- APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [ALAC] ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
by Holly Raiche July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

Is this an item that we want to provide comments on? Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: 30 July 2012 1:38:19 PM AEST > To: alac Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: [ALAC] ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm > > > > ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching > > 29 July 2012 > > Opportunity for Community Input: Processing of New gTLD Applications > > At the Prague ICANN meeting, the new gTLD Program > Committee decided to terminate Digital Archery, > and instructed ICANN staff to proceed with the > initial evaluation of applications as quickly as > possible. This evaluation is in progress based on > a tentative project plan that foresees the > processing of applications in a single batch, and > simultaneous release of results. ICANN believes > this approach is consistent with the constraints > that various parts of the community have in > performing their respective roles in the > evaluation process, and with the feedback > received from the community at the Prague meeting. > > This comment opportunity seeks input on > requirements for an evaluation and delegation > process consistent with previous root zone > scaling discussions of smooth delegations, adding > no more than 1,000 new gTLDs per year. This outcome can be achieved by the: > > a. timing of the release of evaluation results to applicants, > > b. timing of the release of applications into > the pre-delegation steps of contract execution and pre-delegation testing, > > c. metering of delegations of new gTLDs into the root zone. > > ICANN is committed to executing the evaluation > and delegation process in a way that is equitable > and meets ICANN's commitment to ensuring the > security and stability of the DNS, consistent > with previously established root zone scaling goals. > > Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your > input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered. > > Background > > The concept of batching has been a part of the > Applicant Guidebook since its first draft. Batching accomplishes three goals: > > 1. Better management of the evaluation process > by placing an upper bound on the number of > evaluators necessary and the number of parallel > evaluations occurring at any one time. > > 2. Release of evaluation results to applicants > according to a predictable schedule. > > 3. Delegation of TLDs at a rate acceptable to > the technical community, consistent with the root zone scaling discussion. > > Based on the definitive information that ICANN > now has about the pool of applications, and work > on the evaluations to date, this comment process > seeks input to meet requirements for goals #2 and #3. > > Leading up to and during ICANN's meeting in > Prague, the applicant and community positions on > requirements for batching schemes that would > control the evaluation, communication and > delegation of applications were reported to be: > > a. The batching solution has to be equitable. > > b. The evaluation results have to be announced at the same time. > > c. Successful applications should proceed to > delegation phase without undue delays. > > d. Delegation to the root must be at a smooth > rate and must not exceed 1,000 per year. > > e. The GAC is planning to issue early warnings > shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting in October 2012. > > f. Consideration by the GAC of issues concerning > GAC advice on contentious applications is not > expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013. > > During the root scaling discussion, it was agreed > that ICANN would not delegate TLDs at a rate > greater than 1,000 per year. This is because the > primary challenge with maintaining root zone > stability is controlling the rate of change to > the root zone system and not the size of the root > zone itself, meaning delegation should not occur > at a rate of 1,000 delegations on a single day. > > In Prague, the batching and prioritization method > known as Digital Archery was terminated and > eliminated from further consideration. > > Recent Developments > > Initial evaluation of new gTLD applications is underway. > > Applications are being distributed to evaluators > in a way that enables efficient processing. > > ICANN has conducted pilot evaluations and had > discussions with evaluators to accelerate the > evaluation schedule. As a result of these > discussions, the evaluation teams have committed > to accelerate the evaluations substantially, > while processing them in a single batch. > > In Prague, a methodology was discussed where the > smooth delegation of applications could occur by > first releasing applications that passed initial > evaluation without the need for clarifying > questions, then releasing applications in order > of the number of clarifying questions required, > from fewest to highest. After analysis, this > methodology proved unworkable because 80% to 90% > of the total evaluation time is required to form > and ask clarifying questions, so little smoothing would result. > > The current plan indicates that initial > evaluation of all applications, processed in a > "single batch", can be completed in 11-12 months, > possibly less resulting in publication of results in June-July 2013. > Note: It is planned that regular updates to > applicants during the evaluation period will be > provided. In addition to written reports, ICANN > is looking into the use of a webinar / conference > call format to deliver updates. > > For applicants, releasing results in a single > batch would mean that the first delegations would > occur in late third quarter of 2013, six months later than originally expected. > > Implications of GAC timing: > > The GAC plans to "issue any Early Warnings > shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting, in > October 2012," meaning that Early Warnings would > be received within the currently planned single evaluation period. > > Also, the GAC "is considering the implications > of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications. > These considerations are not expected to be > finalized before the Beijing meeting in April > 2013." This is shortly before the currently > planned announcement of initial evaluation > results (i.e., the schedule without additional > accelerations beyond those stated above). > > Statement of the Issue > > While there will be some natural smoothing as > applications take different paths through > objections and contention resolution processes, > there will still be a requirement for some method > of metering applications into the delegation > process. This is due to the relatively high > number of applications that may reach > pre-delegation steps at essentially the same > time. A metering method has not yet been > determined and will need to be developed. > > Questions to be answered by comments > > Submitted comments should specifically answer each of the following questions: > > 1. Should the metering or smoothing consider > releasing evaluation results, and transitioning > applications into the contract execution and > pre-delegation testing phases, at different times? > > a. How can applications be allocated to > particular release times in a fair and equitable way? > > b. Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation rate? > > c. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. > > 2. Should the metering or smoothing be > accomplished by downstream metering of > application processing (i.e., in the contract > execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation phases)? > > a. How can applications be allocated to a > particular timing in contract execution, > pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable way? > > b. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach. > > 3. Include a statement describing the level of > importance that the order of evaluation and > delegation has for your application. > > Please write to newgtld-input(a)icann.org with your > input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be considered. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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…

