- APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation
by At-Large Staff March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04mar13-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04mar13-en.htm> Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation You are invited to a review of the findings of the Registrant ID Study Draft Report, recently published for public comment. The authors of the report (NORC) and ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday 6 March at 12.00 UTC and Wednesday 6 March at 19.00 UTC to summarize the findings from the WHOIS Registrant ID Study. The webinar will cover the methodology used to compile the data and provide an analysis of the findings. The two sessions will be identical, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. Participants also will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, a recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff always is available to answer questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> . In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 12.00 UTC or Wednesday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html> ). We will send you an email reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. --------------------- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC
by Richard - Netmission Ambassador March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

I am a Chinese literate, my understanding of 健康 carries much broader meaning than "health", which includes not only physical wellness, but also mental and spiritual wellness, etc. Chinese phrases usually lost a lot of meanings during direct simple translation, and this case is one of them. In Chinese communities around the world, 健康 carries much more meaning, such as 健康閱讀, which means reading for positive effects, not just to get healthy, but also be positively minded, and reading for wellness, etc. I believe when considering these new gTLD application, it is important to consider a broader context of the words instead of direct translation. Richard NetMission Ambassador On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Edmon. > > Chinese literate individuals in Asia would read "jiankang" and may > interpret the characters to mean "health" or "healthy". In this sense, the > string has the potential to confuse, irrespective of the applicant's > intention to steer its TLD focus on lifestyle. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > > > Rinalia Abdul Rahim > > sent via galaxy tab > On 1 Mar 2013 10:54, "Edmon" <edmon(a)isoc.hk> wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > The applicant for ".健康" reached out to us to explain his application and > > the materials At-Large has prepared. > > > > It seems that he is quite right in pointing out that the direction for > > ".健康" which is much more towards "wellness" and marked as "healthy" in > > their application, is quite distinct from WHO (World Health > Organization)'s > > objection against the other ASCII ".health" applications. > > > > For one, WHO itself is translated into "世界卫生组织" ( > > http://www.who.int/zh/index.html -- "world" -> "世界"; "health" -> "卫生"; > > organization "组织" for those who do not read Chinese, you may at least be > > able to appreciate that neither characters used for "health" -> "卫生" is > the > > same as what the applicant string "健康" uses) > > > > Of course some interpretations of "健康" may have meanings related to > > healthiness, however, it is seldom used in the direction for which WHO > > seems to be most concerned about. Which may relate much more to "卫生", > "医疗" > > (medical), etc. > > > > Anyway, I think we should consider, from APRALO, to separate out the > ".健康" > > application from the other objections to ".health" and not recommend the > > objection to be filed for ".健康" from ALAC. > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > APAC-Discuss mailing list > > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

