- ALAC - lists.icann.org

GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 23, 2012

Oct. 23, 2012

http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto and attached for your convenience. Several things of particular note: - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs and not just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight. - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves). - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient. Alan

6 10

Re: [ALAC] GAC Communiqué from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

Ron, I tend to agree with your point, although it could be argued that they initially raised the point because clearly ICANN had not acted on what they believe to be clear instructions in the form of "international instruments and national laws". So their original request was a "wake-up" call and nothing else is reguired. There is another aspect that I raised on the GNSO Council list (slightly revised to make it understandable out of the context of the thread there). >The GAC position is that the names cannot be used. > >As Jeff Neuman has repeatedly said, the USE of >these names may be forbidden but there is no >requirement that registries not register them. >There is ample precedent that registries are not >held responsible for what people do with the >names they register. Certain countries forbid >the use of certain words, but that does not >automatically put them on a reserved names list. >If we expect all registries to deny >registrations of these names, they must be explicitly listed in the contracts. > >Historically the reserved names list has been >changed without the benefit of a PDP - compare: >http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/appendix-06-01… >and >http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/verisign/registry-agmt-…. >I am not sure if these changes were all the >result of Board action, or simply staff action. >In any case, we need to NOT say that a PDP is >required for any change of that list. History >says otherwise. And in my mind, there is no >reason to believe that this is still not the case. > >However, given the likelihood (already >experienced) of others saying "me too", a formal >PDP is warranted. The fact that the GAC is >willing to create a specific list (something I >suggested a while ago and was told the GAC would >*never* agree to do such operational work) makes >it implementable if the PDP should decide that reservation is warranted. Alan At 22/10/2012 01:18 PM, Ron Sherwood wrote: >Good morning, Carlton and Alan: > >It seems to me that there is conflicted >reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto. > >"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a >PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their >mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient." > > If: "the international instruments > and national laws should be sufficient."... >Then: Why the specific request for >protection of these two entities in the first place? > >Best regards, Ron > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton >Samuels <<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Thanks for circulating this , Alan. > >It makes sense the list of those IGO for >automatic protection begin with those eligible >for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms. > >Given the method of developing the list, we need >to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection. > >The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further >study since these may not enjoy the same rights >and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law >of the several jurisdictions. This is where I >think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts. > >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > > <http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto>http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and > attached for your convenience. > > > > Several things of particular note: > > > > - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs > andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments > made in their applications must be incorporated > into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight. > > > > - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of > organizations to be protected prior to the > delegation of the first new TLD, and that this > protection be given to those IGOs who are > eligible for registration under .int. They have > committed, however, to develop a list of names > and acronyms that should be protected (since > registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves). > > > > - The GAC is questioning the need to have a > PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their > mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient. > > > > Alan >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] GAC CommuniquÃ© from Toronto
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

My recollection is that the URS does allow for names protected by international accord but the UDRP does not. Not sure about TMCH. Cost avoidance for exact names is likely not at that level but at defensive registrations or reservation within TLD. Perhaps all moot, because after all this fuss, any TLD that does not voluntarily include these names in their reserved lists (except for registration by the parties involved) is just looking for additional hassles that they don't need. Regarding the Olympic symbols/names, my recollection (which may well be wrong) is that the symbols are protected by international agreement but the names are protected by some national laws (and particularly those in countries that have held the Olympics). Alan 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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

At 22/10/2012 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 22 October 2012 10:15, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. >At this point, it would appear that little would >need to be changed to meet the price points. >Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of >complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There >have also been comments that requiring electronic >submission might lower costs and that too sounds >reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. >It is structural changes that we need to be careful about. > > >I agree. Complaints-per-submission and method of submission sound >more like mechanics than policy and I'm fine with discussing those, > >Indeed, I don't recall that such minutae was even considered by the >STI as policy. If that was the case, do such non-policy-related >changes even need to go back to the community? Why not just revise >them and open a public comment process? Perhaps if that is all that needs to be changed, a public comment may be the vehicle. Important to remember that the STI set a $300-500 window. If the prospective bidders can do it for $500, may still be worth looking at acceptable changes that can get it to approach the lower bound. >If there is a review team to monitor the implementation change, it >certainly demands At-Large involvement. The concept of an implementation team is a new one that was not contemplated at the time of the STI. Otherwise, would have doubtless been suggested then. If a group is now reconvened to make any changes (whether at the substantive level or process, I would expect an implementation team to be created to address questions that come up during implementation, with membership open to those involved in setting the policy, which I expect to include ALAC. Alan >- Evan