2 1

Report on Tokyo for APRALO meeting
by Holly Raiche July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

Hi Everyone My report back on the main areas of discussion at Tokyo. The big ticket items were WCIT, the discussions about Internet governance and take up of IPv6. Discussion of the IGF is on the agenda (and I am assuming that Fouad will also contribute) so we can review what issues we can take up in APRALO/ALAC. Holly

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] Re-certification of the Aotearoa Maori Internet Organization
by Karaitiana Taiuru July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

Greetings everyone, I am looking forward to interacting with old colleagues and to meeting some of the new ALS members. As usualy, there are many exciting opportunities within ICANN to be involved with. Regards, Karaitiana Taiuru Aotearoa Māori Internet Organisation From: Heidi Ullrich [mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2012 9:40 a.m. To: karaitiana(a)taiuru.maori.nz Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; charlespmok(a)gmail.com; h.raiche(a)internode.on.net; fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com; Pavan Budhrani (pavan(a)registry.asia) Cheryl Langdon-Orr; ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Re-certification of the Aotearoa Maori Internet Organization Dear Karaitiana, Regarding your request for the re-certification of the Aotearoa Maori Internet Organization within the At-Large community, we are pleased to be able to inform you that during their meeting of 24 July 2012, the ALAC agreed by acclamation to re-certify the Aotearoa Maori Internet Organization as an At-Large Structure. Could you please send At-Large staff the names and contact details of two additional members of your ALS for our records? Welcome back! Kind Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Schedule for appointing regional At-Large Delegates to the NomCom
by Heidi Ullrich July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear All, On behalf of the Chair of the ALAC, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, we would like to inform you of the schedule for the process of appointing the regional At-Large Delegates to the Nominating Committee (NomCom). The ALAC ExCom has suggested the following timetable for nominations and consultation recommendations from RALOs for consideration by the ALAC for appointment as the 2013 NomCom At-Large Delegate positions: 1. Nominations Open: 24 July 2012 2. Nominations Close: 7 August 2012 3. Nomination Acceptance Deadline: On or before 10 August 2012 4. RALO nominee prioritization period: Between 10-15 August 2012 (this may include a vote if desired) 5. ALAC Notification: RALOs to transmit all accepted nominations with a recommendation for a preferred candidate if the RALO wishes to provide one by 15 August 2012 6. ALAC Review of RALO Recommendations/Additional List of Nominations Accepted: 15 August -20 August 2012 7. ALAC selection and endorsement vote: Carried out on-line between 20-24 August 2012 8. Notification to NomCom of Appointees: No later than 25 August 2012 or as arranged with NomCom Secretariat Please note that the ICANN Bylaws (see: XI-2.4.e) <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI-2.4> state: The ALAC shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article VI to the Nominating Committee. Voting members of the NomCom are appointed for a one year term, starting after the close of the Annual General Meeting 2012 and ending at the close of the Annual General Meeting 2013. An At-Large ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections and Appointments 2012 Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ALAC+and+RALO+Election…> has been created for these, and other, positions. Please feel free to add your nominations and comments directly to the workspace or by posting a message on your RALO mailing list. The NomCom's charge is as follows: The NomCom is responsible for the selection of eight ICANN Board Members and for other selections as are set forth in the Bylaws. (See Bylaws Article VII, Section 1<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VII-1>.) The NomCom is charged with populating a portion of the ICANN Board as noted above, as well as the ALAC, the ccNSO Council and the GNSO Council. The NomCom complements the other means for filling a portion of key ICANN leadership positions achieved within the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The Bylaws also state that the NomCom shall adopt such operating procedures as it deems necessary, which shall be published on the ICANN website. The NomCom is designed to function independently from the Board, the Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. NomCom members act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community and within the scope of the ICANN mission and responsibilities assigned to it by the ICANN Bylaws. Members contribute to the NomCom both their understanding of the broad interests of the Internet as a whole and their knowledge and experience of the concerns and interests of the Internet stakeholders that have appointed them. The challenge for the NomCom is to integrate these perspectives and derive consensus in its selections. Although appointed by Supporting Organizations and other ICANN bodies, individual NomCom members are not accountable to their appointing constituencies. Members are, of course, accountable for adherence to the Bylaws and for compliance with the rules and procedures established by the NomCom. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear Holly, On 25/07/2012 14:00, Holly Raiche wrote : > I think we should go ahead and ask ICANN or ISOC to make us a part of their > workshop otherwise it may remain a challenge to get in a good audience if > we go solo. Can we get clarity on how many people can be sent to the IGF > and what is the exact funding amount at hand. It is in my current list of tasks (discussed during the 24/07/2012 ALAC call) to shed light over the terms of the funding allocation for IGF, as described in the ICANN Finance & Budget document. I need to obtain more clarity about what the $90K means. Heidi is also checking via staff routes how this will be shared between several groups, APRALO being one of them. I hope to have a clear answer about this soon. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11
