February 2012 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 10, 2012

Feb. 10, 2012

Total of 22 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 10 00:53:03 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 31.82% | 7 | 55.92% | 136878 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 9.09% | 2 | 6.73% | 16471 | vanda at uol.com.br 9.09% | 2 | 6.69% | 16386 | isolatedn at gmail.com 9.09% | 2 | 5.59% | 13672 | joly at punkcast.com 9.09% | 2 | 4.54% | 11124 | johnl at iecc.com 4.55% | 1 | 4.22% | 10330 | avri at acm.org 4.55% | 1 | 3.42% | 8364 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 4.55% | 1 | 3.05% | 7457 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.55% | 1 | 2.92% | 7140 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 4.55% | 1 | 2.49% | 6103 | langdonorr at gmail.com 4.55% | 1 | 2.41% | 5891 | avc at namesatwork.com 4.55% | 1 | 2.02% | 4942 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 22 |100.00% | 244758 | Total

1 0

(no subject)
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Here are some comments - in two tranches - referencing the Personal Data (Privacy) (Amendment) Bill 2011 from Hong Kong from an official titled Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. You would have seen our colleague Hong Xue's deft analysis of the China Bill in this space before now. These are presented to enable further mapping for a panoramic view of privacy matters from West to East. It would also be useful for a contextualized comparison of the views on privacy between HK and Beijing - in idiom of HK as a special administrative zone in China's political fabric. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

RIAA backs .music new gTLD bid
by Joly MacFie Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

See below. Question: Are their practical options for the wider community - non-professional musicians and listeners - to object to a restricted TLD in favor of an open one? j http://domainincite.com/riaa-backs-music-new-gtld-bid/ RIAA backs .music new gTLD bid Kevin Murphy, February 7, 2012, 11:33:31 (UTC), Domain Registries The Recording Industry Association of America has picked a side. It's supporting Far Further's application for the .music generic top-level domain, according to the company. <snip> The RIAA wrote to the US Department of Commerce last August to demand that any music-themed gTLD should implement "heightened security measures" to prevent copyright infringement. And that's pretty much what Far Further has promised. Its .music would be restricted, along the same lines as gTLDs such a .pro, to card-carrying members of what the company calls "accredited Global Music Community Members". "It's not open to everyone," Styll said. "You'd have to join an organization." Amateur bands would have to be members of an accredited songwriters association to get a .music address, for example. In addition, the content of .music web sites would be policed in a similar way to .xxx or .cat, with regular spidering to ensure the content does not break the rules. <snip> Far Further is not the only known .music applicant, of course. Constantine Roussos of Music.us and MyTLD has been passionately campaigning for the gTLD for years, and his enthusiasm has not waned even if his chances have. "We're still going after .music," he confirmed yesterday. He added that he expects it to be a two-horse race, given these recent developments. Make no mistake, with backing from the RIAA and other influential industry groups Far Further is now the runaway favorite in the battle for .music. Roussos has quite a fight on his hands. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

2 1

Advice of NEW Public Comment OPEN on Interin Report re "Significantly Interested Parties" (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

Dear all, Your attention is drawn to http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03feb12-en.htm where the ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI) has published its Interim Report which contains draft recommendations on obtaining and documenting support from ³Significantly Interested Parties² (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD: A matter that should be of considerable interest and concern for all ALSes and Member of At-Large.... I am satisfied with the WG Report but wish to ensure you all have the opportunity to read, review and comment should you need to, via the PC or of course via me as your active ALAC representative in the WG... The Interim Report is open for public comments until the 30 March 2012. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO and Member (ALAC Rep) on the FOI-WG

1 0

Verisign repeatedly hacked
by Derek Smythe Feb. 4, 2012

Feb. 4, 2012

Very topical while we are talking about privacy: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/249242/verisign_hacked_what_w… Derek Smythe Artists Against 419 http://www.aa419.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] China and Personal Data Protection
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 4, 2012

Feb. 4, 2012

China has recently issued a regulation entitled “Several Provisions on Regulating Market Orders of Internet Information Services” (the “New Regulations”) that come into effect on March 15, 2012. The regulation explicitly imposes the data protection requirements on their Internet information service providers. The early report says it is consistent with data protection regimes in play elsewhere, including recent EU regulations; to expressly inform the method, content, and purpose for collecting and processing personal data in notice and consent communiques; stronger protection for the personal data they collect; collection limitations; use limitations; custody, remedy and breach notification obligations. The definition of user personal information in the regulations includes both (1) information that independently identifies a user and information that may be used to identify a user when combined with other information. Here's a very readable outline analysis of what was originally proposed. http://www.mallesons.com/publications/marketAlerts/2011/Chinaproposesnewint… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 2