2 1

FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

Promising note regarding the URS. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up >Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100 > >All, > >Please be aware of the following note from Olof >Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. > >Jonathan > >From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] >Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 >To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com >Cc: Kurt Pritz >Subject: URS follow-up > >Dear Jonathan, >Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO >Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all >Council members for the constructive discussions >we had on URS matters on 18 October! The >willingness to consider a drafting team to >address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. > >The subsequent URS session the same day in >Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to >presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential >URS providers, we had the advantage of a very >late addition to the agenda a presentation >from a new entrant, Intersponsive, intending >to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the >target fee, although with some adjustments of >the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they >would be able to stay within the target fee, >provided reasonable limitations could be >established to the current translation >requirements and to the number of domain names covered by a single complaint. > >I realize that you and other Council members >couldnt attend this session, as it partially >overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but >the recording is available at ><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. >Furthermore, there are a number of relevant >documents posted on our recently established URS >web page at ><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, >notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, >with considerations, proposals, some costing >aspects and, most importantly, questions needing >to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of particular interest in that regard). > >I believe these recent developments further >clarifies the need for a drafting team to >establish realistic implementation measures >based on the URS text. I look forward to further >contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. > >Very best regards >Olof > >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

At 21/10/2012 11:41 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >Thanks, Alan, as commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto, >we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it >seems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting >could be enabled under the name "implementation". What do they want to >"draft" in the Drafting Team? I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. At this point, it would appear that little would need to be changed to meet the price points. Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There have also been comments that requiring electronic submission might lower costs and that too sounds reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. It is structural changes that we need to be careful about. > Is the team cross-constituency or solely >for GNSO? That will likely be up to the GNSO. The STI was a GNSO activity, with the ALAC included due to the sitting Liaison function and I think a GAC observer (not sure on that). Whether this time it will be the same or more open as in a WG, I cannot say. If I had to predict, I would say the former. > Normally implementation plan is completed by staff. These days it also includes a review team typically from the original policy group, to make sure that the implementation is true to the intent (and not only the words) of the implementation. This is a VERY good thing. >Why is >it referred back to GNSO? Well, if a change to a GNSO approved policy/implementation is needed (and I said IF), then it is reasonable to go back to that group for further input. Clearly we would like At-Large to be involved though. Alan >Hong > > > >On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Promising note regarding the URS. > > > > Alan > > > >>From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> > >>To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >>Subject: (PMX: 8): [council] FW: URS follow-up > >>Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:44:48 +0100 > >> > >>All, > >> > >>Please be aware of the following note from Olof > >>Nordling when we next consider the URS and associated issues. > >> > >>Jonathan > >> > >>From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org] > >>Sent: 21 October 2012 15:33 > >>To: jonathan.robinson(a)iprota.com > >>Cc: Kurt Pritz > >>Subject: URS follow-up > >> > >>Dear Jonathan, > >>Congratulations to your recent election as GNSO > >>Council Chair and many thanks to you and to all > >>Council members for the constructive discussions > >>we had on URS matters on 18 October! The > >>willingness to consider a drafting team to > >>address URS implementation questions and issues is much appreciated. > >> > >>The subsequent URS session the same day in > >>Toronto proved most interesting. In addition to > >>presentations from NAF and WIPO as potential > >>URS providers, we had the advantage of a very > >>late addition to the agenda a presentation > >>from a new entrant, Intersponsive, intending > >>to respond to the RFI with a proposal within the > >>target fee, although with some adjustments of > >>the URS provisions. Also NAF clarified that they > >>would be able to stay within the target fee, > >>provided reasonable limitations could be > >>established to the current translation > >>requirements and to the number of domain > names covered by a single complaint. > >> > >>I realize that you and other Council members > >>couldnt attend this session, as it partially > >>overlapped with the GNSO Council session, but > >>the recording is available at > >><http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/u > rs-18oct12-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/urs-18oct12-en.mp3. > >>Furthermore, there are a number of relevant > >>documents posted on our recently established URS > >>web page at > >><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>h > ttp://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs, > >>notably contributions from NAF, WIPO and CAC, > >>with considerations, proposals, some costing > >>aspects and, most importantly, questions needing > >>to be resolved (the NAF contribution is of > particular interest in that regard). > >> > >>I believe these recent developments further > >>clarifies the need for a drafting team to > >>establish realistic implementation measures > >>based on the URS text. I look forward to further > >>contacts with you and the Council on this matter in the near future. > >> > >>Very best regards > >>Olof > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