by Siranush Vardanyan July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear APRALO colleagues, As I have mentioned during face-to-face APRALO meeting in Prague, I will not be able to be in Baku for IGF in person due to the reasons I have mentioned, but I am ready to support via remote participation, both as a panelist or remote moderator. There is also a suggestion came to me from ICANN fellowship program (from Janice) to be one of the panelists for workshop on Youth participation, organized by DotAsia (Edmond Chung is aware of this) at the upcoming IGF and I also agreed to participate remotely, though it is still under discussion and I haven't received any updates on this. However, if there will be a need for any support from my side, I would be happy to step in, considering the fact that I will be able to support only online. Best Siranush Armenia > From: apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 > To: apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:00:06 +0000 > > Send APAC-Discuss mailing list submissions to > apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > apac-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of APAC-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. APRALO and the IGF (Holly Raiche) > 2. Re: APRALO and the IGF (Fouad Bajwa) > 3. APRALO Elections (Pavan Budhrani) > 4. URGENT [Request for Feedback] (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) > 5. Re: URGENT [Request for Feedback] (Cheryl Langdon-Orr) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:36:55 +1000 > From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > Subject: [APAC-Discuss] APRALO and the IGF > To: APAC-Discuss Discuss <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: <790839A2-E606-4020-AB79-C728A25AA321(a)internode.on.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi Everyone > > I am very conscious that, by postponing the APRALO meeting until 31 July we have missed the opportunity to discuss a possible workshop for Baku - the absolute deadline being July 30. At this stage, I am feeling it is too late to get something together, but can be persuaded differently. > > I am happy to ask ICANN staff to arrange a teleconference earlier but need convincing that there is a real possibility of not only an idea for a workshop, but enthusiasm and the time for putting something together that looks credible - in 5 days! > > I welcome all input - but please get back to me within the next 24 hours if you have not only an idea but an outline we can all discuss and support. > > (After the APrIGF, I realised that many of the participants there will also be discussing WCIT at Baku so I"m not sure yet another workshop in WCIT will work) > > Thanks > > Holly > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:10:52 +0900 > From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] APRALO and the IGF > To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > Cc: APAC-Discuss Discuss <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <CAHuaJtPk88mnsQHLOMMn8v7j029fRJhe0LHZhzt8-j3+GwWS-Q(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Holly, > > I share your concerns but we may be handicapped by the fact that we don't > know who can travel or not as well as the fact that the funding aspect was > not clarified but still explained. > > Various active stakeholders including ISOC, ICC and various supportive > govts are organizing a pre-igf event on WCIT and ITRs and, while browsing > through the main session and workshops, a number of others will be doing so > as well. > > Every year the IGF has a good set of hot topics but this year the pressure > is on WCIT and ITRs. > > I think we should go ahead and ask ICANN or ISOC to make us a part of their > workshop otherwise it may remain a challenge to get in a good audience if > we go solo. Can we get clarity on how many people can be sent to the IGF > and what is the exact funding amount at hand. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Jul 25, 2012 3:39 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > > > Hi Everyone > > > > I am very conscious that, by postponing the APRALO meeting until 31 July > > we have missed the opportunity to discuss a possible workshop for Baku - > > the absolute deadline being July 30. At this stage, I am feeling it is too > > late to get something together, but can be persuaded differently. > > > > I am happy to ask ICANN staff to arrange a teleconference earlier but need > > convincing that there is a real possibility of not only an idea for a > > workshop, but enthusiasm and the time for putting something together that > > looks credible - in 5 days! > > > > I welcome all input - but please get back to me within the next 24 hours > > if you have not only an idea but an outline we can all discuss and support. > > > > (After the APrIGF, I realised that many of the participants there will > > also be discussing WCIT at Baku so I"m not sure yet another workshop in > > WCIT will work) > > > > Thanks > > > > Holly > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:56:59 +0800 > From: Pavan Budhrani <pavan(a)registry.asia> > Subject: [APAC-Discuss] APRALO Elections > To: APRALO <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <CAJ0Xhu+P7fiWeMJS6N31nBkWBKBDX5DYuo-U-_saUth7ge6eGQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear All, > > > > Upon the request of the APRALO Chair, I would like to announce the > schedules for elections for the position of APRALO representative to the > ALAC and for the At-Large Delegate to the NomCom from the Asia-Pacific > Region. > > > > ? APRALO representative to the ALAC ? Edmon Chung?s term expires > at the ICANN Annual General Meeting scheduled to take place 14-19 October > in Toronto. He is eligible for re-election. This position is a two-year > term. > > > > *1. Nominations Open:* 24 July 2012 > > *2. Nominations Close:* 7 August 2012 > > *3. Nomination Acceptance Deadline:* On or before 10 August 2012 > > 4. *RALO selection*: Between 10-15 August 2012 (this may include a vote if > desired) > > *5. Result Announced: *15 August 2012 > > > > ? At-Large Delegate to the NomCom from the Asia-Pacific Region > ? *Siranush > Vardanyan<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/18121045/Siranush+Vardanya…> > *?s term expires at the ICANN Annual General Meeting scheduled to take > place 14-19 October in Toronto. She is eligible for re-election. Voting > members of the NomCom are appointed for a one year term, starting after the > close of the Annual General Meeting 2012 and ending at the close of the > Annual General Meeting 2013. > > > > ICANN's Nominating Committee asked the At-Large Advisory Committee to > submit a list with ALAC delegates from each of ICANN's five geographic > regions. The ALAC ExCom suggested the following timetable for nominations > and consultation recommendations from RALOs for consideration by the ALAC > for appointment as the 2013 NomCom At-Large Delegate positions: > > > > *1. Nominations Open:* 24 July 2012 > > *2. Nominations Close:* 7 August 2012 > > *3. Nomination Acceptance Deadline:* On or before 10 August 2012 > > 4. *RALO nominee priortization period*: Between 10-15 August 2012 (this > may include a vote if desired) > > *5. ALAC Notification*: RALOs to transmit all accepted nominations with a > recommendation for a preferred candidate if the RALO wishes to provide one > by 15 August 2012 > > *6.* *ALAC Review of RALO Recommendations/Additional List of Nominations > Accepted: *15 August -20 August 2012 > > *7. ALAC selection and endorsement vote: *Carried out on-line between 20-24 > August > > *8. Notification to NomCom of Appointees:* No later than 25 August 2012 or > as arranged with NomCom Secretariat > > > > Please note that the ICANN Bylaws (see: XI-2.4.e) > <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI-2.4>state: > The ALAC shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint > five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in > the same Geographic Region, as defined according to Section 5 of Article > VI to the Nominating Committee. > > > An APRALO Elections 2012 > Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/APRALO+Elections+2012+Workspace>has > been created for these elections. Please feel free to add your > nominations and comments directly to the Workspace or by email to the > Asia-Pacific Discuss mailing list (apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org) > > -- > Pavan Budhrani > Director of Business Development > DotAsia Organisation > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:47:19 +1200 > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [APAC-Discuss] URGENT [Request for Feedback] > To: apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <CAJwbTiD0brQzLVvn2orWxtF+rya+vc+L7uaeY3qJRpURkmnqdQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dear APRALO, > > I would like to receive your comments and feedback and thoughts on the > content of the email below as ALAC is being asked to co-sign. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:24 AM > Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: RE: .com renewal and thick Whois-- next steps > To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Dear ALAC members, > > please be so kind to find a letter which I have received from Steve > Metalitz, IPC, asking whether the ALAC would like to co-sign this. > > I will therefore be asking the question during the ALAC call today > whether there is any objection to ALAC supporting this letter. > > For your information, the ALAC has already drafted a similar statement > and sent it to the Board: > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-28jun12-en.htm > > ...although it focussed solely on the Board's Closed Session to adopt > the draft .com Renewal Agreement. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:40:36 +1000 > From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] URGENT [Request for Feedback] > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > Cc: apralo <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Message-ID: > <CADrRf+e08xYwSH0qY72L87__6pk+4QYJf4gi+k6vpBakzNAjYQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Supported... > *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr > > > > On 25 July 2012 10:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear APRALO, > > > > I would like to receive your comments and feedback and thoughts on the > > content of the email below as ALAC is being asked to co-sign. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > > Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:24 AM > > Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: RE: .com renewal and thick Whois-- next steps > > To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > > > Dear ALAC members, > > > > please be so kind to find a letter which I have received from Steve > > Metalitz, IPC, asking whether the ALAC would like to co-sign this. > > > > I will therefore be asking the question during the ALAC call today > > whether there is any objection to ALAC supporting this letter. > > > > For your information, the ALAC has already drafted a similar statement > > and sent it to the Board: > > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-28jun12-en.htm > > > > ...although it focussed solely on the Board's Closed Session to adopt > > the draft .com Renewal Agreement. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > End of APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 11 > ********************************************

