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

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Aug. 24, 2012

Aug. 24, 2012

Total of 17 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 24 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 29.41% | 5 | 50.34% | 110878 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 11.76% | 2 | 9.48% | 20884 | fsylla at gmail.com 11.76% | 2 | 6.06% | 13348 | evan at telly.org 5.88% | 1 | 10.42% | 22954 | jefsey at jefsey.com 5.88% | 1 | 5.06% | 11155 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.88% | 1 | 3.84% | 8454 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 5.88% | 1 | 3.25% | 7168 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.88% | 1 | 3.20% | 7045 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org 5.88% | 1 | 2.96% | 6527 | dralialmeshal at gmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.96% | 6517 | devtee at gmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.42% | 5335 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 17 |100.00% | 220265 | Total

1 0

Eid Mubarak! Well Wishes!
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Dear All, As the day draws to a close here in Fiji, I would like to take the time to wish all Muslims within At Large who are concluding their month-long Ramadan fast, a Happy Eid Mubarak! Warm well wishes to you and your loved ones. I would also like to congratulate Afghanishtan as they get ready to celebrate their 93rd Independence celebrations and all Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you also celebrate your National day soon. As I wish you all well, I am reminded of countries that have yet to be reached and it is my hope that we will see new ALS come into At Large in countries yet to be reached. Warm Regards from Fiji, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 3

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Dear Wolf, Yes the points you and Rudi raised are critical when we will be reviewing Version 2 although there is nothing to prevent us from analysing Version 1 as it currently stands. The cost factor of course we can assess once the proposed design is in place etc so we can see what is reasonable and what's not. It will be good to see the basis of what is used for cost modelling without a doubt. Cheers, Sala On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>wrote: > Dear Sala and all, > > thanks for the interesting points you raised. And we touched this issue > during our monthly call tonight. A highly relevant question is - what Rudi > mentioned below - "Who pays for the services that are of benefit to the > Trademark owners ?" Is it - at the end of the chain - the end user again > who has to refund all the related investments? This should be a key > question for our community. > > Kind regards, > Wolf > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:28: > >Dear All, > > > >In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case > >a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs > >associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those > putting > >in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this > >is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up > >lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when > >the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline > where > >others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing > >to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple > >registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for > >instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done. > > > >They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it > >should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is > >workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have > >to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view > >is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be > >significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed > >in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder > >consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is > nothing > >to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at > >this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be > >posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees > >will be asked for their perspective. > > > >Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now. > > > >Kind Regards, > >Sala > > > >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be > >wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model > >> (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph : > >> > >> > Services to Registries > >> > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries > will > >> pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still > >> being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently > available > >> information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due > >> per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark > Claims > >> processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration > and > >> testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > >> participation in other programs or ancillary services. > >> > >> Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are > of > >> benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is > mentioned : > >> > >> > Services to Rightsholders > >> > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication > >> as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes > >> that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion > and > >> the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard > for > >> Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of > >> the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are > performed > >> together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an > individual > >> price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of > rights > >> data for authentication. > >> > The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication > and > >> validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual > >> renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of > the > >> initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and > >> straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional > services > >> will add to the cost. > >> > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such > as > >> a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to > >> the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic > submissions > >> might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs. > >> > >> > >> As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to > get > >> their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by > the > >> registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !! > >> > >> What's ALAC's position in this ? > >> > >> > >> Rudi Vansnick > >> > >> > >> Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het > volgende > >> geschreven: > >> > >> > Dear All, > >> > > >> > There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing > >> Hose > >> > Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much > >> > discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The > >> > recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on > >> > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark- > >> > > >> > For now here is my take on what occurred. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > P.O. Box 17862 > >> > Suva > >> > Fiji > >> > > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation > >> Model.docx>_______________________________________________ > >> > At-Large mailing list > >> > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >> > > >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> At-Large mailing list > >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >P.O. Box 17862 > >Suva > >Fiji > > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT > >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >_______________________________________________ > >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… > > > > EuroDIG Secretariat > http://www.eurodig.org/ > mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > > EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > http://euralo.org > > Profile on LinkedIn > http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

2 1

7 Aug letter from Senate Judiciary Committee
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Dear all, please be so kind to find a link to a recent letter from Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, to ICANN's interim CEO & President, Akram Atallah. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%2… Kind regards, Olivier

