Re: [ALAC] RUSH: Statement on ccTLD/gTLD Delegation/Redelegation Consultation
Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread. I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process. Alan At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking
- Evan
On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> ).
Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> ).
The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly.
I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience.
I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
We can talk about the need to do this all we want. But, based on the one concrete example to date, informed ALS input can be (and is) ignored without consequence. And when the RALO threatens to get involved, just send in some lawyers to intimidate and shut them up. This is not theory. This actually happened with .pr. I was personally in a F2F NARALO meeting that had more lawyers in the room than ALSs reps. So unless we have something to say beyond wishful thinking, that accounts for and learns from real lessons of the past and has the actual promise to change policy and prevent intimidation of At-Large members, we are wasting our time and ought not to lend respectability to a process done only for show. - Evan On 20 March 2013 14:30, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread.
I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process.
Alan
At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking
- Evan
On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) and the similar one for gTLDs ( https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> ).
Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> ).
The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly.
I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience.
I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Dear Cheryl, Thank you very much for your explanation. Have I to delete my comment or to move it to another place? Best regards, Oksana 2013/3/20 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
We can talk about the need to do this all we want. But, based on the one concrete example to date, informed ALS input can be (and is) ignored without consequence. And when the RALO threatens to get involved, just send in some lawyers to intimidate and shut them up.
This is not theory. This actually happened with .pr. I was personally in a F2F NARALO meeting that had more lawyers in the room than ALSs reps.
So unless we have something to say beyond wishful thinking, that accounts for and learns from real lessons of the past and has the actual promise to change policy and prevent intimidation of At-Large members, we are wasting our time and ought not to lend respectability to a process done only for show.
- Evan
On 20 March 2013 14:30, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread.
I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process.
Alan
At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking
- Evan
On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to the IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) and the similar one for gTLDs (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> ).
Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> ).
The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore it is essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very quickly.
I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience.
I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Dear Oksana, no need to delete the comment as such. The final draft of the statement will just not take this comment into account. However, I do believe that it is important that this comment was made and remains recorded. The question you raise in indeed very important and as Cheryl mentioned, this is something which we should raise between Beijing & Durban. The same problem has arisen in many different countries - and often between a government and a local organisation that started running the TLD many years ago. I'll ask staff to put this on the list of issues we need to look at soon. Kindest regards, Olivier On 21/03/2013 05:39, Oksana Prykhodko wrote:
Dear Cheryl,
Thank you very much for your explanation. Have I to delete my comment or to move it to another place?
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/20 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
We can talk about the need to do this all we want. But, based on the one concrete example to date, informed ALS input can be (and is) ignored without consequence. And when the RALO threatens to get involved, just send in some lawyers to intimidate and shut them up.
This is not theory. This actually happened with .pr. I was personally in a F2F NARALO meeting that had more lawyers in the room than ALSs reps.
So unless we have something to say beyond wishful thinking, that accounts for and learns from real lessons of the past and has the actual promise to change policy and prevent intimidation of At-Large members, we are wasting our time and ought not to lend respectability to a process done only for show.
- Evan
On 20 March 2013 14:30, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread.
I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process.
Alan
At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the ccNSO that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response to a single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really wonder whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the response) is more than wishful thinking
- Evan
On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to > the > IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( > https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) > and the similar one for gTLDs > (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> > ). > > Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement > is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( > https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> > ). > > The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing > that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore > it is > essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very > quickly. > > I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience. > I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed. > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, Thank you very much for your letter and for your understanding! Last week we survived the whole transport and communication doomsday in Kiev) So sorry for my late answer( I just let you to know, that I have sent my informational request to didp@icann.org (thanks to Sebastien - see the text of request below). I really will highly appreciate all comments and recommendations! Best, Oksana Dear all, I am writing you to ask for more information on the delegation of the IDN ccTLD .ykp to Ukraine. On the Board web-site I can find very limited piece of information (http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp). I would like to know: 1. What was the package of documents, submitted to IANA/ICANN on this issue (first of all, could you please send us "publicly available registration policy" of .ykp, confirmation of support from Ukrainian government and Ukrainian Internet community, concept of the development of this domain)? Could you please let us know "a brief overview of the history of the request" and "ICANN Staff ... report to the ICANN Board"? 2. Did ICANN/IANA perform the test on security and stability of .ykp? If yes, what is the result? Are you monitoring the situation after delegation? 3. Did you ask for any additional consultations with other SO (for example, Ukrainian representatives in GAC, ccNSO, ALAC)? If yes, what reaction did you receive? If not - why? Thank you very much in advance, Oksana Prykhodko director of iNGO European Media Platform EURALO secretary Ukraine Delegation of the .укр domain representing Ukraine The Board received a brief overview of the history of the request for delegation of the IDN ccTLD. The Board then took the following action: Resolved (2013.02.28.04), ICANN has reviewed and evaluated the request, and the documentation demonstrates the delegation process was followed and is in the interests of the local and global Internet communities. Fourteen members of the Board voted in favor of the resolution. Two Board members were unavailable to voted on the resolution. The resolution carried. Rationale for Resolution 2013.02.28.04 As part of the IANA Functions, ICANN receives request to delegate and redelegate country-code top-level domains. ICANN Staff has reviewed and evaluated a delegation request for this domain and has provided a report to the ICANN Board that proper procedures were followed in that evaluation. The Board's oversight of the process helps ensure ICANN is properly executing its responsibilities relating to the stable and secure operation of critical unique identifier systems on the Internet and pursuant to the IANA Functions Contract. Ensuring that the process is followed adds to the accountability of ICANN. This action will have no fiscal impact on ICANN or the community, and will have a positive impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system. This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment. http://isearch.avg.com/tab?cid={DA755F65-4868-40DF-A0C1-10587C8BB29B}&mid=cc0a132d7c724b87aaebdb8be44704c0-05bbe7583e18f76d3574dca19792a2e01db74b86&lang=en&ds=hk015&pr=sa&d=2013-02-28%2020:37:40&v=14.2.0.1&pid=avg&sg=&sap=nt 2013/3/21 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Oksana,
no need to delete the comment as such. The final draft of the statement will just not take this comment into account. However, I do believe that it is important that this comment was made and remains recorded. The question you raise in indeed very important and as Cheryl mentioned, this is something which we should raise between Beijing & Durban. The same problem has arisen in many different countries - and often between a government and a local organisation that started running the TLD many years ago. I'll ask staff to put this on the list of issues we need to look at soon. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 21/03/2013 05:39, Oksana Prykhodko wrote:
Dear Cheryl,
Thank you very much for your explanation. Have I to delete my comment or to move it to another place?