2 1

Short Message to ALAC and RALO representatives and friends of At Large
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 19, 2012

Oct. 19, 2012

Dear All, Firstly I thank you all for the momentous task and efforts in the ICANN 45 Meeting. Whilst I could not be with you in person, I tried to connect remotely on occasion but the challenge of being awake for 24 hours is something that a mere mortal struggled with. Neverthless, it has been good to follow the progress and the discussions from afar. This has also been a good time to see how remote participation can be improved to keep ALSes engaged whilst they are at home. As you conclude the ICANN 45, I wish you all the very best. I am not sure if the Public Forum has concluded but I would ask that someone please raise that GAC should have influence on visa arrangements for members of Advisory Committees/SOs/NomComs and there should be a level of flexibility to enable them to collect it on arrival. Oksana, it would be great if you could speak up for some of us who have had issues with our visas. Neverthless, I would like to thank the global At Large community [you all are incredible and super AWESOME], and particularly the RALO Secretariats and Executives for the manner in which they have continued to coordinate the participation of all. Last but not least I would like to thank Oliver for his dynamic leadership of the ALAC and my colleagues in the ALAC for their immense contribution to advocacy for At Large. Thank you also to all the members of the ExCom for the dynamic work throughout the year, you have all been incredible Olivier, Carlton, Evan, Tijani and Rinalia. And in honour of all end users around the globe, I would also like to say farewell to our colleagues who are leaving the ALAC but are not leaving the At Large family at the end of ICANN 45. Thank you for your immense contribution. On the same token, I would like to welcome all the new re-appointments and new appointments to the ALAC. I look forward to learning from you all. I was pleased when Gunela reminded the community of the issue of "Access" and the heart of the work in ALAC is the issue of "Access" for the end user. It remains a privilege to serve you all. Warm Regards from a sunny Fiji, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala ALAC P.S We need an ICANN meeting in a small island developing States..Hint Hint...any word on the Trinidad front?

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ALAC and accessibility for people with disability
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