2 2

Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Rudi also posted a message to the ALAC GTLD WG and I replied with a bit of the history. Alan >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:22:48 -0400 >To: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, gTLD WG > <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Staff At Large <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures > >This has been discussed since the start of the TMCH concept. > >The IRT said that the cost to TM holders should be "reasonable" but I >believe it was silent on whether ICANN or Registries should contribute. > >The STI report said the "cost should be born by users" but was silent >on who the users were, but the implication is both TM holders and >Registries. The rationale was that if the TMCH did not exist, the >registry would have to build a comparable system itself (although the >registry could then absorb part of the cost or put it all on TM >holders). The report was explicit that ICANN should not fund the CH >nor should the CH provide funds to ICANN. The Registry SG and NCSG >issues a minority opinion that TM should fund the entire cost. > >The final AG said "Costs should be completely borne by the parties >utilizing the services. Trademark holders will pay to register the >Clearinghouse, and registries will pay for Trademark Claims and >Sunrise services. Registrars and others who avail themselves of >Clearinghouse services will pay the Clearinghouse directly." > >Alan > >At 22/08/2012 09:18 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >Yesterday, I've participated remotely to the TMCH 2-days meetings in > >Brussels. A very interesting meeting with many discussions > >illustrating the TMCH solution is not yet in a consensus level. > >However, the provider is selected and should start delivering > >solutions. From the meeting I understood nothing has yet being > >worked out and the community was asked for input / approval of > >processes to implement. > > > >When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost > >Model (version 1 June 2012) (see attached PDF) I was surprised > >reading the following paragraph : > > > > > Services to Registries > > > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that > > registries will pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. > > Further details are still being worked out; however, initial > > estimates based on currently available information indicate that a > > set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due per TLD registry. The > > set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes as > > established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and > > testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > > participation in other programs or ancillary services. > > > >Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that > >are of benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph > >is mentioned : > > > > > Services to Rightsholders > > > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) > > authentication as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. > > The first establishes that rights information meets the criteria > > for Clearinghouse inclusion and the second establishes that a > > Clearinghouse record meets the standard for Sunrise eligibility as > > described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of the trademark. A > > bundled fee is expected where these services are performed > > together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an > > individual price if such is requested subsequent to the original > > submission of rights data for authentication. > > > The bundled fee or price for these initial services > > (authentication and validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 > > per submission. Annual renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are > > expected at a percentage of the initial price. The low fee requires > > that submissions be inexpensive and straightforward to process. > > Complex circumstances and additional services will add to the cost. > > > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required > > (such as a re-submission due to errors in the original submission > > or an appeal to the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, > > non-electronic submissions might be available at a higher rate in > > order to cover handling costs. > > > > > >As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee > >to get their name been protected while the majority of the cost is > >covered by the registry, which in the end means the registrant will > >pay for it !! > > > >At the other side, the registry (applicant) already invested > >185.000$ at least and should now add to this amount at least 7000 $. > >Was this foreseen in the Guidebook ? As far as I could see yet, it > >wasn't. Does this mean that applicants could eventually be able to > >withdraw with full reimbursement of their investment ? > > > >Just some thoughts and reflections after yesterday's meetings ... > > > >What's ALAC's position in this ? > > > >Rudi Vansnick > > > >_______________________________________________ > >GTLD-WG mailing list > >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > >Working Group direct URL: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > >_______________________________________________ >GTLD-WG mailing list >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > >Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

1 0

seeking comments from At-Large on the new gTLD applications and applied for strings received by ICANN for its new gTLD program
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

Dear All, The At-Large new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) is seeking comments from ICANN At-Large on the new gTLD applications and applied for strings received by ICANN for its New gTLD program (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about) The At-Large comments will be used by the gTLD RG to: * draft formal comments for evaluation panels' consideration or on objection grounds. These formal comments will be reviewed by ALAC for submission as ALAC comments to ICANN's New gTLD Application Comments Forum (https://community.icann.org/x/sxUQAg) during ICANN's Application Comment Period which was recently extended by ICANN to September 26 2012 * decide whether to draft a formal objection statement to a gTLD application on limited public interest or community grounds for RALO’s consideration and ALAC's during the 7 month objection period as part of ICANN's Objection and Dispute Resolution Process. All At-Large comments received will be kept at the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard at https://community.icann.org/x/w7-bAQ. Visit this page to learn how to review information about the gTLD applications and applicants and how to submit your comments. The deadline for At-Large comments to be considered by the gTLD RG in time for possible submission during the Application Comment Period is September 10 2012. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

