- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [council] GAC advice on protecting International Olympic Committee and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

Inter-sessional advice from the GAC. Perhaps a first? Alan >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:20:38 -0400 >Subject: [council] GAC advice on protecting International Olympic Committee > and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement > >Latest advice from GAC: > >Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush >Chairman of the Board >ICANN > >Dear Peter, > >I am writing to express the strong support of >the GAC for the requests from the >International Olympic Committee and the >International Red Cross and Red Crescent >Movement for the key words most directly >associated with their respective Charters to >be added to the Reserved Names list. > >The GAC believes that this would provide the >most appropriate form of protection of >the global public interest invested in these two >organisations. In both cases, there are >existing protections in national law, in >multiple jurisdictions, as well as coverage under an international instrument. > >The GAC advises the ICANN Board to approve these >requests and to direct staff to >reflect the Boardâs approval in the May 30, >2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook. > >Heather Dryden >Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee >Senior Advisor to the Government of Canada

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

Eric, in line with recognizing initiative coming from the grass-roots and since I have noticed support at NARALO level, I have asked At-Large staff to liaise with ICANN policy staff about this, since the deadline for comments was today. I am happy to announce that we have been kindly given the ability to file an ALAC Statement in time for the Board to consider it during their retreat, if we file it by June 18th, even though it is past the public comments deadline. Seth will set-up a Wiki page and will be liaising with you and Beau Brendler in order to get a proposed first draft up for At-Large comment as soon as possible, and we'll have a comment period open until Sunday 15th May. If it gets support, we'll submit an ALAC Statement. Kind regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 09/05/2011 23:41, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote : > Colleagues, > > I'm submitting two comments, the SECOND of which follows, proposing > contract extension for multiple technical providers. > > The public announcement is here: > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm > > If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. > I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow. > > Begin: > > > The proposed changes to the .NET agreement, while of some utility, do > not address the core problem of monopoly power by the registry > operator. This is a hold-over from the May 1999 decision to create a > locus of competition in a separate registrar function, a decision > reversed in November 2010. > > The contract should be changed to include language which separates the > formal Registry Operator (RO) functions (zone file signing, zone file > production from one or more distinct data sources, pointer data to > registrar held "thin registry" registrant data, registrar transfer > processing, registrar invoicing, ICANN reporting and transactional fee > processing and payment), from the Data Base Operator (DBO) (aka > "registry technical services") set of functions, allowing registrants, > through their registrars, to select the underlying competitive DBO for > a given domain. > > The means to allow the .NET contract to be modified, allowing a > second, and subsequent Data Base Operators to provide database service > to the Registry Operator, is now necessary, in light of the removal of > structural separation requirement for legacy contracts. > > No specific set-aside for ROOT-SERVERS.NET is necessary under a > stability and security theory, as the root server operators are > capable of designating whether they seek to use a DBO other than the > current unique DBO. > > An additional extension to EPP will be necessary, to allow registrants > to select, through the registrar function, their choice of DBO to have > custody of their data. > > It is possible that the registrars with a large number of domains, or > other mature database operators, including the operators of other > registries, also currently contractually constrained as monopolies, > will seek to become Competitive Data Base Operators (CDBOs) for the > .NET registry, transforming over 10% of the gTLD domain market from > monopoly to competition. > > The default choice of many users may remain Verisign, the legacy > monopoly registry entity. However, where competition is possible, and > competition among back-end registry service providers within a single > name space is possible, it must be allowed if the competition policy > goal is to be achieved in the current decade. > > End > > To be sent to net-agreement-renewal(a)icann.org. Forward as you see fit. > > Eric > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 1

Statement to the Board on RAA negotiation process
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

At the last ALAC meeting, I was asked to revise the letter to the Board with the help of Evan. We have now done so and the revised version can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/zYbT. Alan

1 0

Fwd: SAC047 on Registry Transition published
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 23, 2011

