- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [council] Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

FYI. Alan ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm>http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29oct12-en.htm > > >Call for Volunteers: IGN-INGO Protections Policy >Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members >Date: 29 October 2012 > > > > > >Introduction > > > >At its meeting on 17 October 2012, the GNSO >Council initiated a Policy Development Process >(PDP) on the Protection of Certain International >Organization Names in all GTLDs. (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-2>20121017-2). >The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a >group of volunteers should now be convened to >draft the charter for the IGO-INGO PDP Working >Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. > > >Task of the Drafting Team > > > >The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing >a charter for the PDP Working Group on the >Protection of Certain International Organization >Names in all GTLDs. The Charter should include, >at a minimum, the following elements as >specified in the ><http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines: Working Group >identification; Mission, Purpose and >Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and >Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The >proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO >Council for its consideration. Upon completion >of the Charter by the Drafting Team, the Working >Group will then begin execution of the Charter. > > >Volunteers > > > >If you are interested to participate, please >send an email to the ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>GNSO >Secretariat. You will be required to complete a ><http://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>Statement >of Interest in order to participate. It is >proposed that the group meet each Wednesday at 18:00 UTC for two hours. > > >Background Information on the Issue > > > >The ICANN Board has requested policy advice from >the GNSO Council and the GAC on whether special >protections should be afforded for the names and >acronyms of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement >("RCRC"), the International Olympic Committee >("IOC") and/or International Government Organizations ("IGOs"). > >In September 2011, the GAC sent advice to the >GNSO with a proposal for granting second level >protections based upon the protections afforded >to IOC/RCRC at the first level during the >initial round of new gTLD applications, and that >such protections are permanent. As a result of >the GAC proposal submitted to the GNSO, the GNSO >IOC/RCRC Drafting Team was formed and created a >set of recommendations for protecting the >IOC/RCRC names at the second level of the >initial round new gTLDs, including the >initiation of an "expedited PDP" to determine >appropriate permanent protections for the RCRC and IOC names. > >The latest inquiry to examine the issue of >protecting IGO names emerged as a result of a >request from the ICANN Board in response to >letters received from the OECD and other IGOs in >December 2011. Specifically, IGOs are seeking >ICANN approval of protections at the top level >that, at a minimum, are similar to those >afforded to the RCRC and IOC in the Applicant >Guidebook. In addition, IGOs are seeking a >pre-emptive mechanism to protect their names at >the second level. On 11 March 2012, the ICANN >Board formally requested that the GNSO Council >and the GAC provide policy advice on the IGO's request. > >The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN >Staff on 1 October 2012 (see ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…) >and in this report a number of issues are >outlined that will need further consideration during the PDP. > >The GNSO Council approved the IGO-INGO PDP at its 17 October 2012 meeting. > > >Recommended Reading for Volunteers > > > > * > <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o…>Final > Issue Report on the Protection of IGO Names > * > <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>GNSO > Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines > > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Draft Recommendations Overall Policy for the Selection of IDN ccTLD Strings PC
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Dear IDN WG and ALAC, Please find below the revised statement on the* "Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations" *that incorporates additions proposed during the Toronto meeting. Suggestions for further amendments *must be received by Friday (November 2nd)* for the ALAC to commence a vote in time to meet the Reply Period deadline on November 9th. Thanks. Rinalia Abdul Rahim* * ** * * * * *ALAC Statement on the Draft IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes Policy Recommendations* The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) commends the International Domain Names (IDN) country code Policy Development Process Working Group 1 for the comprehensiveness of its draft policy recommendations on the IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes for territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 list. We note that the recommendations are based on the previous work of the IDNC Working Group and we are pleased to see that the recommendations reflect the learning drawn from the implementation of the IDNccTLD Fast Track Process over the past few years. We observe that the draft recommendations do not address the issue of variant TLDs and instead contain a placeholder in Section J, which points out that issues pertaining to the management of such TLDs are still being discussed in the ICANN community and will be added later. We believe that the draft recommendations should indicate that the issue of variants is urgent and need to be addressed in a timely manner. Concurrently, the draft recommendations should also affirm that the outcomes of the variants discussion pertaining to the Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone would be binding and applicable to all TLDs (including ccTLDs), given that the overarching principle of the LGR process is the security and stability of the Root Zone, which is shared by all Internet users. We note with concern that the draft recommendations consider selected IDN ccTLD strings to be confusingly similar based on their appearance to “a reasonable Internet user who is unfamiliar with the script” although "linguistic, technical, and visual perception factors" will be taken into consideration. Notwithstanding the merit and rationale for this assessment criterion, an assessment on confusing similarity based primarily on the appearance of selected strings to users unfamiliar with the script may not be consistent with the nature and purpose of IDN ccTLDs, which are fundamentally introduced for the use and benefit of local IDN users in pertinent ccTLD territories. Without taking into account sufficient linguistic factors, problematic results may occur. For example, an IDN ccTLD that is assessed as not confusingly similar by a user "who is unfamiliar with the script" may well be deemed confusingly similar by the local IDN user and vice versa. We believe that this particular issue can be addressed in the policy making process through more consultations with the IDN communities in implicated ccTLD territories. Finally, we wish to reiterate the significance and importance of IDNs, including IDN Top Level Domains (TLDs) at both the generic and country code levels. IDNs are crucial for enhancing diversity and multilingualism on the Internet. Towards this end, the attribution of IDNs should take into account the fact that some languages have a wide geographical distribution that go beyond national borders and are thus not the sole property of one sovereign state alone. It follows, therefore, that due consideration should be given to protecting the rights of concerned language communities which, though falling outside the jurisdiction of one nation state, share with its inhabitants a common language or script. END