WWW III.0
by JFC Morfin Aug. 20, 2012

Aug. 20, 2012

Dar folks, I am surprised and somewhat dismayed that no one in "Civil Society" and @LARGEs seems interested and that no one is discussing the "W.W.W. 3.0" episode that is now developing. I name WWW 3.0 as the Whole World War at the "3.0" level that concerns us all. This episode is the attempt of the commercial funding (and not the ITU) to take over ultimate control of international standardization's future throughout and through the Internet standardization process (IAB/IETF/ISOC), reversing its documented position in RFC 3869 and 3935 and hijacking innovation trends (the "3.0" coming layers). 1. Why do I talk of "commercial funding"? Because the IAB warned us of the danger that we are facing and explained how to avoid it in RFC 3869 (Aug. 2004) and neither Governments, nor Civil Society or International Organizations, did anything about it. Only a small kernel of us tried to do something. In Aug. 2004, the IAB stated: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." This resulted from "the reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work." Therefore, IAB believed "that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." * In Tunis the world's Governments left the US Government to take care of the Legacy Internet and did not get themselves involved in the emergence of any architectural research. * The IETF did not participate in the WSIS nor get involved in the IGF. * Civil society non-commercial sponsors or helpers did not join our successful efforts (so far) at the IETF: * To protect languages and cultures from engineering and business control. * Introduce a civil society technical place at the IETF (the Internet Users Contributing Group) * To obtain the validation of an Intelligent Use (IUse) Interface (IUI) concepts. * We feel alone in creating the Intelligent Use Task Force (IUTF) to explore, document, validate, and deploy the people centric capacity demanded by the WSIS. 2. Why do I use "3.0"? This is because in a nutshell if "2.0" has now an accepted meaning, the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 "notions" (i.e. all of what can relate to a topic) can be perceived as: * "1.0" meaning: server centric monologue, and related * "2.0" meaning: network centric dialogue, and related * and "3.0" meaning: people centric polylogue, and related. So, * "Master/Slave" initial Web connections are "1.0". * Wikis, AJAX, WebSocket, etc. are "2.0". * The Internet+, the IUI (intelligent use interface), Midori/Hurd (the Microsoft's and Stallman's expected replacements for Windows and Linux), etc. are "3.0." Another "technical way" to understand this might be, in strict, simple, and robust concordance with RFC 1958, which defines the internet architecture, to say that: * 1.0 builds atop "plug to plug" hardware, * 2.0 builds atop "end to end" software, * and 3.0 atop "fringe to fringe" middleware. Two key points remain, however: what about "0.0" and "4.0" and exactly what is "3.0"? * "0.0" is everything that we do in order to communicate and understand information without digital tools in mind and that is generically called semiotics. "4.0" is what our brains do through digital semiotics that we can call brainware. * "3.0" is what RFC 1958 states that we must put at the fringe: network intelligent services. It is only some plugged layers on the user side (PLUS), extending the OSI communication model, along with its administration and governance. The "OSEX" model extended layers concern: * Security (and presentation in the Internet case). * Network services. * Interoperations between network applications and services In the users' life, it should appear as personal distributed middleware empowering browsers (in computers, mobiles, tablets, appliances, TVs, houses, cars, etc.) with intelligent open services that are free to choose their reference providers. One may understand a person's IUI as an "intelligent socket" system acting as private intelligent gateway network interfacing the OS of his/her machines and appliances in such a way that it makes that person the center of his/her freely selected worldwide digital ecosystem. 3. Why do I use "Whole"? This is because we do not discuss the Web or even the sole Internet any more. We discuss the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), i.e. all the physical or logical parallel interconnections to anything digital by our Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). So, what is at stake is the whole digital ecosystem industrial pollution (and corruption) and biased innovation. How? Through market driven commercially sponsored international standards, as was just explained by the IAB. To understand why: * a norm is the description of normality. Until now, norms were local (for a country) or professional (for a trade, skill, or task). * Norms, therefore, opposed globalization. This is why the trend that is pushed by the commercial funding is to unify normality, i.e. to shape the world as a unique market. Hundreds of wars and revolutions have failed to attain that target throughout history. Those who Richard Buckminster Fuller calls the "Grand Pirates" (in his "Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth") found a simpler way after WWI and WW II where they had lost control to engineers (from submarines and planes to the atom and computers): to recover control by using the common desire for international peace, human