Re: [At-Large] UK's ICO Response to new EU Data Protection Reform Proposal
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 3, 2012

Feb. 3, 2012

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has responded to the EU reform proposal. Notice the substantive disagreements. http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/latest_news/2012/statement-initial-response-new-… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 2

Fwd: Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 3, 2012

Feb. 3, 2012

Should ALAC have a stance on the TLD reservation of the Red Cross and Olympic terms? Personally, I think they should be handled differently. I have no problem with the Red [Cross|Crescent|Diamond] names (and their multilingual and IDN equivalents) being reserved because these are groups that do charitable work and collect funds for relief of famines, natural disasters and other emergencies. OTOH, The international olympic movement, while non-profit, does not collect emergency funds in the same way as the Red Cross. Furthermore, I have seen olympic committees in various countries aggressively shut down innocent users (like family-run Greek restaurants using "Olympic" in their name) that are neither competing nor confusing with the athletic organization. (How soon before they go after the largest Greek airline?) In any case, my own preference is to support reservation of the Red Cross names but oppose similar protection offered to Olympic ones (and allow contentious applications to be objected to in the appropriate way as required). - Evan -- terms -------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk> Date: 2012/2/2 Subject: FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Dear all,**** ** ** As you know, a policy group has been created to discuss the GAC’s request for special protection of the Olympic and Red Cross marks and their variations. The group came up with a set of questions and possible options that will be discussing in next week’s call. Please note that at this stage discussions are focusing only at the top level and not the second. **** ** ** Can I please ask for your feedback on these possible recommendations? You all know where I stand on this issue (especially with regards to the OLYMPIC mark) and I am very annoyed that the Greek GAC rep is not with me on this L**** ** ** Anyway, the next call is scheduled for next Wednesday and Jeff, chairing the group, is asking for any comments by Sunday. Apologies for sending this quite late.**** ** ** Thanks**** ** ** KK**** ** ** Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,**** ** ** Senior Lecturer,**** Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses**** Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law**** University of Strathclyde,**** The Law School,**** Graham Hills building, **** 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA **** UK**** tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306**** http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regula… **** Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038**** Website: www.komaitis.org**** ** ** *From:* owner-gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff *Sent:* Πέμπτη, 26 Ιανουαρίου 2012 1:48 πμ *To:* gnso-iocrc-dt(a)icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level**** ** ** All, Thanks for the very productive session today during our call. Given the feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and options for protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level. On the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross or a relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below). It also occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority, but still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a) and 6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on the table. **** As requested during the call, these questions/options are being presented for your review and discussion within your respective groups. Please provide any comments and/or feedback you may have *by Sunday, February 5th*. This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to our next call on February 8th. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and time. *Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round ** GAC Proposal *At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review. * *· *Option 1*: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered “Reserved Names” b) Applied for strings are *not* reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. * *· *Option 2:* Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is *no* appeal. · *Option 3*: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is *no* appeal. · *Option 4a* – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · *Option 4b* – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · *Option 5a*: Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. · *Option 5b*: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. · *Option 6a*: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · *Option 6b*: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. *Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? *a) *Option 1*: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) *Option 2*: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “*multiple languages -* all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.” c) *Option 3*: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. * **Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? *a) *Option 1*: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) *Option 2:* No, it should only apply to this current round. c) *Option 3*: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.**** ** ** ** ** *Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs* 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 *Office:** *+1.571.434.5772 *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079 *Fax: * +1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz */* www.neustar.biz **** ------------------------------ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.**** ** **

6 8

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 3, 2012

Feb. 3, 2012

Total of 21 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 3 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 23.81% | 5 | 21.25% | 37446 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 14.29% | 3 | 15.02% | 26466 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 9.52% | 2 | 13.08% | 23055 | evan at telly.org 9.52% | 2 | 9.75% | 17178 | michele at blacknight.ie 9.52% | 2 | 6.67% | 11756 | johnl at iecc.com 4.76% | 1 | 6.75% | 11893 | dogwallah at gmail.com 4.76% | 1 | 6.48% | 11415 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 4.76% | 1 | 5.06% | 8923 | elisabeth.porteneuve at latmos.ipsl.fr 4.76% | 1 | 4.30% | 7571 | joly at punkcast.com 4.76% | 1 | 4.13% | 7270 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.76% | 1 | 4.09% | 7215 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 4.76% | 1 | 3.43% | 6045 | lutz at iks-jena.de --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 21 |100.00% | 176233 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 2, 2012