1 0

Reminder: Meeting Reports from those who have attended ICANN in Toronto
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Hello all, the meeting report page of our ICANN Toronto week is at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Toronto+Meeting+Reports Congratulations and thanks to all who have filed one or more reports! However, I note that most people have not filed any report at all. This is very disappointing. If you have attended a session which does not have a report so far, please be so kind to write a short report, even a few lines, to let others know the issues discussed and the general topics of the meeting, along with the conclusion, if any. Many thanks, Olivier

4 3

Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://internetcommerce.org/USG_Review_DotCom_Renewal
by Holly Raiche Oct. 28, 2012

Oct. 28, 2012

HI Everyone For those not on Corwin's list, this is an interesting note - the review by the US Gov of IANA's contract with Verisign - that is taking its own sweet time! HOlly Begin forwarded message: > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz(a)facebookmail.com> > Date: 29 October 2012 9:22:45 AM AEDT > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146(a)groups.facebook.com> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] http://internetcommerce.org/USG_Review_DotCom_Renewal > Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+416lfn0j000zg543zelp003k5cal6nyr000zg4db9t6126z46(a)groups.facebook.com> > > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A) > > Philip Corwin 29 October 09:22 > http://internetcommerce.org/USG_Review_DotCom_Renewal > .Com Pricing Through 2018 Uncertain as USG Reviews Renewal Contract | Internet Commerce Associatio > internetcommerce.org > The voice of commerce and entrepreneurship in Internet Governance > > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

1 0

Fwd: [community] ALAC > Letter Regarding Registry SG DIDT on TMCH
by Hong Xue Oct. 28, 2012

Oct. 28, 2012

I think John has made it very clear. "Those are patent applications, not patents. There is a large and important difference." Patents are all public. Hong ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Reiss (Confluence) <no-reply(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:28 AM Subject: [community] ALAC > Letter Regarding Registry SG DIDT on TMCH To: hongxueipr(a)gmail.com Seth Reiss <https://community.icann.org/display/~seth.reiss> added a comment to the page: *Letter Regarding Registry SG DIDT on TMCH* <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DI…> "subsistence or exercise" is not common IP legal language. I assume "subsidence" would mean that IP rights reside in certain material whether or not the rights are being exploited, and "exercise" would be the exploitation of the rights, but that is just a guess. Typically, pending patent applications are secret for 18 months from a first priority date. Copyrights could be confidential in unpublished material. Trademarks rights could never be secret. View Online<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DI…> · Like<https://community.icann.org/plugins/likes/like.action?contentId=37193719> · Reply To This<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Letter+Regarding+Registry+SG+DI…> Stop watching page<https://community.icann.org/users/removepagenotification.action?pageId=3719…> · Manage Notifications<https://community.icann.org/users/editmyemailsettings.action> This message was sent by Atlassian Confluence <http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence> 4.3.1, the Enterprise Wiki <http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/tour/enterprise-wiki.jsp> -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0

