulted? Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz(a)facebookmail.com> > Date: 17 November 2012 10:23:44 AM AEDT > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146(a)groups.facebook.com> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/engli... > Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+41jkrxbe000zg543zelp003mrvv4tj4l000zg4db9t6127i46(a)groups.facebook.com> > > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A) > > Philip Corwin 17 November 10:23 > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independen… > The Independent Objector's Opinions on Controversial Applications - Official Website of the Independ > www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org > When assessing whether an objection should be filed against an application for a new gTLD, the Indep... > > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Fatimata Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

Thank you Alan and Evan for attending this marathon meeting and keeping us informed. ALAC should be given the means to physically participate next time IMHO. Best, Fatimata T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >I concur with what Alan said. > >While I was disheartened by the second-class-citizen status afforded ALAC >at these meetings, our presence here was greater than it was within the IRT >or STI efforts. I like to think that, together with the NCSG, we (again) >fended off the worst excesses requested by the rights holders. However, as >Alan said, we are sympathetic to the desire to reduce cybersquatting, >frivolous and defensive registrations, and end-user confusion/misdirection. > > >On 17 November 2012 00:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> Copy of a message sent to ALAC list >> =================================== >> >> As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels >> several weeks ago to discuss implementation >> issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). >> The meeting included representatives of the GNSO >> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not >> At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a >> follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In >> addition to a discussion of many of the technical >> issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend >> discussing a list of issues that had been >> presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and >> Intellectual Property Constituencies >> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf >> ). >> This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately >> only remotely as no travel funding was provided). >> I had the honour of participating along with Evan. >> >> The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both >> interesting and productive. The intent was: >> >> 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC >> and IPC were asking for. The original document >> was not particularly clear, and in fact, the >> BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. >> >> 2. To understand whether these issues were in >> fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) >> believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by >> GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much >> discussed within ICANN, but the difference has >> never been formally addressed before. Staff were >> charged with starting to develop a methodology >> for making such decisions in the future. Although >> the work is still preliminary, it was used to >> analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC >> proposals, and the outcome matched that of the >> discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to >> be Policy and thus required GNSO action to >> formally change the status quo (a relief to some >> at the table, and troubling to others). >> >> 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC >> and see if any solutions could be found to >> address the issues that concerned them which at >> the same time might be acceptable to the other >> stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 >> solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on >> Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The >> proposal completely pleased none of the people >> involved, which some people say is a good measure >> of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a >> good start for more traditional community-based >> discussions which now have to happen. >> >> ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to >> not have new policy changes in the new TLD >> program at this late date. However we also did >> look at the individual issues as discussed in a >> message I sent earlier this week. The resultant >> strawman proposal actually fits in moderately >> well with the positions that ALAC took. Of >> course, this is not yet a formal policy and there >> are many details to be developed. This is perhaps >> not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to >> protect innocent Internet users coincide well >> with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting >> and fraud, and the over-reaching that some >> attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting >> protections far an above those granted by the TM >> itself) were to some extent held in control. >> >> I have to note that this type of focus group is >> not an unknown way to try to bridge widely >> disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon >> one in ICANN, and one that some people have said >> violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of >> ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI >> group which many herald as one of the more >> effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened >> issues that the community (well, part of the >> community including At-Large) had thought or >> hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an >> effective move or not history will tell. One of >> the measures that I have is how quickly we can >> convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and >> actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. >> >> After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said >> that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue >> and would personally oversee its implementation. >> True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours >> of meetings. It was interesting! >> >> I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in >> the coming days on some of the high and low >> points of the meeting, but this will have to do >> for the moment. Today I was on the call for over >> 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting >> starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 >> hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time >> for a bit of rest and relaxation. >> >> You can find the initial description of outcomes >> of the meeting at >> http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. >> >> Alan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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… >> > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

Copy of a message sent to ALAC list =================================== As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels several weeks ago to discuss implementation issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The meeting included representatives of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In addition to a discussion of many of the technical issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend discussing a list of issues that had been presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf) This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately only remotely as no travel funding was provided). I had the honour of participating along with Evan. The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both interesting and productive. The intent was: 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC and IPC were asking for. The original document was not particularly clear, and in fact, the BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. 2. To understand whether these issues were in fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much discussed within ICANN, but the difference has never been formally addressed before. Staff were charged with starting to develop a methodology for making such decisions in the future. Although the work is still preliminary, it was used to analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC proposals, and the outcome matched that of the discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to be Policy and thus required GNSO action to formally change the status quo (a relief to some at the table, and troubling to others). 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC and see if any solutions could be found to address the issues that concerned them which at the same time might be acceptable to the other stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The proposal completely pleased none of the people involved, which some people say is a good measure of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a good start for more traditional community-based discussions which now have to happen. ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to not have new policy changes in the new TLD program at this late date. However we also did look at the individual issues as discussed in a message I sent earlier this week. The resultant strawman proposal actually fits in moderately well with the positions that ALAC took. Of course, this is not yet a formal policy and there are many details to be developed. This is perhaps not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to protect innocent Internet users coincide well with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting and fraud, and the over-reaching that some attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting protections far an above those granted by the TM itself) were to some extent held in control. I have to note that this type of focus group is not an unknown way to try to bridge widely disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon one in ICANN, and one that some people have said violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI group which many herald as one of the more effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened issues that the community (well, part of the community including At-Large) had thought or hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an effective move or not history will tell. One of the measures that I have is how quickly we can convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue and would personally oversee its implementation. True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours of meetings. It was interesting! I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in the coming days on some of the high and low points of the meeting, but this will have to do for the moment. Today I was on the call for over 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time for a bit of rest and relaxation. You can find the initial description of outcomes of the meeting at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. Alan

5 4

Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels several weeks ago to discuss implementation issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The meeting included representatives of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In addition to a discussion of many of the technical issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend discussing a list of issues that had been presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf) This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately only remotely as no travel funding was provided). I had the honour of participating along with Evan. The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both interesting and productive. The intent was: 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC and IPC were asking for. The original document was not particularly clear, and in fact, the BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. 2. To understand whether these issues were in fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much discussed within ICANN, but the difference has never been formally addressed before. Staff were charged with starting to develop a methodology for making such decisions in the future. Although the work is still preliminary, it was used to analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC proposals, and the outcome matched that of the discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to be Policy and thus required GNSO action to formally change the status quo (a relief to some at the table, and troubling to others). 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC and see if any solutions could be found to address the issues that concerned them which at the same time might be acceptable to the other stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The proposal completely pleased none of the people involved, which some people say is a good measure of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a good start for more traditional community-based discussions which now have to happen. ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to not have new policy changes in the new TLD program at this late date. However we also did look at the individual issues as discussed in a message I sent earlier this week. The resultant strawman proposal actually fits in moderately well with the positions that ALAC took. Of course, this is not yet a formal policy and there are many details to be developed. This is perhaps not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to protect innocent Internet users coincide well with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting and fraud, and the over-reaching that some attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting protections far an above those granted by the TM itself) were to some extent held in control. I have to note that this type of focus group is not an unknown way to try to bridge widely disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon one in ICANN, and one that some people have said violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI group which many herald as one of the more effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened issues that the community (well, part of the community including At-Large) had thought or hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an effective move or not history will tell. One of the measures that I have is how quickly we can convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue and would personally oversee its implementation. True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours of meetings. It was interesting! I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in the coming days on some of the high and low points of the meeting, but this will have to do for the moment. Today I was on the call for over 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time for a bit of rest and relaxation. You can find the initial description of outcomes of the meeting at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Baku outcomes
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

Hello, everyone. The report for the APRALO Workshop at the UN Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Baku has been posted to the wiki ( https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/BAKU+APRALO+Reports) and pasted below. Best regards, Rinalia *ICANN APRALO Workshop Report* IGF 2012 Workshop #122 (9 November 2012) *New gTLDs: Implications and Potential for Community Engagement, Advocacy and Development* Organizers: ICANN APRALO & the DotKids Foundation Moderator: Rinalia Abdul Rahim, ICANN At Large Advisory Committee Remote Moderator & Time Keeper: Bianca Ho, NetMission Ambassador *Panelists:* - Edmon Chung, DotAsia Organisation, Asia Pacific - Yannis Li, DotKids Foundation, Asia - Andrei Kolesnikov, Coordination Centre for TLD RU, Russia - Scott Seitz, DotGay, USA - Fouad Bajwa, Internet Policy Group at Oi2, Pakistan - Olga Cavali, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina - Cheryl Langdon-Orr, .au Domain Administration Ltd, Australia In the pending expansion of the Top Level Domain Space, ICANN has received close to 2000 new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) applications. Of note is the low number of applications categorized as “community”-related (i.e., 84 community applications representing 4% of total applications). Various contributing factors have been discussed to explain the phenomenon such as the problem of general awareness attributed to insufficient outreach efforts. For communities, especially those from the developing world, few measures have been taken to facilitate their participation and engagement. There is still a lack of awareness and understanding about the value of new gTLDs for communities and there are also specific challenges and barriers that serve to limit community adoption. The workshop explored the following questions towards identifying the opportunities and challenges presented by new gTLDs for communities: 1. What is the value proposition of new TLDs for communities (i.e., the opportunities)? 2. What are the challenges in the uptake and sustainability of new TLDs for communities? 3. What type of support is needed to increase uptake and ensure sustainability? 4. What are the unique issues that apply for cross-border communities? The workshop discussion involved approximately 30 people and featured perspectives from representatives of communities that have applied for new gTLDs as well as views from regions around the world. Highlights and main points are as follows: *Opportunities/Value Proposition of new GTLDs for Communities* - Raises awareness about the community (i.e., makes communities visible with the identity that they choose); - Builds the community (i.e., allows the community to connect and to be found by others who share the same or similar identity, which enhances community ties and network); - Supports community advocacy (i.e., raises awareness about the community’s interests, issues and concerns), which has implications for mobilization of support/resources; - Supports the safety needs of vulnerable communities (e.g., children and the gay community); - Allows for the development and provision of services specifically for the community and in particular those with special needs; and - Surplus revenue can be channeled to support community-development via Foundations. *Adoption/Uptake Challenges for Communities* - Complicated application process with high start-up cost (technical, marketing, advertising, community consultations, etc.); - Application process requires community endorsement, which is difficult to obtain without substantial prior engagement, consultation and mobilization of support; - Information about financial assistance was not widely circulated and financial support requirement is premised on demonstration of financial stability, which defeats the purpose of financial assistance; - Community-names taken up by companies, which requires dispute resolution; and - Availability of Second Level Domain Name opportunities. *Support Needed for Sustainability* - Availability of local registrars/partners to distribute names - vertical integration as a solution for this appears to be controversial; - Strategies for dealing with abuse of community domains; and - Partnerships that bring in critical components needed for successful application and implementation (technical expertise, financial support, outreach support, sustainable business models, etc), before, during and post delegation of TLDs. *Unique Issues for Cross-Border Communities* - Difficulty in identifying the boundary of cross-border communities that are global; and - Difficulty in obtaining financial support for community applications that are trying to serve a global community of people that reside in both developed and developing countries *Recommendations for a new gTLD Remedial Round Targeted at Developing Countries and Under-Served Communities* - Initiate an experimental fast track round with approximately 25 new gTLDs; - Revise the application process and guidebook based on weaknesses already identified by the community; - Provide for a sunset policy and process where new gTLDs can fail gracefully; - Adjust the requirement for financial stability in evaluating the need for financial support; and - Ensure that the community evaluation process allows for community consultation and mobilization to happen after the application has been approved. END On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>wrote: > HI Everyone > > With Baku over, the agenda for the next APRALO meeting includes a look > back at Baku. We don't have a lot of time in that teleconference, so it > would be really helpful if those of you who attended could write brief > notes on what happened - what was good (and not so good), what issues came > up that we should be aware of and what lessons are there to be learned - > particularly for the Beijing meeting and APRALO showcase. > > Matt - could you please set up a workspace for people to put their notes > in please and circulate the link > > Thanks everyone for taking the time. > > Holly > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

1 0

Kurt Pritz resigns
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15nov12-en.htm -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Fwd: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 15, 2012

Nov. 15, 2012

Dear all, please find enclosed the message from the GAC Chair with her summary report of the GAC High Level Meeting. The involvement in this meeting of many in our community has helped raise ICANN's profile with senior government officials of many countries and shown the true diversity that our community is built on. In particular, I would like to thank Yrjö Länsipuro and Jean-Jacques Subrenat for being our Liaisons to the event's organisers and our permanent representatives in the set of events that took place. I would also like to thank members of the ALAC Executive Committee for their work in reaching out to governments during the lunch that was organised on the day. They thought they were going to a lunch - they got put to work and their food got cold while they were interacting with guests. But my biggest thanks go to Heather Dryden and her Team for organising this day's events. In the current political climate, it is important that senior officials improve their understanding of the ICANN community and the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model. This day brought many welcome bricks to the edifice and I am pleased that the ALAC was invited to take part in it. Best regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Chair's Summary of High Level Meeting October 15th, 2012 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:13:12 -0500 From: <Heather.Dryden(a)*.ca> To: <ocl(a)*.com>, <lesley(a)*.org.uk>, <stephane.vangelder(a)*.com>, <paf(a)*.se>, <jcurran(a)*.net> CC: <jonathan.robinson(a)*.com>, <alice(a)*.org>, <maria.hall(a)*.se>, <LIM_Choon_Sai(a)*.sg>, <hackshawt(a)*.tt>, <thomas.schneider(a)*.ch>, <Peter.Nettlefold(a)*.au> Dear SO and AC chairs, I am pleased to send you the attached Chair's Summary report of the High Level Meeting from 15 October, 2012 in Toronto, and would like to offer asincere thank you for meeting with senior officials attending the HLM. These efforts helped ensure a very successful meeting. Please distribute accordingly. The document has been sent for translation into the UN languages and Portuguese and has also been circulated to the ICANN Board. The Summary will also be posted to the GAC website. Best regards, Heather Dryden Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee

3 2

ALAC Response to IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 14, 2012

Nov. 14, 2012

Dear members of the ALAC, At-Large and IDN WG, * Re: Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document (Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels)* A draft response to the document specified above has been prepared and posted at the following At-Large Policy Development wiki page for your review and comments: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=36212771 PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT BY END OF MONDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2012! The ALAC will vote on the response immediately after the 19th so that the IDN Program Team can take it into consideration as they are finalizing the document based on comments received at the end of the month. Note: Though the comment period is over, we are able to channel this response directly to the VIP Program Team based on an agreement in Toronto. Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:42 AM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program - Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels To: rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ IDN Variant TLD Program – Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels 24 September 2012 Comment Period Opens on 24 September 2012 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): The Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Variant TLD Program deals with the variant form of top-level domain (TLD) names in different scripts. To enable IDN Variant TLDs in the root, it is necessary to establish the Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the DNS Root Zone. The Label Generation Rules Process is a way to develop and maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in respect of IDNA labels. The process must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process project team, consisting of global volunteers with expert consultants and ICANN staff, has produced the first public draft of the LGR Process document. The team now seeks community input on the proposed process and the principles that support it. The Label Generation Rules (LGR) Process document will be discussed at a public session at the ICANN meeting in Toronto in October 2012. The session schedule will be available at ICANN Toronto Meeting Website ( http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule) Comments received in this Public Comment period as well as community feedback during the Toronto meeting will be incorporated into the final draft and published for second round of Public Comment in November 2012. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/lgr-procedure-24sep12-en.htm ____________________________________ This message was sent to rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Manage Your Subscription: http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20657474&l=6333&s=R4TD&m=89…

1 0