April 23, 2011

FYI, an important report from SSAC. -------- Original Message -------- Sujet: SAC047 on Registry Transition published Date : Sat, 23 Apr 2011 06:40:44 +0200 De : Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> Pour : Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "dryden.heather(a)ic.gc.ca Dryden" <Dryden.Heather(a)ic.gc.ca> Copie à : Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> FYI, SSAC has just released report SAC047, with the title "SSAC Comment on the ICANN gTLD Registry Transition Processes Model". http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac047.pdf It is, as the title says, comments on the registry transition process and policy described so far. SSAC reaches out to ICANN staff for further collaborative work on getting things right. Introduction: > In conjunction with the anticipated introduction of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) ICANN has published an Explanatory Memorandum to describe a model for the transition of a gTLD from one registry operator to another. The registry transition processes are intended to provide safeguards for registrants in cases where a registry ceases operation or in cases where a registry experiences prolonged technical outages. > > This SSAC Comment considers each of the circumstances where the transition processes are to be implemented. In particular, the SSAC considers the objectives, scope and application of the transition processes and recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum clearly identify risks that are mitigated by the proposed transition processes. The Comment asks whether matters such as emergency operator eligibility and regular auditing of emergency operators merit additional consideration. Given the real- time operational implications of a registry transition, the Comment pays particular attention to the security and stability of the Emergency Back-End Registry Operator Temporary Transition Process. Finally, the Comment asks that ICANN consider testing, retention of operational data from ex-registries, zone data escrow, and other information that will facilitate restoration of name resolution service for registrants. Patrik Fältström Chair of SSAC

1 0

Fwd: [council] .xxx is live
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2011

April 16, 2011

>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:28:27 -0400 >Subject: [council] .xxx is live > > >Hello All, > >I see that .xxx is now at the top level. > >See: http://www.icmregistry.xxx > >Here is the related IANA report: > >http://www.iana.org/reports/2011/xxx-report-20110407.pdf > > >Regards, >Bruce

1 0

Fwd: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] GAC response to scorecard
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] GAC response to scorecard Date : Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:30:04 -0700 De : Karla Valente <karla.valente(a)icann.org> Pour : SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg(a)icann.org> Dear all: Please see attached GAC comments on the ICANN Board's response to the GAC Scorecard. Thank you, Karla Valente Director, gTLD Registry Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: + 1 310 301 3878 Mobile: +1 310 936 4639 *Skype: */kdlvalente/

1 0

Call for further comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline now 28 March
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear All, I have now compiled answers from your replies as well as input I received by email. Please be so kind to review them. They are all linked from: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Mar… Time is of the essence, so please be so kind to comment by Monday 28 March 2011. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/03/2011 20:47, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote : > > Dear All, > > > > On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for > comments on the US National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Request for Comments on > the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) > > Functions is being made. > > > > Information on the NOI is available at: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. > > > > An At-Large Workspace has been created to collect comments on the six > questions of the NOI from the At-Large community. The Workspace is > available at: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Mar…. > Please either use the edit function on the Workspace or submit comments. > > > > As the *deadline to submit comments on the NOI is 31 March*, the > time-line for At-Large comments is as follows: > > > > *23 March 2011 - Deadline for At-Large comments* > > *24 March 2011 - ALAC prepares draft statement* > > *25 - 29 March 2011 - 5 day ALAC vote* > > *31 March 2011 - NTIA deadline for comments* > > > > If you have questions on the NOI, please contact At-Large Staff at: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. > > > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella > Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 2

