December 2011 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Season Greetings
by Vanda UOL Dec. 20, 2011

Dec. 20, 2011

Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 conj. 1407 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464

2 1

Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 19, 2011

Dec. 19, 2011

Hello, This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting. This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community. We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role. Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible. - Evan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined; WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened; WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient; WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund; WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round; and WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs; RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented.

7 10

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organizations
by Adam Peake Dec. 19, 2011

Dec. 19, 2011

Don't think Bill will mind me forwarding this email. FYI. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Drake <william.drake(a)uzh.ch> Date: 2011/12/19 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organizations To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Hi As expected, the UN and other public intergovernmental organizations are now demanding that their names and acronyms be protected---not only at the top, but the second level as well—"Consistent with the rationale for protection envisaged for the important causes represented by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Olympic Committee." The door has been opened, why wouldn't they want to go through it? The letter is attached below. Kieren has an article on this at http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/14/igos-special-gtld-exemption. While I agree with him that there is no chance of a TLD application with an international organization's name or acronym making it through the application process anyway, that the second level demand is problematic, and that the guidebook mechanisms would seem sufficient, it's not obvious that ICANN can easily tell these organizations to just chill out and expect them to go away. On last Thursday's Council call Wolfgang and I raised questions about how GNSO & ICANN would deal with this. There's a GNSO group being formed to work on the RC & IOC, but apparently no consideration of expanding its remit at this time. Clearly, there will have to be a broader discussion about the relative merits of transforming the Reserved Names list into a broad "rights protection" mechanism. GAC has argued that reserving RC & IOC are required by ICANN's public interest mandate; presumably we'll be hearing the same here. The intersection of the DNS and state-related claims raises a host of issues which NC may wish to consider and weigh in on. Best, Bill Begin forwarded message: *From: *Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> *Date: *December 18, 2011 12:49:08 PM GMT+01:00 *To: *GNSO Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org> *Subject: **[council] Fwd: Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organisations (IGO's)* Councillors, In the context of our own discussions at the end of last week's meeting, please see below the message I was copied on last Friday. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : *De : *<Nicola.BONUCCI(a)oecd.org> *Objet : **Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organisations (IGO's)* *Date : *16 décembre 2011 18:00:27 HNEC *À : *<rod.beckstrom(a)icann.org>, <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org > *Cc : *<gac(a)gac.icann.org>, <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, <jeffrey(a)icann.org>, <amy.stathos(a)icann.org>, <Josee.FECTEAU(a)oecd.org>, < Alexandra.EXCOFFIER-NOSOV(a)oecd.org>, <Jill.SCHUKER(a)oecd.org>, < edward.kwakwa(a)wipo.int>, <bdelachapelle(a)gmail.com>, < stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, <ocl(a)gih.com>, <DL1516(a)oecd.org> Dear Sirs,**** ** ** Several additional International Organizations have signed on to the open letter transmitted to you on 13 December. You will find enclosed the same letter containing an updated list of signatories.**** ** ** We take this opportunity to also copy the letter to the GNSO President Stephane Van Gelder and the ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond.**** ** ** Sincerely yours,**** ** ** ** ** **** *Nicola Bonucci *Director & Accession Coordinator / Directeur et coordonnateur de l’adhésion **** Directorate for Legal Affairs / Direction des affaires juridiques**** ** ** 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 80 77 – Fax: +33 1 44 30 62 45**** nicola.bonucci(a)oecd.org <lisa.vonn(a)oecd.org> || www.oecd.org**** ** ** Follow us on: <http://www.facebook.com/theOECD> <http://www.facebook.com/theOECD> <http://www.youtube.com/oecd> <http://www.youtube.com/oecd> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/oecd> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/oecd> <http://twitter.com/OECDtweet> <http://twitter.com/OECDtweet>**** ** **

2 1

Fw: Federal Trade Commission's Letter to ICANN on new gTLD concerns
by Carlton Samuels Dec. 19, 2011

Dec. 19, 2011

Here 's the letter. It enumerates the several concerns surrounding the launch of new gTLD that ill-serves 'consumer interests'. http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

They did give an explanation, albeit not a particularly satisfying one, nor even one that stands up to scrutiny (in my opinion). They said that "Assistance is limited to the available funding, thereby mitigating risk." The risk of deferring at least a reasonable amount of return-to-reserve is one that they have accepted in the past without any substantial rationale that it was a risky decision. Alan At 18/12/2011 01:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the >cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group >recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies >independent of any fixed fund;

1 0

LACRALO document on the draft declaration on the ALAC Review Working Group draft Geographic Regions english & spanish
by presidencia Internauta Argentina Dec. 18, 2011

Dec. 18, 2011

Dear colleagues, I send LACRALO draft document on the declaration on the ALAC Review Working Group Geographic Regions in the draft version in English and Spanish Kind regrads -- * Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>-CTA- <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

4 3

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 16, 2011

Dec. 16, 2011

Total of 18 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 16 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 3 | 16.08% | 20531 | evan at telly.org 11.11% | 2 | 14.58% | 18616 | joly at punkcast.com 11.11% | 2 | 9.48% | 12101 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 5.56% | 1 | 6.13% | 7824 | avri at acm.org 5.56% | 1 | 6.08% | 7768 | email at hakik.org 5.56% | 1 | 5.76% | 7360 | ocl at gih.com 5.56% | 1 | 5.74% | 7325 | vanda at uol.com.br 5.56% | 1 | 5.55% | 7086 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.56% | 1 | 5.53% | 7063 | admin at ttcsweb.org 5.56% | 1 | 5.44% | 6951 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 5.56% | 1 | 5.42% | 6919 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 5.56% | 1 | 5.09% | 6505 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 5.56% | 1 | 4.75% | 6060 | silvia.vivanco at icann.org 5.56% | 1 | 4.38% | 5587 | iza at anr.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 18 |100.00% | 127696 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & Commerce Committee
by Joly MacFie Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