5 5

Re: [APAC-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 4, 2013

March 4, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the objection statement against the applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".health" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) and the objection statement against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" ("jiankang") string (https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg) was updated on March 1 2013 to remove incorrect references to other applicants in these statements. The updated objection statements can be found on the respective wiki pages. On the gTLD RG call with the RALO officers on February 28 2013, an abstain option was added, instead of just a "Yes" or "No" answer for RALO. The RALO advice to the ALAC requires answers to the 5 questions listed at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg Finally, given clarification by ICANN's new gTLD staff as to the process by which funding from ICANN is made available to the ALAC, the RALO's answers to the 5 questions at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg can be sent to the ALAC by March 6 2013, 23:59 UTC. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: > > ** > Dear All, > > As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. > > The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) > > All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be > targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. > > The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. > > All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. > > The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: > 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR > 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. > > This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. > > A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new > gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. > > Kind regards, > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > ** > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Dear All, I have been in meetings whole day and it's been a really hectic week. I am attaching my thoughts on the matter which I have pasted on the wiki. They are also on the wiki. My comments on the Statement to point to the relevant portions of the Affirmation of Commitment in relation to ICANN's obligations and what it should consider. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > Evan has kindly pointed out that in my last sentence before my > signature, it should have been "... ADDED in the last sentence." > > Alan (trying to extract his foot from his mouth, and hoping to teach > his fingers how to select the correct keys) > > At 28/02/2013 01:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been > >suggested. They are shown on the wiki at > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: > >==== > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed > >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- > >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated > >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some > >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics > >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not > >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be > >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for > >lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > >would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might > >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > >be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the > >public interest. > >==== > >The changes were: > >- "unlimited" added in the first sentence. > >- "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of > >paragraph 2. > >- "as long as it can be established that they serve the public > >interest" assed in the last sentence. > > > >Alan > > > >At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to > > >create a new version. > > > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing > > >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > > earlier versions. > > > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >================================= > > > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the > > >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard > > >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models > > >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An > > >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at > > >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is > > >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. > > >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread > > >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a > > >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to > > >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should > > >not be excluded. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC
by Edmon March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Hi Everyone, The applicant for ".健康" reached out to us to explain his application and the materials At-Large has prepared. It seems that he is quite right in pointing out that the direction for ".健康" which is much more towards "wellness" and marked as "healthy" in their application, is quite distinct from WHO (World Health Organization)'s objection against the other ASCII ".health" applications. For one, WHO itself is translated into "世界卫生组织" (http://www.who.int/zh/index.html -- "world" -> "世界"; "health" -> "卫生"; organization "组织" for those who do not read Chinese, you may at least be able to appreciate that neither characters used for "health" -> "卫生" is the same as what the applicant string "健康" uses) Of course some interpretations of "健康" may have meanings related to healthiness, however, it is seldom used in the direction for which WHO seems to be most concerned about. Which may relate much more to "卫生", "医疗" (medical), etc. Anyway, I think we should consider, from APRALO, to separate out the ".健康" application from the other objections to ".health" and not recommend the objection to be filed for ".健康" from ALAC. Edmon

3 2

WSIS +10 closing ceremony speech
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear All, Kindly find the WSIS +10 Closing Speech below: *Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change<#13d200ba367e0146_sdfootnote1sym> * * * *at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review * * * *held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013* Dear fellow-citizens of the world; On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the World Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of the digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing long standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders were also concerned that the digital divide at international and national levels could lead to shaping a new class of those who have access to ICTs and those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of the WSIS plus 10 review, we have the responsibility to go back to this concern. The Internet – as the future social paradigm – is already yet another axis shaping exclusion and power. The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers. It notes – with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all. This is the moment of reckoning – for all of us – to ask if we stand at the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global and national governance and policy architectures of the new techno-social paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the good life that seemed plausible in 2003. - The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is a serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal growth and its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to the inequality in work - wages, working conditions and social cohesion - and its microeconomic implications. - Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN says that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a large labour informality affecting mainly the young and women. Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Guatemala have all seen an increase in inequality in the past decade. - The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity – the consuming middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the livelihoods crisis for the majority. All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This is the principal question that the WSIS review process must answer. If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in the past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the power of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave new hope to social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in mainstream spaces have more or less seen the political elite make way for a new class of economic elite – information society democracy remains as exclusionary as its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little place for women and others in the margins, and oblivious of new forms of violence and misogyny in the open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors of the virtual world. Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society have to come to terms with and interrogate the roots of these crises – the unfavourable conditions that seem to have jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet. The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold – it is economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has – at an unstoppable speed – usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament in real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of colossal corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010...” Centralization is the name of the game – the most powerful weapon in neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data, today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars combine to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market place atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in a logic that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling to see the realpolitik. The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would precipitate a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens its horizons, we see the individuals, communities and nations, fragmented by increasing self interest. The seamless geographies of the connected world are images of the Internet's economic paradigm – where membership for marginalised individuals, social groups and nations is a simple binary - assimilation or decimation. The talk of diversity and multiligualism notwithstanding, there is much less we can aspire today out of the promise of the networks society for collaboration and horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We need to pause and ask – are our normative frameworks – infoethics and info-civic imaginaries – adequate to ensure that every person, the last woman, can be a global citizen in the interconnected global world. What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states that make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of freedoms and the rule of law The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 , Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development, Beijing in 1996 for women – pursued problems confronting humanity with the resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed to the broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. There are some lessons here for civil society in the information society space. Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant of the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review (Post 2015 Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These overlapping inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals of the WSIS declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review that can offer analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews. The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review the state of democracy – and I qualify, the state of global democracy. Here – we have two tasks 1. Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other UN reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and climate change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity, and violence against women. 1. The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can make the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy issues pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and national. Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet should be a principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process. We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been greater in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the brazen pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For civil society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the network age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the core issues that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS plus 10 review process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in multistakeholderism be reduced to shadowboxing – where emerging hierarchies are denied and those that wield power escape with no accountability. Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here. <http://Www.ITforChange.net/> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Holly Raiche Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Hi Everyone This is another and later step on the issue of gTLDs. So please, go to the wiki to read the latest version. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847 Let me know if you are okay with the new and more nuanced version Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: 28 February 2013 5:00:24 PM AEDT > To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [ALAC] Closed generic statement > > At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create > a new version. > > I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, > and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. > > The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > see here, please speak up quickly. > > This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > Alan > > ================================= > > On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might > allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > be excluded. > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Fwd: [Secretariat] IMPORTANT Meeting Invitation - RALO discussion on ALAC Objection Process to new gTLD applications
by Holly Raiche Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

Hi Everyone This is just a reminder to please, have a look and either post directly to the website or get back to me Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Date: 27 February 2013 11:27:01 PM AEDT > To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin(a)ttcsweb.org>, New gTLD Review Group <newgtldrg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [Secretariat] IMPORTANT Meeting Invitation - RALO discussion on ALAC Objection Process to new gTLD applications > > Dear All, > > Please take note of the email below from Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of > the New gTLD Review Group > > A conference call for RALO officers to ask questions as to what is expected > by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD > application is scheduled on Thursday 28 February 2013 at 2100 UTC > > For other times: > http://tinyurl.com/co2vlp8 > > The draft agenda (TO BE UPDATED) and call details are available at: > https://community.icann.org/x/-41wAg > > Adobe Connect: > http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atlarge-newgtldrg/ > > Wiki workspace: > https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ > > French and Spanish interpretation will be provided subject to sufficient > demand. > > If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff > at:staff@atlarge.icann.org. > > Thank you. > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > One World, One Internet > > On 26/02/2013 08:45, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <admin(a)ttcsweb.org> wrote: > >> As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD >> application, (see PDF at >> http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD >> Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community >> grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation >> (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. >> >> The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review >> and discussion of comments received by February 8 2013 (see >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) >> >> All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. >> The community objection grounds page at >> https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would >> enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection >> to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a >> significant portion of the community to which the string may be >> targeted. Note also that all four tests must be met for the objection >> to prevail. >> >> The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments >> received by the gTLD RG on the applications are listed at the wiki >> page at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg >> >> All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the >> associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki >> pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG >> group supports the criterion for community objection. >> >> The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must >> advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: >> 1) supports the the objection statement being filed by the ALAC >> against the new gTLD application OR >> 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against >> the new gTLD application. >> >> This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the >> ALAC by March 5 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO >> advice before the end of the objection period on March 13 2013. >> >> A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday February 28 >> 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned >> for RALO officers if they have questions as to what is expected by >> the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new >> gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. >> _______________________________________________ >> Newgtldrg mailing list >> Newgtldrg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Secretariat mailing list > Secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/secretariat > > Secretariat wiki at: http://st.icann.org/secretariat

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: At-Large Expired Registration Recovery Education Needs Workspace
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the At-Large Expired Registration Recovery Education Needs Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/34twAg> has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to collected the At-Large's Expired Registration Recovery Education Needs. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 15-March-2013 at 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 26, 2013

Feb. 26, 2013

Dear All, Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: ** Dear All, As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. Kind regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

3 2