Proposal for ALAC work on future challenges
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, Please see below a proposal by Jean-Jacques on the use of a currently standing Working Group or the establish of a Task Force to discuss emerging ALAC challenges. This proposal will be discussed during today's Wrap-Up Session: ** Dear All, at the ALAC meeting on Sunday 13 March, a proposal was made regarding a working group or task force which would discuss emerging challenges and the way ALAC should address them. Building upon the debate which followed, and on conversations which have taken place since then, the following elements are submitted to your approval and/or discussion: PURPOSE AND NAME It is suggested the group would be called, at least for the time being, ALAC Task Force F (for Future), or TF-F. The notion of "task force" underlines its temporary nature, the fact that its duty is to address a given set of issues, and that it is expected to deliver results within a given time frame. MEMBERSHIP It is hoped the composition of TF-F will be fairly representative of ALAC's overall geographic diversity, but clearly personal motivation is of prime importance. Once the list of members has been established and agreed upon by ALAC, the members of TF-F will choose their two co-chairs (this can be done by e-mail, or in a conference call). Once constituted, TF-F may call upon experts, as required. PROGRAMME The first task of TF-F will be to propose a limited list of (perhaps 3 or 4) priority issues which the ALAC should address in the near future, because of their impact on the global Internet, on ICANN, on ALAC. These issues shall constitute the core of the work programme for TF-F for 2011. STAFF SUPPORT In parallel to the membership of TF-F being finalized, it would be necessary to finalize arrangements for Staff support for TF-F. VERY NEXT STEPS ALAC members interested in taking part in this work are requested to reply to this e-mail to * make known their candidacy * list the 3 or 4 topics they consider ALAC should take a position on, with regard to the future of the Internet, ICANN, or ALAC (in their order of priority, 1 being the most important or urgent). At this stage, the wording of these topics should be brief and self-evident. ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

9 17

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program - Call for comments
by Wolf Ludwig March 30, 2011

March 30, 2011

Great draft and statement, Carlton. Congratulation and thanks, Wolf ICANN At-Large Staff sent Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:25: >Dear All, > > > >On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, please find the draft ALAC >Statement on the Proposed Recommendation for a Global Outreach Program (see: >https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Prop >osed+Recommendation+for+a+Global+Outreach+Program+-+March+2011) which has >been drafted by Carlton Samuels. > > > >The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: >http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-outreach. This public comment >closes on Sunday, 10 April. > > > >Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the >wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 1 April. > > > >An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. > > > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, > >ICANN At-Large Staff > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

1 0

Draft ALAC statement on IRTP-B report
by Alan Greenberg March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Sorry about the long delay in getting this out. I have not had much time for ICANN work this last week. The draft version presented here is identical to that distributed to the ALAC during the ICANN meeting, except that there is an enlarged introduction and I have now incorporated some specific answers to the questions posed under recommendation 1. No comments were received to the earlier draft. Alan ================================================================ Draft ALAC Statement on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report The ALAC supports all of the recommendations in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Proposed Final Report. Individuals who register domain names are arguably the registrants who are most vulnerable to problems being addressed in this PDP. They often have little technical or domain-industry knowledge and are ill-prepared to deal with hijacking or the subtleties of domain name transfer. Moreover, the ALAC has specific comments on two of the recommendations: Recommendation 1. The ALAC strongly supports the Emergency Action Channel. With regard to the specific questions, we offer the following comments on several of the questions: - Within what timeframe should a response be received after an issue has been raised through the Emergency Action Channel (for example, 24 hours - 3 days has been the range discussed by the WG)? >As a prime use of the Emergency Action Channel is to reverse domain >hijacking, we support as short a period as practical. The target >should be well under 24 hours. - What qualifies as 'a response'? Is an auto-response sufficient? >An automated response is not considered acceptable as it eliminates >the intent of establishing communications between the registrars. - Should there be any consequences when a response is not received within the required timeframe? >The Emergency Action Channel would have no meaning if there were not >consequences to no response. Consequences should include a >provision for the registry unilaterally reversing the transfer and >possibly fines. - Is there a limited time following a transfer during which the Emergency Action Channel can be used? >We support a reasonably long period but have no specific suggestion. >We defer to the registrars who regularly must respond to hijacking >as to what time period they find acceptable. - Who is entitled to make use of the Emergency Action Channel? >The Emergency Action Channel may be useful for a number of registrar >issues. Those are likely outside the scope of this PDP, but other >uses should not be precluded. Recommendation 2. The ALAC supports the concept of increased and improved registrant education. Although it is not clear that the ALAC should be designated as the prime channel for such activities, it may be considered one of the possible channels, factoring in the limited ICANN budget at its disposal for such activities and the limited control over volunteer time that it exercises.

1 0