1 0

URGENT [Request for Feedback]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro July 25, 2012

July 25, 2012

Dear APRALO, I would like to receive your comments and feedback and thoughts on the content of the email below as ALAC is being asked to co-sign. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:24 AM Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: RE: .com renewal and thick Whois-- next steps To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find a letter which I have received from Steve Metalitz, IPC, asking whether the ALAC would like to co-sign this. I will therefore be asking the question during the ALAC call today whether there is any objection to ALAC supporting this letter. For your information, the ALAC has already drafted a similar statement and sent it to the Board: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-28jun12-en.htm ...although it focussed solely on the Board's Closed Session to adopt the draft .com Renewal Agreement. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ 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 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

2 1

APRALO and the IGF
by Holly Raiche July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

Hi Everyone I am very conscious that, by postponing the APRALO meeting until 31 July we have missed the opportunity to discuss a possible workshop for Baku - the absolute deadline being July 30. At this stage, I am feeling it is too late to get something together, but can be persuaded differently. I am happy to ask ICANN staff to arrange a teleconference earlier but need convincing that there is a real possibility of not only an idea for a workshop, but enthusiasm and the time for putting something together that looks credible - in 5 days! I welcome all input - but please get back to me within the next 24 hours if you have not only an idea but an outline we can all discuss and support. (After the APrIGF, I realised that many of the participants there will also be discussing WCIT at Baku so I"m not sure yet another workshop in WCIT will work) Thanks Holly

2 1

Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP Drafting Team
by At-Large Staff July 24, 2012

July 24, 2012

Call for Volunteers for Drafting Team to develop Charter for thick¹ Whois PDP WG Introduction At its meeting on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on thick¹ Whois (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20120314-1> ). Following a short delay, the GNSO Council decided at its last meeting that a group of volunteers should now be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on thick¹ Whois¹. The elements of the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines <http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf> : Working Group identification; Mission, Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization, and; Rules of Engagement. The proposed charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. Volunteers If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ). You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate. Background Information on the Issue For the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries, ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through the registry agreements (ICANN 2009 Registry Agreements) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries satisfy their Whois obligations using different services. The two common models are often characterized as ³thin² and ³thick² Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name. A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar¹s Whois service. With thin registries, Registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA 3.3 for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries. Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on thick¹ Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 noting that the Issue Report should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not¹. The Final Issue Report was submitted by ICANN Staff on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> ) and in this report a number of issues are outlined that will need further consideration should a PDP proceed. The staff recommendation notes that staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO and notes that it is reasonable from the staff¹s perspective to expect that further investigation of thick¹ Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether thick¹ Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not. Recommended Reading for Volunteers * Final Issue Report on Thick¹ Whois (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> ) * GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> ) *********** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Disclosure
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro July 23, 2012

July 23, 2012

Dear All, This is to advise that I was retained by the ITU as a regional expert in Cyber Crime and was retained to assist the Cook Islands Government along with the development of their Policy on Cyber Crime as well as the Fiji National consultations. This involved liaising with a cross section of stakeholders both Ministerial, Parliament, Private Sector and Civil Society. I am not an employee of the ITU but was retained as a consultant. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

2 1