+1 On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au>wrote: > Yes, I understand that. And I hope that many other countries support > Hungary's proposal. > > Resolution 70 is useful background information on the activities of the > ITU-T in terms of accessibility. > > > On 19/10/12 8:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> Thanks Gunela, the Hungary proposal that I had mentioned was their >> proposal in terms of the review of the ITRs in WCIT 12. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au >> <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au>**> wrote: >> >> Useful update from Sala. >> >> The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has >> been signed by 154 countries with 125 ratifications and as you say, >> Sala, the US has not ratified yet. >> >> With regard to WCIT, you might be interested in the ITU-T Resolution >> 70 on telecommunications/ICT accessibility for people with >> disabilities >> http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-_**_T.70-2008<http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-__T.70-2008> >> >> <http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-**T.70-2008<http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-T.70-2008> >> > >> >> This states that consideration of accessibility should be taken in >> standards development. I'd like to see this integrated approach in >> ICANN processes too. It's more than web accessibility. >> >> Gunela >> >> >> On 19/10/12 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Streaming into the Caribbean WCIT Consultations and learning alot: >> >> Also interesting to note the following: >> >> * There is a United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons >> with >> >> Disabilities on this area, see: >> http://www.un.org/__**disabilities/default.asp?id=__**150<http://www.un.org/__disabilities/default.asp?id=__150> >> >> <http://www.un.org/**disabilities/default.asp?id=**150<http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150>> >> (Whilst the US >> signed, it did not ratify the same. Although other >> countries have) >> * There is a submission by Hungary in the review of the ITRs >> to add a >> >> component to enable access for disabled persons and they are >> proposing 8(b) which countries should get behind as it is >> central to >> the issue of Access; >> * Whilst there have been other resolutions from the >> plenipotentiaries, >> >> where it was resolved that a Fund be created, only Cyprus >> has been >> giving money into the that Fund >> >> >> Much awareness still has to be done apparently for access. >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Gunela Astbrink >> <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au> >> <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au>** >> >__> >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> Thank you so much for your kind words. It's good to hear >> that the >> session I organised at PacINET on accessibility made an >> impact. >> >> Faaolo Utumapu from Samoa demonstrated how her screen reading >> software with speech synthesis works and how she can navigate >> through accessible websites. She also demonstrated how >> barriers are >> placed in front of her when websites are not accessible. For >> example, if she were to use the myICANN website, she would >> not be >> able to know to follow certain image links if they do not >> have an >> alt tag with a description. Nor would she be able to read >> the large >> image map about Internet governance as it is a jpg with no >> descriptive text. >> >> Sandra, these are two examples of accessibility errors on the >> myICANN website. The website in itself is user-friendly and >> I hope >> that there are only a few accessibility issues to fix. >> >> The W3C WCAG 2.0 guidelines may have been overlooked by the >> web >> developers but I hope that this is now being dealt with, >> Carlton. >> >> It would be great to get feedback from staff about this >> issue. >> >> As both Olivier and Sala have intimated, accessibility for >> people >> with disability will help to make ICANN truly inclusive. It >> actually >> goes beyond web accessibility of ICANN sites and should be >> incorporated into wider policy and processes even relating >> to new gTLDs. >> >> Regards, >> Gunela >> >> >> On 17/10/12 8:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear Olivier, >> >> Gunela is an extraordinary advocate and has >> consistently raised W3C >> issues in various foras both nationally, regionally and >> globally. I will >> never forget when at a PACINET Annual Conference which >> is an annual >> meeting organised by the ALS that I subscribe to in >> American >> Samoa last >> year when I saw this blind Samoan girl conduct a demo >> with her >> machine >> and articulate confidently and articulately her desire >> for >> accessibility. Our ALS have a number of advocates who >> despite the >> numerous physical challenges continue to make an impact >> in >> discussions >> and in running initiatives in their countries in Tonga, >> Samoa >> and Fiji. >> >> For the ordinary end user there are elements of >> accessibility >> that the >> global community should consider. I would also like to >> take this >> time to >> thank Gunela for reminding us of this important cause. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Carlton Samuels >> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>> >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**__com >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>>> >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail. >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**>____com >> >> >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**__com >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>>>>> >> wrote: >> >> The simple response is to ask staff to verify if >> the W3C web >> accessibility >> guidelines were adopted for the website. And if >> not, why not? >> >> Failing, I would ask if any assistive technologies >> were >> contemplated at >> all? And if not, what are the plans for remediation. >> >> - Carlton >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & >> Turnaround* >> ============================= >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Olivier MJ >> Crepin-Leblond >> <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> <mailto:ocl@gih.com >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> >> >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>>>wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> > For your information, please be so kind to find >> an email >> sent by >> one of >> > our members in Australia regarding >> accessibility, including >> > accessibility of the new myICANN.org Web site. >> > I believe there is a deeper implication to make >> ICANN as >> well as its >> > bottom-up policy processes and its communication >> strategy more >> > accessible to everyone. Comments welcome! >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: ALAC and accessibility for >> people with >> disability >> > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:12:59 +1100 >> > From: Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)*.au> >> > To: ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> <mailto:ocl@gih.com >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com> >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>> >> > CC: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)*.com>, >> Save Vocea >> <save.vocea@ >> > *.org> >> > >> > >> > >> > Dear Olivier, >> > >> > Unfortunately, I won't be at the Toronto ICANN >> meeting. >> > >> > I remember we have had discussions about >> accessibility >> for people >> with >> > disability in the past. >> > >> > The new myICANN website has prompted me to >> contact you. >> > >> > The ICANN websites have accessibility errors >> including >> the brand new >> > myICANN. That looks like a great site and is >> intended >> for the general >> > public. Thus, people with disability who >> comprise one >> billion >> people in >> > the world should have adequate access. >> > >> > I was invited to participate in the >> consultation for a >> new At-Large >> > website and hope that it will incorporate >> accessibility >> based on >> the Web >> > Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 >> (WCAG 2.0) >> right >> from the >> > start. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/__** >> __wcag.php <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/____wcag.php> >> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/_**_wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/__wcag.php> >> > >> >> >> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/_**_wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/__wcag.php> >> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/**wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php> >> >> >> > >> > I am very concerned that accessibility should be >> considered in new >> > policy or process. >> > >> > ISOC are about to launch a policy paper on >> Internet >> accessibility for >> > people with disability (drafted by me). >> > >> > I'd like to see ICANN also taking this issue on >> in a >> systematic >> way. For >> > example, mechanisms could be considered on how to >> encourage new >> gTLDs to >> > consider accessibility. >> > >> > Happy to discuss further. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Gunela >> > >> > -- >> > Gunela Astbrink >> > GSA Information Consultants >> > PO Box 600 >> > Ballina NSW 2478 >> > Australia >> > Mobile: +61 417 715738 >> <tel:%2B61%20417%20715738> <tel:%2B61%20417%20715738> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > -- > Gunela Astbrink > GSA Information Consultants > PO Box 600 > Ballina NSW 2478 > Australia > Mobile: +61 417 715738 > Email: g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ALAC and accessibility for people with disability
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Thanks Gunela, the Hungary proposal that I had mentioned was their proposal in terms of the review of the ITRs in WCIT 12. Best Regards, On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au>wrote: > Useful update from Sala. > > The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been > signed by 154 countries with 125 ratifications and as you say, Sala, the US > has not ratified yet. > > With regard to WCIT, you might be interested in the ITU-T Resolution 70 on > telecommunications/ICT accessibility for people with disabilities > http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-**T.70-2008<http://www.itu.int/pub/T-RES-T.70-2008> > > This states that consideration of accessibility should be taken in > standards development. I'd like to see this integrated approach in ICANN > processes too. It's more than web accessibility. > > Gunela > > > On 19/10/12 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Streaming into the Caribbean WCIT Consultations and learning alot: >> >> Also interesting to note the following: >> >> * There is a United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with >> >> Disabilities on this area, see: >> http://www.un.org/**disabilities/default.asp?id=**150<http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150>(Whilst the US >> signed, it did not ratify the same. Although other countries have) >> * There is a submission by Hungary in the review of the ITRs to add a >> >> component to enable access for disabled persons and they are >> proposing 8(b) which countries should get behind as it is central to >> the issue of Access; >> * Whilst there have been other resolutions from the plenipotentiaries, >> >> where it was resolved that a Fund be created, only Cyprus has been >> giving money into the that Fund >> >> >> Much awareness still has to be done apparently for access. >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au >> <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au>**> wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> Thank you so much for your kind