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/20 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
We can talk about the need to do this all we want. But, based on the one concrete example to date, informed ALS input can be (and is) ignored without consequence. And when the RALO threatens to get involved, just send in some lawyers to intimidate and shut them up.
This is not theory. This actually happened with .pr. I was personally in a F2F NARALO meeting that had more lawyers in the room than ALSs reps.
So unless we have something to say beyond wishful thinking, that accounts for and learns from real lessons of the past and has the actual promise to change policy and prevent intimidation of At-Large members, we are wasting our time and ought not to lend respectability to a process done only for show.
- Evan
On 20 March 2013 14:30, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Cheryl, I am on a WG call and only just noticed this thread.
I agree with your reply. Oksana's comment is very relevant to the ccTLD redelegation process and the need to get the entire 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties' involved, which certainly can include a local ALS, is critical. But this particular comment period is not the place to lock in such a process.
Alan
At 20/03/2013 01:52 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
Oksana your points are well made and this process for greater engagement with direct push information to ALSes on many ICANN matters including the work of the IANA on delegation and redelegation is a conversation we *must* have (and soon I would think) so perhaps between Beijing and Durbin meetings... But I copy here an email I sent earlier today re this matter to the APRALO list to inform their discussion and the ALAC Working list...
<snip>Just to be clear the Call for Public Comments that the ALAC is responding to iin its draft is *not* looking *AT* any new gTLD or ccTLD deligations or redeligations per se at all; *but is* limited to comment on proposed performance measures and metrics for IANA performance in processing such things, as required under the new contract with NTIA, when they do (rarely) come to pass...
Discussion on specific cases as might be tempting is interesting and occasionally challenging of course but *not* germane to this piece of work at all.
CLO from my Mobile phone <end snip> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
On 21 March 2013 04:33, Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I just submitted my comment on the wiki, but I would like to copy it here - with some explanations.
"In my opinion, "accountability and transparency of the involvement of the 'Local Internet Community" and 'Significantly Interested Parties'" mean also consultation with ALSes, which represent "interested or affected" local Internet community. It means that each such ALS has to receive direct e-mail from ICANN At-Large Staff with information, that IANA received any request for redelegation. In case, if ANY of such ALSes will object to such redelegation, this objection has to be considered on the level of corresponding RALO and the result of this consideration has to be reported to ALAC. In case if ALAC will find such objections reasonable, the decision of ALAC has to be submitted to the Board."
Explanations: I would like to clarify the role, the rights and responsibilities of each ALS in any issue, which is "interesting or affecting for local community". In case of redelegation of ccTLD or delegation of new IDNS ccTLD it's easy to find such ALSes. In case of new gTLD it would be necessary to relay on dashboard, on which Capacity Building WG is working just now. That is why it is necessary to register the sphere of primary interests of each ALS in this dashboard.
Best regards, Oksana
2013/3/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>: > Looks OK to me. But given how anything ICANN even suggests to the > ccNSO > that isn't purely procedural (ie, the FOI) is met with > out-of-your-jurisdiction fury in response (see the lengthy response > to a > single line of the R3 white paper as but one example), I really > wonder > whether the ccTLD component of this (both the statement and the > response) > is more than wishful thinking > > - Evan > > > On 19 March 2013 15:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: > >> Cheryl and I were asked to put together a statement in responce to >> the >> IANA ccTLG delegation/redelagation consultation ( >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg>) >> and the similar one for gTLDs >> (https://community.icann.org/**x/CgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/CgFlAg> >> ). >> >> Unfortunately, due to other commitments, it is just now that the statement >> is ready and can be found on the ccTLD consulation page ( >> https://community.icann.org/**x/EgFlAg<; https://community.icann.org/x/EgFlAg> >> ). >> >> The statement must be submitted by the end of Wednesday, so I am guessing >> that it will be submitted just prior to a vote beginning. Therefore >> it is >> essential that any comments on this statement be submitted very >> quickly. >> >> I am also attaching a copy of the proposed statement for your convenience. >> I will leave it to Olivier to decide on the exact process to be followed. >> Alan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC@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+(ALA...) > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Oksana Prykhodko -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond