- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Sala, can you please tell us exactly when you made you contribution and was it a "Comment" or a change to the body text of the page? The page history does not show you editing the page. I di not know how one looks at the history of comments being added. Matt???? Alan At 25/09/2012 12:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >I have one simple question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed >from the Wiki? ><https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg>https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg > >The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO >IOC/RC Draft Team. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection >is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not >afford to not participate actively to try to get more. > >Alan > >At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two > >and only two organizations already have base level protections at > >the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate > >in a PDP that might give them less. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Here are some figures that may be of interest for our discussion tomorrow. Avri had replied to my question about the basis fir her belief that the IGO PDP would be done before new gTLD delegation. She did not copy the ALAC, but has said it was an accidental omission and I am including her reply below. Current estimates that I have heard indicate that the first TLD agreements may be signed in the latter half of next year and be read for Sunrise soon thereafter (allowing trademark owners to protect their names) and general registration soon after. Avri's estimate is just a bit longer. Note however, that Sunrise and registration can start before the names enter the root. It is estimated that the absolute shortest time a PDP could take is 191 days (about 6 /12 months) from the time the Final Issue Report is released until the time the recommendations got to the Board). That presumes that all deliberations take place during the same 5 weeks that SG have to submit statements on their opinions (allowing no time to take those statements into account), the reports is written in a week, and there are no receiving action from the GNSO or Board. This is for a simple PDP with virtually no discussion needed to resolve the issue. The time from the request of an Issue Report (again with minimal delays) is 263 days or 9 months. The time for a more typical PDP is estimated at 1 year longer. These figures can be found as attachments to http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13099.html. To see what real PDPs have taken, see the other attachment. Note that all of these were done under the old PDP rules which allowed for a significantly shorter process. The shortest ones in recent history took 415 days. One added a clarification sentence to a reason for allowing a Registrar to deny a transfer (http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml) The other, the PDP on Domain Tasting was resolved primarily by private discussions and two registries voluntarily implementing the "solution" which was then echoed by the PDP. There was very little discussion other than to identify an effective way of addressing the problem without unreasonably penalizing Registrars who were not participating in Tasting. The other two, far more substantive, took 2.4 to 3 years (as noted, according to the old, and more streamlined PDP rules). By any measure (if only based on the amount of discussion this issue has raised in the ALAC), the IGO protection issue is not an easy one where all parties will agree quickly. The only possible exception to this is if all parties come to the table believing that no additional protections are needed, and can QUICKLY address all of the process that is being included in the Issue Report. If indeed the PDP completes in record time, then the provisions of the compromise proposal of the RC/IOC DT would never kick in, since they would be replaced by whatever comes out of the PDP. Alan At 24/09/2012 12:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >PDP can be done in 9-12 months. >New TLDs in root, not until end 13, beginning 14. > >At 23/09/2012 09:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Avri, > >Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you >predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by >Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their >sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names? > >Alan > >At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.

4 11

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Sala, one question. You end one paragraph with "It follows that any variations to Registry Agreements require the activation of a Policy Development Process (PDP)." Can you explain how "it follows"? Reserved names are one of the things in signed registry agreements that are subject to Consensus Policy created by a PDP (colloquially called "within the picket fence"), but in this case we are talking about a draft registry agreement that is not yet in force and is explicitly prefixed with the notice that ICANN may make changes prior to it being used. Alan At 23/09/2012 07:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, > >I sent the wrong version. Please ignore the previous one. This is >the correct version that I meant to send and they are still Draft >Submissions but enough to see the rationale of where I basing my arguments. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >Dear Alan, > >Here are my draft Submissions, I have sent it to APRALO for >feedback. I have yet to complete them as you can see but they show >the reasons why I suggest a PDP is crucial and vital although I >argue that the exception that has its legacy from the GAC Proposal >should be further narrowed. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting >protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been >posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed >under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web >site. The specific pointer for this one is ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju… >. > >I am not after the Preliminary Issues Report (PIR) but the Final >Issues Report which is mentioned within the PIR. > >Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any >GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is >required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in >fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer. > >If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC >and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I >have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at >the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well. > > > >Alan > > > >At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Alan, >> >>I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my >>submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that >>was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request >>for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues >>Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm. >> >>This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback. >> >>Kind Regards >> >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully >>brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. >>The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options >>for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus >>Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be >>discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, >>and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report >>back to the DT at its meeting the following day. >>I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to >>attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. >>Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line >>with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on >>September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft >>proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution >>can be found at >><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12… >>. >>The proposal has two parts and is as follows. >> >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My >> >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue >> >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP >> >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a >> >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council >> >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite >> >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete >> >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this >> >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. >> > >> >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth >> >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends >> >the following: >> > >> >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact >> >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC >> >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the >> >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO >> >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This >> >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and >> >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing >> >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. >> > >> >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: >> > >> >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as >> >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international >> >organizations. >> > >> >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on >> >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and >> >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. >> > >> >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as >> >possible on this position. >> > >> >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note >> >that the work that has already been done on this issue should >> >facilitate the process. >>I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have >>qualified it above. >>The rationale is as follows: >>- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as >>protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be >>done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up >>before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation >>of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the >>UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT >>of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work >>on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue >>would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not >>definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no >>doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. >>- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not >>protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if >>ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be >>protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call >>back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly >>not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been >>impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do >>significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names >>are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this >>protection, the names can easily be released at that time. >>- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the >>case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly >>linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future >>PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to >>both organizations. >>- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given >>that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of >>languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter >>( https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) And of >>course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection >>that they would prefer. >>Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if >>the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid >>position that no additional protections should be granted, it is >>likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort >>anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit. >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 > > > > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Draft Response to ALAC GNSO Liaison IOC RCRC 24.9.12.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7grjh421

1 0

The Economist: "Incorporation is a privilege. It should not include anonymity"
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 24, 2012

Sept. 24, 2012

FYI: http://www.economist.com/node/21543164 Maybe it's just me, but this article resonates with me on WHOIS- and DNS-based issues of accountability versus privacy. - Evan

4 3

WCIT news: "Official: US won’t surrender Internet control to UN agency"
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 24, 2012

Sept. 24, 2012

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/251103-official-us-wont… -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 24, 2012