Fwd: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2012

Oct. 27, 2012

FYI >From: Brian Peck <brian.peck(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" > <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> >CC: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam(a)icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail > <mail(a)berrycobb.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:13:34 -0700 >Subject: [council] Initiation of IGO/INGO Protection PDP > >GNSO Council, > >As you recall from the 17 October 2012 Toronto meeting, the Council >adopted the motion to initiate a PDP to be completed in an expedited >manner on the Protections of Certain International Organization >Names in all gTLDs (see 20121017-2 ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017>http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017) >The GNSO Council decided at this meeting that a group of volunteers >should be convened quickly to draft the charter for the IGO-INGO >Protection PDP Working Group, which will likely include the members >from the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. The first meeting of the IGO-INGO >Protection Charter Drafting Team is scheduled to occur on 31 October >2012 at 18:00 UTC. Calendar notices and request for volunteers will >be sent out shortly. > >To expedite initiation of the PDP, Staff developed the attached >first drafts of the IGO-INGO Protection WG Charter and proposed work >plan. The draft Charter proposes that the future WG create two >sub-groups (A & B) to address the different scope and timelines for >addressing the issues of special protections for the IOC/RCRC names >and IGO/INGO names separately. We'd like to request your particular >attention be given to the Mission & Scope, Objectives & Goals, and >Deliverables & Timeframes sections of the Charter. > >The draft proposed work plan is also provided to understand key >milestones of the PDP efforts and external events planned through >the first quarter of 2013. Please note that this is a working >draft. Staff is checking internally on the expert opinion issue, >and we'd like to propose updating this work plan once we receive >confirmation that we can obtain the expert opinion. > >Because the IOC/RCRC DT members will likely participate in the >IGO-INGO PDP, Staff suggests that the current IOC/RCRC DT be >suspended. It is expected that the remaining IOC/RCRC DT efforts, >after the close of the public comment period, will be addressed by >sub-group A of the PDP WG mentioned above. > >We look forward to meeting with members of the Drafting Team next >week. In the meantime, Staff would like to hear the Council's view >about this go-forward plan and will incorporate any feedback that >the Council has. > >Supporting Staff: Brian Peck, Margie Milam, Berry Cobb > > >Thank you. > >ICANN Policy Team > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

My thoughts below. Alan At 24/10/2012 12:21 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >Hi, Alan > >the ALS Starter Kit is a document which has relevant material on the >public facing ALAC/At-Large mailing lists >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALS+Starter+Kits (meaning >the ALAC_internal and ALAC Excom lists are not mentioned) > >Re: the At-Large and ALAC_announce lists, I think both lists need to >be kept as these lists serve different purposes. > >* The ALAC_announce list - all ALS representatives are added to this >list by At-Large Staff when their ALS is formally accredited by ALAC >and is the primary channel by which ALSes are informed on >ALAC/At-Large activity by At-Large Staff and the ALAC chair. Can individuals subscribe as well? >* The At-Large list - Anyone on the list can post on any topic >(typically ICANN policy issues) for others to comment on. I believe >that ALS representatives and ALAC members are NOT added automatically >but can "manually' join if they know how to. > >Re: ALAC Excom....a bigger question is the necessity of the Excom list >- shouldn't policy discussions on the Excom list be on the ALAC list? >IF Excom calls are open to ALAC members, shouldn't the Excom call >announcements also be on the ALAC list? Announcing ExCom calls on the ALAC list is a good idea. Don't think in precludes a list for ExCom discussions. >Re: creating shadow lists for the ALAC and ALAC Excom - I would >investigate the ability to have RSS feeds for these (and for that >matter all At-Large WG lists and GNSO WG lists) to make it easier for >anyone to monitor activity. Agree RSS should be an option. Not sure that it replaces the ability to receive via e-mail though. >Kind Regards, > >Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > >On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > While working on the Rules of Procedure, it became obvious that we > > needed a document describing the various ALAC mailing lists giving a > > summary of their usage and describing who must of should be > > subscribed. This list will not include RALO lists or the multitude of > > working group and committee lists > > > > Currently there are five such lists. All are archived and are > > publicly viewable except as noted. > > > > ALAC - General ALAC list used for the majority of ALAC e-mail > > interactions. Originally only ALAC members, RALO leadership, formal > > Liaisons selected by the ALAC, Liaisons to the ALAC, At-Large Board > > member and Staff were on it. More recently, it has included (either > > by accident or intentionally), selected former ALAC member, selected > > former RALO leadership, and others. (I am using the term "formal > > Liaisons" to refer to the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC Liaisons - those to > > other ICANN or external bodies.) > > > > ALAC-Internal - Used for things that we do not want to be publicly > > viewable. Most commonly, this is travel arrangements, social plans > > and occasionally semi-confidential issues or issues where we want > > targeted ALAC feedback. Membership is similar to the ALAC list, > but no "others" > > > > ALAC-ExCom - Publicly viewable list for the ALAC ExCom. Membership is > > traditionally ExCom members, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, > > and Staff. More recently a few others were added. > > > > ALAC-Announce - General list for announcements. Only ICANN staff and > > the ALAC Chair (I think) have sending privileges. This list includes > > pretty much everyone in the ALAC list plus about 175 others. > > > > At-Large - General public list. This list has Most but not all of > > those onthe ALAC list (missing about 10 ALAC members and RALO > > leadership) plus about 160 others. > > > > ALAC-Announce and At-Large membership overlaps. There are 98 people > > on both lists (about 1/3 of which are ALAC/RALO Leadership), 126 just > > ALAC-Announce and 98 just At-Large > > > > For mail sent to lists from senders not on the lists, there are four > > possible outcomes, it goes through, it is held for moderation, it > > bounces or it is discarded without a reject message (moderation > > requires staff action). Based on a test, I believe that for the ALAC > > list, such messages are discarded, for the ALAC-Internal list, such > > mail bounces, and for the ExCom it is moderated. Not sure about the > > two larger lists. > > > > My suggestions for going forward are: > > > > ALAC > > - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by > > the ALAC, Board member and Staff > > - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC > > - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above > > - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or > > could be receive only - see below) > > > > ALAC-Internal > > - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by > > the ALAC, Board member and Staff > > > > ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name > > used in the new RoP) > > - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board > > member and Staff > > > > I think we need to discuss the ALAC-Announce and At-Large lists > > further. I am not at all sure we need two lists for this. > > > > I suggest we create two additional lists that "shadow" the ALAC and > > ExCom lists. That is, subscription open to all and they receive all > > messages that got to the ALAC and ExCom lists. This allows those who > > want to follow the discussions to receive them without the > > inconvenience of having to go to the archive. This is equivalent to > > adding the to the lists in receive-only mode, but since we have had > > regular problems ensuring that the membership of the ALAC and ExCom > > lists is correct, having a shadow list would be a lot cleaner. > > > > Please let me know what you think about these issues. > > > > 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… >_______________________________________________ >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

RE : Re: ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists
by jjs.global Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

Hi, I'm pretty much on the same line as Yaovi. Jean-Jacques. Envoyé depuis un mobile SamsungYaovi Atohoun <yaovito(a)yahoo.fr> a écrit :Hi Alan, Thank you for this initiative to clarify the use of the various mailing lists. My comments on your suggestions below: ALAC - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or could be receive only - see below) I agree with the membership list but I am not in favour of automatically adding past holders. However any past holder subscribingwill be approved to be member ALAC-Internal - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff My suggestion is that this list includes only ALAC members and staff. I assume that a formal communication from the Board or other groups to ALAC will go through the chair of the staff. ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name used in the new RoP) - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff My suggestion is that this list serve only for communication between ALAC-Excom members. I will also include staff. Thank you Yaovi ________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Mercredi 24 octobre 2012 4h37 Objet : [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Mailing Lists While working on the Rules of Procedure, it became obvious that we needed a document describing the various ALAC mailing lists giving a summary of their usage and describing who must of should be subscribed. This list will not include RALO lists or the multitude of working group and committee lists Currently there are five such lists. All are archived and are publicly viewable except as noted. ALAC - General ALAC list used for the majority of ALAC e-mail interactions. Originally only ALAC members, RALO leadership, formal Liaisons selected by the ALAC, Liaisons to the ALAC, At-Large Board member and Staff were on it. More recently, it has included (either by accident or intentionally), selected former ALAC member, selected former RALO leadership, and others. (I am using the term "formal Liaisons" to refer to the ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC Liaisons - those to other ICANN or external bodies.) ALAC-Internal - Used for things that we do not want to be publicly viewable. Most commonly, this is travel arrangements, social plans and occasionally semi-confidential issues or issues where we want targeted ALAC feedback. Membership is similar to the ALAC list, but no "others" ALAC-ExCom - Publicly viewable list for the ALAC ExCom. Membership is traditionally ExCom members, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, and Staff. More recently a few others were added. ALAC-Announce - General list for announcements. Only ICANN staff and the ALAC Chair (I think) have sending privileges. This list includes pretty much everyone in the ALAC list plus about 175 others. At-Large - General public list. This list has Most but not all of those onthe ALAC list (missing about 10 ALAC members and RALO leadership) plus about 160 others. ALAC-Announce and At-Large membership overlaps. There are 98 people on both lists (about 1/3 of which are ALAC/RALO Leadership), 126 just ALAC-Announce and 98 just At-Large For mail sent to lists from senders not on the lists, there are four possible outcomes, it goes through, it is held for moderation, it bounces or it is discarded without a reject message (moderation requires staff action). Based on a test, I believe that for the ALAC list, such messages are discarded, for the ALAC-Internal list, such mail bounces, and for the ExCom it is moderated. Not sure about the two larger lists. My suggestions for going forward are: ALAC - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff - Membership for Liaisons appointed TO the ALAC - Perhaps membership to WG Chairs if not already included above - Membership for past holders of above categories (my preference, or could be receive only - see below) ALAC-Internal - Membership for ALAC, RALO Leadership, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff ALAC-ExCom (with a new name mapping to the ALAC Leadership Team name used in the new RoP) - Members of the ExCom, formal Liaisons appointed by the ALAC, Board member and Staff I think we need to discuss the ALAC-Announce and At-Large lists further. I am not at all sure we need two lists for this. I suggest we create two additional lists that "shadow" the ALAC and ExCom lists. That is, subscription open to all and they receive all messages that got to the ALAC and ExCom lists. This allows those who want to follow the discussions to receive them without the inconvenience of having to go to the archive. This is equivalent to adding the to the lists in receive-only mode, but since we have had regular problems ensuring that the membership of the ALAC and ExCom lists is correct, having a shadow list would be a lot cleaner. Please let me know what you think about these issues. 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… _______________________________________________ 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…

1 0

Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

Please redistribute as think necessary. Alan =================== Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members Last Updated: 23 October 2012 Date: 23 October 2012 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. What This Group Will Do As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected, at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>'thick' Whois Final Issue Report: * Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. * Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick' registry. * Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? * Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? * Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? * Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? * Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. * Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? * Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? * Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. * Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. For further details and requirements, see the <https://community.icann.org/x/H4EoAg>WG Charter. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>GNSO Working Group Guidelines. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf>GNSO PDP Manual. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20%27thick%27%20Whois%20PDP%20Working%20Group>GNSO secretariat (<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries. Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data is associated with the domain name (this information includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name. In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois. As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf>the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012. At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] GAC CommuniquÃ(c) from Toronto
by Hong Xue Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > My recollection is that the URS does allow for names protected by > international accord but the UDRP does not. Not sure about TMCH. Neither URS nor TMCH covers marks other than trademarks/services (registered, protected by international law or by special domestic law). They are all purely trademark measures. Hong > > > > At 22/10/2012 02:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>Quick answer: >> >>Because they don't want the hassle and cost incurred by other name-holders >>(clearinghouse, URS/UDRP) and have convinced the GAC that their legal >>titles are more important than those of the private sector. >> >>This is all the more curious because my understanding is that international >>treaty/law protects the IOC graphic symbol (five rings in that >>colour/pattern) but not the word "olympic". >>So... in other words (if this is accurate), they are asking ICANN to extend >>beyond existing protections in the outside world. >> >>At very least, this is not as clear-cut as the GAC would suggest. >> >>- Evan > _______________________________________________ > 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… -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

1 0