words. It's good to hear that the >> session I organised at PacINET on accessibility made an impact. >> >> Faaolo Utumapu from Samoa demonstrated how her screen reading >> software with speech synthesis works and how she can navigate >> through accessible websites. She also demonstrated how barriers are >> placed in front of her when websites are not accessible. For >> example, if she were to use the myICANN website, she would not be >> able to know to follow certain image links if they do not have an >> alt tag with a description. Nor would she be able to read the large >> image map about Internet governance as it is a jpg with no >> descriptive text. >> >> Sandra, these are two examples of accessibility errors on the >> myICANN website. The website in itself is user-friendly and I hope >> that there are only a few accessibility issues to fix. >> >> The W3C WCAG 2.0 guidelines may have been overlooked by the web >> developers but I hope that this is now being dealt with, Carlton. >> >> It would be great to get feedback from staff about this issue. >> >> As both Olivier and Sala have intimated, accessibility for people >> with disability will help to make ICANN truly inclusive. It actually >> goes beyond web accessibility of ICANN sites and should be >> incorporated into wider policy and processes even relating to new >> gTLDs. >> >> Regards, >> Gunela >> >> >> On 17/10/12 8:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear Olivier, >> >> Gunela is an extraordinary advocate and has consistently raised >> W3C >> issues in various foras both nationally, regionally and >> globally. I will >> never forget when at a PACINET Annual Conference which is an >> annual >> meeting organised by the ALS that I subscribe to in American >> Samoa last >> year when I saw this blind Samoan girl conduct a demo with her >> machine >> and articulate confidently and articulately her desire for >> accessibility. Our ALS have a number of advocates who despite the >> numerous physical challenges continue to make an impact in >> discussions >> and in running initiatives in their countries in Tonga, Samoa >> and Fiji. >> >> For the ordinary end user there are elements of accessibility >> that the >> global community should consider. I would also like to take this >> time to >> thank Gunela for reminding us of this important cause. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Carlton Samuels >> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com<carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >> > >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**__com >> >> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>>>> >> wrote: >> >> The simple response is to ask staff to verify if the W3C web >> accessibility >> guidelines were adopted for the website. And if not, why >> not? >> >> Failing, I would ask if any assistive technologies were >> contemplated at >> all? And if not, what are the plans for remediation. >> >> - Carlton >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> ============================= >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com >> >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>>wrote: >> >> >> > >> > For your information, please be so kind to find an email >> sent by >> one of >> > our members in Australia regarding accessibility, >> including >> > accessibility of the new myICANN.org Web site. >> > I believe there is a deeper implication to make ICANN as >> well as its >> > bottom-up policy processes and its communication >> strategy more >> > accessible to everyone. Comments welcome! >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: ALAC and accessibility for people with >> disability >> > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:12:59 +1100 >> > From: Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)*.au> >> > To: ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> <mailto:ocl@gih.com >> <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> >> > CC: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)*.com>, Save Vocea >> <save.vocea@ >> > *.org> >> > >> > >> > >> > Dear Olivier, >> > >> > Unfortunately, I won't be at the Toronto ICANN meeting. >> > >> > I remember we have had discussions about accessibility >> for people >> with >> > disability in the past. >> > >> > The new myICANN website has prompted me to contact you. >> > >> > The ICANN websites have accessibility errors including >> the brand new >> > myICANN. That looks like a great site and is intended >> for the general >> > public. Thus, people with disability who comprise one >> billion >> people in >> > the world should have adequate access. >> > >> > I was invited to participate in the consultation for a >> new At-Large >> > website and hope that it will incorporate accessibility >> based on >> the Web >> > Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) >> right >> from the >> > start. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/__**wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/__wcag.php> >> >> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/**wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php> >> > >> > >> > I am very concerned that accessibility should be >> considered in new >> > policy or process. >> > >> > ISOC are about to launch a policy paper on Internet >> accessibility for >> > people with disability (drafted by me). >> > >> > I'd like to see ICANN also taking this issue on in a >> systematic >> way. For >> > example, mechanisms could be considered on how to >> encourage new >> gTLDs to >> > consider accessibility. >> > >> > Happy to discuss further. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Gunela >> > >> > -- >> > Gunela Astbrink >> > GSA Information Consultants >> > PO Box 600 >> > Ballina NSW 2478 >> > Australia >> > Mobile: +61 417 715738 <tel:%2B61%20417%20715738> >> >> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ALAC and accessibility for people with disability
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