Sept. 24, 2012

If you are talking about the Issue Report on considering grranting protecttion to all IGOs, that the Issue Report has not yet been posted. There was a Preliminary Issue Report. The pointer is filed under Recently Closed Public Comment Periods on the main ICANN web site. The specific pointer for this one is http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…. Although input from the ALAC is virtually always solicited on any GNSO activity, since this was a formal Public Comment Period (as is required by ICANN Bylaws), we were certainly able to comment and in fact did. All comments are accessible through the above pointer. If you are talking about the specific case of protection for the RC and IOC names, that is not a PDP and there is no Issue Report. I have been a participant in the drafting team charged with looking at the issue, and anyone else who chose to could have participated as well. Alan At 19/09/2012 05:25 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Alan, > >I had sent you my preliminary thoughts and will send you my >submissions later. Do you have the link for the Issues Report that >was developed following the GNSO Council Resolution? Is the request >for feedback from the ALAC part of the development of the Issues >Report? I am guessing it is the latter but need you to confirm. > >This will help us in submitting our analysis and feedback. > >Kind Regards > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I apologize for the length of this note, but it is necessary to fully >brief you on an issue that we must come to closure on. > >The GNSO Red Cross/IOC Drafting Team has narrowed down the options >for possible recommendation to the GNSO and has pout out a Consensus >Call with replies due on September 26. I propose that this be >discussed on our list prior to the ALAC meeting on September 25th, >and that a decision be reached at that meeting to allow me to report >back to the DT at its meeting the following day. > >I specifically ask that all ALAC members who will not be able to >attend the meeting next week make their views known prior to the meeting. > >Note that this proposed recommendation seems to generally be in line >with a motion adopted by the Board New gTLD Program Committee on >September 13ths, but the Drafting Team had formulated the draft >proposal well before that date. The gTLD Program Committee resolution >can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…>http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12…. > >The proposal has two parts and is as follows. > > >1. Whether a PDP is necessary to resolve the the RC/IOC issue. My > >personal position is that a PDP is not needed to resolve the issue > >for the first round. A PDP is needed for any following round. A PDP > >is being considered on the larger IGO issue (which include as a > >subset the RC/IOC), but it is not yet clear that the GNSO Council > >will proceed with it (highly likely in my mind). Since it is quite > >likely that there will be a PDP, but that it will not be complete > >prior to the first new gTLDs being deployed, the 2nd part of this > >proposal only makes sense if that PDP does proceed. > > > >2. The Second consensus call item is a proposal originally put forth > >by J. Scott Evans and endorsed by the Registry SG which recommends > >the following: > > > >2.a. Recommend a moratorium be placed on the registration of exact > >matches of the IOC/Red Cross names contained in the GAC > >recommendation of September 15, 2011 at the second level in the > >first round of new gTLDs pending results of the PDP covering IGO > >names, IOC/RC names and other international organizations. This > >would provide a back stop if the PDP does not finish in time and > >would also eliminate the argument that the GNSO is just choosing > >this approach as a way of avoiding the issue. > > > >2.b. Communicate to the GAC: > > > >2.b.i. That the GNSO recommends a PDP be initiated as soon as > >possible to cover IGO names, IOC/RC names any other international > >organizations. > > > >2.b.11. A rationale for that position with a particular emphasis on > >pointing out the things that could be accomplished via a PDP and > >that would be difficult to adequately do so otherwise. > > > >2.b.iii. That the GNSO welcomes feedback from the GAC as soon as > >possible on this position. > > > >2.b.iv. That sincere efforts will be made to expedite the PDP; note > >that the work that has already been done on this issue should > >facilitate the process. > >I recommend that the ALAC support this recommendation as I have >qualified it above. > >The rationale is as follows: > >- in the longer term, it makes sense that such a major issue such as >protection of IGO (and possible other names such as charities) be >done under the auspices of a PDP. This is an issue that has come up >before. The last time in 2007, the specific question was the creation >of a dispute resolution process that could be used by IGO (since the >UDRP is for trademarks, it does not apply). Ultimately, after a LOT >of work was done, the GNSO Council chose not to do any further work >on this, with the understanding that for new gTLDs, the IGO issue >would be incorporated into the plans. It was not. If the issue is not >definitively dealt with now, it will simply come back again. And no >doubt sooner than the 4 years it took to return this time. > >- If we allow the status quo to stand and the RC/IOC names are not >protected at the 2nd level as new gTLDs are deployed, AND if >ultimately a PDP decides that the RC and IOC names SHOULD be >protected at the 2nd level, there will be no practical way to call >back any names that have been registered in the interim, certainly >not until they expire. As a result, these organization will have been >impacted unreasonably. At the very least, they would have to do >significant defensive registrations. On the other hand, if the names >are protected and the PDP judges that they do not deserve this >protection, the names can easily be released at that time. > >- In recent statements, the ALAC has been more sympathetic with the >case of the Red Cross than with the IOC. However, the two are firmly >linked at this time (although they could be delinked in a future >PDP), so the only way to offer protection to the RC is to do it to >both organizations. > >- The recommendation is about as conservative as it could be given >that the organizations wanted protection for a far wide range of >languages than was originally requested in the GAC letter >(<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1>https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1) >And of >course it is exact matches only and not the more flexible protection >that they would prefer. > >Although not a rationale for doing this, it should be noted that if >the GNSO either makes no recommendation or takes a more rigid >position that no additional protections should be granted, it is >likely (in my opinion) that the Board will do something of this sort >anyway, creating a very time-and energy-consuming issue with no real benefit. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

3 4

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 22, 2012

Sept. 22, 2012

At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote: > > 5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked > > public-interest names. > > > >Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as >possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications >identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP >mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name >registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for >trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at >top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be >developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at >second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the >current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name >list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment. > >Hong The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of the Applicant Guidebook). In 2007, IGOs petitioned ICANN to create a dispute resolution mechanism that would apply to them. After a lot of work, the recommendation (from both staff and GNSO) was that nothing be done, largely based on the belief that the issue would be well covered by the new gTLD process. Something that I would claim did not happen and which is the root of a lot of the current problems we are now facing with IGOs (and the IOC which is arguably an NGO I believe). Alan

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

You will likely hear about it via ICANN announcements as soon as I do, but regardless, once I get it I will call the ALAC's attention to it. In theory, it needs to be published by the document publication deadline which is (I think) 15 working days before the meeting. That would mean it needs to be out before Monday. Or perhaps today if you could the weekend sessions as the "start of the meeting". Alan At 21/09/2012 04:14 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >@Alan, any word yet on the Final Issues Report?

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

At 21/09/2012 12:12 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 21 September 2012 12:01, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >In 2007, IGOs petitioned ICANN to create a dispute resolution >mechanism that would apply to them. After a lot of work, the >recommendation (from both staff and GNSO) was that nothing be done, >largely based on the belief that the issue would be well covered by >the new gTLD process. Something that I would claim did not happen >and which is the root of a lot of the current problems we are now >facing with IGOs (and the IOC which is arguably an NGO I believe). > > >This is very useful. > >If you have any references to that, it may be useful in an ALAC >statement to the Board. > >- Evan Probably a lot more than you had in mind... WIPI-2 Report - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/processes/process2/report/index.html WIPO-2 Summary - http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/JWGW2/WIPO2-note.pdf ALAC Comment on WIPO-2 - http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/comment-wipo-13may03.htm Issue Report - June 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/igo-names/issues-report-igo-drp-15jun07.pdf Staff Report on a Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure - September 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-igo-drp-report-v2-28sep07.pdf IPC Proposal - December 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/igo-domain-name-drp-28nov2007.pdf Relevant GNSO Council meetings http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-24may07.html http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov07.html http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-20dec07.html Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois PDP
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

> > Snip > > > at the delay in the GNSO doing anything on this issue. Carlton has > > referred to the ALAC statement on the think Whois. We also commented > > on the .com and .net contracts - decrying the fact that they did not > > require a think Whois, even through all new gTLDs require it. > > No. Thick whois is the wrong approach. Entirely. > > But I will not discuss this further. I'm disappointed and frustrated. > Hi Lutz, hope all is well in Germany. I am sure there are many out there who support the Thin Whois approach and others the Thick Whois. What was clear from the Whois Review Final Report is that as SSAC pointed out : "*The answers to common questions about the “WHOIS” should be derived from a clear* *statement of the problem to be solved. To the extent that the answers are different among **various use cases, solutions will likely be different. To the extent that the solutions are **different, a single universal “WHOIS” policy, as defined in the Review Team’s report, is **unlikely to be effective or even achievable*." [See page 4 of their comments on the Whois Review Final Report] We can see, that competing interests and rights are going to make this a challenge. Clearly, there are some instances that will demand a Thick Whois approach and others a Thin Whois approach. I personally agree with SSAC's approach about the need for a single consensus Policy , ie. Registration Data Policy as a *precursor* to developing solutions (pg 4 of the SSAC055 Report): • Why are data collected? • What purpose will the data serve? • Who collects the data? • Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? • Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed? • Who needs the data and why? • Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why? In my view, this is a logical framework where solutions can then be easily tailored. The Whos Review Final Report highlighted the various concerns. Of note is that the SSAC have recommended to the Board that they put together a properly authorised committee to look at these questions and then deriving a Policy from the answers. One of the things I have personally felt about the Whois Review Final Report was that it did not give out clear directions although it highlighted the problems, recommended solutions but all very hazy and as SSAC described it, a case of the blind men and the elephant where to each his/her own. The SSAC's report is a clear means of bringing things to a point of confluence and yes I agree with SSAC that a Registration Data Policy is first needed. Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0