Feb. 2, 2012

I am on the group, so feel free to channel thought and opinions to me. A couple of points: - According to the GAC request, "The proposal is based on the unique tapestry of legal protections provided to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement through the Geneva Conventions,1 and to the IOC through the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol2, and through laws in multiple national jurisdictions." The full document is pointed to by the left sidebar of https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee. In other words, there are no other organizations that meet these criteria, or (so I am told) anything close. Of course, that has not stopped a large number of international organizations from requesting similar treatment - http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-crocker-pr…. But based on the Board/GAC request, the IOC and Red Cross are the only ones being discussed at the moment. - Although as pointed out, there may be no generally accepted definition of NGO, we really are not talking about NGOs here, but international treaty-base organizations. So bringing NGOs into it really muddies the water. - The Board has already reserved these names at the TLD level for the first round, although EXACTLY what that means is not clear and clarifying that is the first task of the work group. For instance, it is unclear if according to the AG whether the Red Cross or the IOC themselves could apply for those names, and although Olympics may be prohibited, Olympix or Olympiks (confusingly similar sound) would not. - As Evan has implied, the two cases are somewhat different. Despite the Red Cross cases that John Levine has cited, there is some sympathy for reserving Red Cross, but less so for other various Olympic marks, as there is MUCH larger overlap between them and names used generically and commercially. - Interestingly, the GAC is not asking for "contains" protection at the 2nd level. So RedCross-Haiti-Earthquake-Relief would still be available. This was considered, but I was told that they understood that implementing such a prohibition was not particularly practical. Alan >Hi Michele, > >Personally I'd prefer *no* exceptions, confident that conventional TLD >objection procedures would prevent any red-cross-related application to >come from anyone but the IFRC in Geneva or its authorized agents. I'd even >support the ALAC public-interest objection process used for this, and would >have no hesitation initiation the objection process myself in such a case. > >But the GAC seems hell-bent on having some kind of exception(s). > >IIRC, the Red Cross is considered an exceptional institution. I was told by >people I trust that there was no concept of a non-profit corporation in >Japan before the Red Cross tried to establish, and there was a specific >vote in the Diet to allow it. So such exceptionalism is not without >precedent. > >(And happy birthday, BTW!) > >- Evan > > > > >On 2 February 2012 10:37, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight < ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>michele >at blacknight.ie> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Feb 2012, at 14:30, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > > > Should ALAC have a stance on the TLD reservation of the Red Cross and > > > Olympic terms? > > > > > > Personally, I think they should be handled differently. I have no problem > > > with the Red [Cross|Crescent|Diamond] names (and their multilingual and > > IDN > > > equivalents) being reserved because these are groups that do charitable > > > work and collect funds for relief of famines, natural disasters and other > > > emergencies. > > > > > > OTOH, The international olympic movement, while non-profit, does not > > > collect emergency funds in the same way as the Red Cross. Furthermore, I > > > have seen olympic committees in various countries aggressively shut down > > > innocent users (like family-run Greek restaurants using "Olympic" in > > their > > > name) that are neither competing nor confusing with the athletic > > > organization. > > > > > > (How soon before they go after the largest Greek airline?) > > > > > > In any case, my own preference is to support reservation of the Red Cross > > > names but oppose similar protection offered to Olympic ones (and allow > > > contentious applications to be objected to in the appropriate way as > > > required). > > > > Evan > > > > How do you make a policy statement that gives one NGO "special status" > > without giving it to others? > > > > I like your reasoning - just wondering how it could be worded to be narrow > > enough .. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Michele in a personal capacity (if I have one .. ) > > > > > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > > ICANN Accredited Registrar > > <http://www.blacknight.com/>http://www.blacknight.com/ > > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > > <http://blacknight.biz>http://blacknight.biz > > http://mneylon.tel > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > US: 213-233-1612 > > UK: 0844 484 9361 > > Locall: 1850 929 929 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Facebook: <http://fb.me/blacknight>http://fb.me/blacknight > > Twitter: <http://twitter.com/mneylon>http://twitter.com/mneylon > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0