Hi Olivier, I have blogged the final version of the letter at http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2779 I have also made a short url for the letter itself - it is http://bit.ly/alac-dyson You may recall that at the NARALO showcase in San Francisco I spoke out about the inaccessibility of the organization to potential recruits - in terms of a simple landing page where folks could sign up, or respond on issues. That situation is unresolved. j On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>wrote: > Dear all, > > there has recently been discussion on the NARALO list, regarding > hearings taking place in the US, including a hearing by the Senate > Committee on Science, Energy & Transportation (held Dec 8) and a hearing > by the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (held on Dec > 14th -- i.e. today). > Evan has kindly explained what these are and how they can accept > comments, with clear links to the hearings. His message is included below. > > Please find enclosed, a draft of the first letter from Beau Brendler, > NARALO Chair and co-signed by me, Chair of the ALAC, to be sent to the > Senate Committee by closing of business day today. It will be sent via > two paths, to the Chair of the Committee, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller. > > Since this draft letter is not a policy paper or ALAC Statement but > rather a letter to tell the Senate "you wish to see end user input in > ICANN, hey look, here we are", it does not require a formal vote, but it > will be archived in our ALAC correspondence. > > We shall also submit a similar letter to Chair of the the House of > Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee, Congressman Fred Upton, > should this be required. I understand that Kurt Pritz will be one of the > witnesses providing testimony in the hearing, so we'll have to see what > gets addressed at the hearing and if a completion of information is > required, no doubt that Beau and I would be happy to oblige. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 13/12/2011 06:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote : > > An important point of clarification (brought to me by Amber Sterling > > of the NPOC earlier today) about the deadlines. > > > > There are two different hearings > > > > 1. Senate Committee on Science Energy and Transportation > > <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH> (held Dec 8) > > After the verbal testimony was given, the public is able to send > > comments to the Committee by EoB Dec 14 > > > > 2. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee > > < > http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134> > > (to be held Dec 14) > > After the verbal testimony is given, the public will be able to > > send comments (deadline will be announced at the meeting) > > > > > > So... the letter Olivier has drafted is in response to the Senate > > hearing (chair: John Rockefeller) and needs to be sent there before > > Wednesday EoB. The letter mentions Esther Dyson, who participated in > > the Senate hearing last week but will *not* be at the House hearing > > this Wednesday. > > > > We may choose to send another, similar letter to the House committee > > after its testimony is heard. But the one Olivier drafted (the content > > of which I agree with) needs to go to Mr. Rockefeller and the Senate > > committee. > > > > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy &CommerceCommittee
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

On 15 December 2011 09:59, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen(a)knujon.com>wrote: > I have heard "ALAC's advice was ignored again" enough times to be very > concerned when it seems to be happening again. > It's been a long, sometimes ugly, but very real evolutionary process. Since I've been involved in ALAC I have seen progress first-hand from "ignored" to "heard but rejected" Getting even to this point has required significant maturation, both of At-Large itself and the rest of ICANN's willingness to interface with us. There have certainly been many frustrations, but also very real achievements and milestones to illustrate the changes. The ongoing evolution from "heard" to "heeded" is happening -- but we have to keep at it. - Evan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy & CommerceCommittee
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 15, 2011

Dec. 15, 2011

On 14 December 2011 12:20, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement on > the program which is the subject of the hearings. Hi Garth, This was a matter of timing. We were not invited to participate (at least that I am aware of), and only found out at the last moment. That we've been able to submit something useful to just get their attention is an accomplishment. I have heard in some circles that these Congressional hearings are just political grandstanding, and that the official position of the US government (at least as expressed by Larry Strickling) defends the multi-stakeholder model and the current process. Supporters of new gTLDs have interpreted this as support for the ICANN status quo, and that those parts of the community who did not "get their way" in the program should just stop whining and let the gTLD goldrush roll on. I would submit, OTOH, that ALAC (and the public interest in general) was never really part of the community that pressed for or bought into the new gTLD program, its early fundamental flaws were deeply set before we were even allowed to be involved. Our participation, this late in the program's evolution, can best be characterized as damage mitigation; we have tried, without major success(*), to influence some of its worst harms. (*) - On applicant support there was partial success in that there was any movement at all. But the major issue of fee reduction separate from any ICANN "fund" -- a cornerstone of the JAS multi-stakeholder recommendation -- was explicitly rejected by the Board opaquely and without explanation. On the issue of morality based objections, despite hundreds of community person-hours invested in the "Rec6" Working group, the situation actually has worsened. We have also tried to blunt the worst excesses of the trademark lobby -- while appreciating the end-user benefits of reasonable name protection -- but have had negligible impact here. On the balance, our influence has been net-positive but just barely. The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?) > to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent > groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current > stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..." While I certainly agree with the sentiment, we did not have anywhere near the time needed to craft this properly, and I'm not sure it would have any effect if the purpose of this is to grandstand without actually changing US policy. A well worded assertion that "we exist, please call us if you really want an end-user PoV" was all that was reasonably possible given the limits at hand. - Evan

2 1