Streaming into the Caribbean WCIT Consultations and learning alot: Also interesting to note the following: - There is a United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities on this area, see: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150 (Whilst the US signed, it did not ratify the same. Although other countries have) - There is a submission by Hungary in the review of the ITRs to add a component to enable access for disabled persons and they are proposing 8(b) which countries should get behind as it is central to the issue of Access; - Whilst there have been other resolutions from the plenipotentiaries, where it was resolved that a Fund be created, only Cyprus has been giving money into the that Fund Much awareness still has to be done apparently for access. On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au>wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Thank you so much for your kind words. It's good to hear that the session > I organised at PacINET on accessibility made an impact. > > Faaolo Utumapu from Samoa demonstrated how her screen reading software > with speech synthesis works and how she can navigate through accessible > websites. She also demonstrated how barriers are placed in front of her > when websites are not accessible. For example, if she were to use the > myICANN website, she would not be able to know to follow certain image > links if they do not have an alt tag with a description. Nor would she be > able to read the large image map about Internet governance as it is a jpg > with no descriptive text. > > Sandra, these are two examples of accessibility errors on the myICANN > website. The website in itself is user-friendly and I hope that there are > only a few accessibility issues to fix. > > The W3C WCAG 2.0 guidelines may have been overlooked by the web developers > but I hope that this is now being dealt with, Carlton. > > It would be great to get feedback from staff about this issue. > > As both Olivier and Sala have intimated, accessibility for people with > disability will help to make ICANN truly inclusive. It actually goes beyond > web accessibility of ICANN sites and should be incorporated into wider > policy and processes even relating to new gTLDs. > > Regards, > Gunela > > > On 17/10/12 8:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear Olivier, >> >> Gunela is an extraordinary advocate and has consistently raised W3C >> issues in various foras both nationally, regionally and globally. I will >> never forget when at a PACINET Annual Conference which is an annual >> meeting organised by the ALS that I subscribe to in American Samoa last >> year when I saw this blind Samoan girl conduct a demo with her machine >> and articulate confidently and articulately her desire for >> accessibility. Our ALS have a number of advocates who despite the >> numerous physical challenges continue to make an impact in discussions >> and in running initiatives in their countries in Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. >> >> For the ordinary end user there are elements of accessibility that the >> global community should consider. I would also like to take this time to >> thank Gunela for reminding us of this important cause. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Carlton Samuels >> <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.**com<carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>>> >> wrote: >> >> The simple response is to ask staff to verify if the W3C web >> accessibility >> guidelines were adopted for the website. And if not, why not? >> >> Failing, I would ask if any assistive technologies were contemplated >> at >> all? And if not, what are the plans for remediation. >> >> - Carlton >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> ============================= >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>>wrote: >> >> >> > >> > For your information, please be so kind to find an email sent by >> one of >> > our members in Australia regarding accessibility, including >> > accessibility of the new myICANN.org Web site. >> > I believe there is a deeper implication to make ICANN as well as >> its >> > bottom-up policy processes and its communication strategy more >> > accessible to everyone. Comments welcome! >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Olivier >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: ALAC and accessibility for people with disability >> > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:12:59 +1100 >> > From: Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)*.au> >> > To: ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> >> > CC: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)*.com>, Save Vocea >> <save.vocea@ >> > *.org> >> > >> > >> > >> > Dear Olivier, >> > >> > Unfortunately, I won't be at the Toronto ICANN meeting. >> > >> > I remember we have had discussions about accessibility for people >> with >> > disability in the past. >> > >> > The new myICANN website has prompted me to contact you. >> > >> > The ICANN websites have accessibility errors including the brand >> new >> > myICANN. That looks like a great site and is intended for the >> general >> > public. Thus, people with disability who comprise one billion >> people in >> > the world should have adequate access. >> > >> > I was invited to participate in the consultation for a new At-Large >> > website and hope that it will incorporate accessibility based on >> the Web >> > Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0 (WCAG 2.0) right >> from the >> > start. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/**wcag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php> >> > >> > I am very concerned that accessibility should be considered in new >> > policy or process. >> > >> > ISOC are about to launch a policy paper on Internet accessibility >> for >> > people with disability (drafted by me). >> > >> > I'd like to see ICANN also taking this issue on in a systematic >> way. For >> > example, mechanisms could be considered on how to encourage new >> gTLDs to >> > consider accessibility. >> > >> > Happy to discuss further. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Gunela >> > >> > -- >> > Gunela Astbrink >> > GSA Information Consultants >> > PO Box 600 >> > Ballina NSW 2478 >> > Australia >> > Mobile: +61 417 715738 <tel:%2B61%20417%20715738> >> > Email: g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au <mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ______________________________**_________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.** >> icann.org <ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<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+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> >> > >> ______________________________**_________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.**icann.org<ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> > >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<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+(ALAC)<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 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > -- > Gunela Astbrink > GSA Information Consultants > PO Box 600 > Ballina NSW 2478 > Australia > Mobile: +61 417 715738 > Email: g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0