rights, democracy, etc. and the resulting needs for a better economy through a world market and rules. These rules in technologies are "standards". They say how to technically best build atop of norms. Therefore, they call for common uniform norms, and at the same time the international standards progressively shape a new "world normality" as, and for, a "common world market". This normality must be stable to protect market shares: as we know they call this stability the "status quo". Disruptive and fundamental innovations become a risk. TMs and incremental innovation are tuned to keep consumers buying. However, incremental innovation must be based upon international standards protecting from a competitor's breakthrough and have to be coherently ubiquitous to keep being accepted by the permanently reshaped customers (us). Industrial evolution is only permitted after amortization and only if it increases benefits. However, this is not the lead-users' (FLOSS, start-ups, user R&D, press) pace. What the Web 2.0 already did to the Internet 1.0 has to be digested and reshaped in a commercially favorable landscape of WebApps: this is the task of the International Standardization and marketing consensuses. The IDNA2008 consensus and its progressive propagation throughout the protocol space (WG/Precis) shows the coming of the IUI 3.0 and of the Internet+ (tested by Google+) whatever you want to call that Internet built-in trend as ineluctable. The International Standards bodies are to confuse and delay its concepts enough for it not to become: * An identified, independent, and acknowledged middleware standardization core area (IUTF) * A people centric enhanced cooperation capacity for the internet, social nets, telephone, radio, TV, digital music, e-books, etc. polycratic stewardship. Multistakeholderism must stay among commercial leaders, not to extend to everyone, especially if Civil Society and ethitechnics (ethical considerations in architectural design) are involved. 4. Why do I say "World"? This is because this does not only concern the sole US market, or the Western developed countries market, or even the emergent countries (India, China, Russia, etc.), but rather everywhere. This results from the WWWeb e-marketing field of competition. All is market driven and the market is global. No one must be able to endanger the commercial leaders' famous names and commercial rights anywhere in the world. The strategy for years has been called "internationalization": offensive business protection through the spread of the commercial leaders' industrial technology supported by: * favorable commercial conditions * correlative identical local standardization * permitted mass production increases, now on a multinational basis. A well known example is the Unicode consortium's (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle...) successful technical "globalization": * internationalization of the media (International English capacity to quote any string in any script, which does not fully support the languages that use the scripts), being the maintainer of the ISO 10646 standard. * localization (local translation) of the English semantic, which does not support the various cultural semantics * language tagging for technical, operational, commercial non-neutral filtering purposes. This globalization is not a multilingualization that would set out to technically treat and culturally respect every language and its orthotypography the same as English is treated. 4. Why do I say "War"? Because of: 1. the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) rules The WTO rules do not permit a country to protect its people against a technology (or a TLD, as we see with Saudi Arabia and GAC protests) that is an international standard. <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm. This is why the ultimate weapon to fight States' Barriers to Trade is to erode the credibility of their legitimate policy objectives, such as: the requirements for quality, the respect of cultures and minorities the protection of human health and safety, or the environment. The war is then on the Governments and the slogan for the "market forces" is to protect ... Human Rights (through free speech in using international market standards, for example) against people's Governments. One of the vectors is GNI (<http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/) where Microsoft, Google etc. decide on the people's best interest and defend their rights. This is far from democratically transparent technical standardization and network neutrality. Certainly civil and human rights are to be defended, but is it up to technical standardization bodies to defend them? In confusing the issues doesn't that harm the needed international standard technical credibility and lead to political restrictions affecting the free flow of information? 2. The competition on us, the users We (technical and civil society people) represent a real danger for industry leaders in being: Uncontrollable international competition, potentially rogue, possible divergent definition of what is a "better" Internet (in RFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement). Smart enough to introduce, propose, defend, and deploy more innovative and people centric architectural solutions (i.e. for a "3.0" information society that is "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona"). In the same way as the financial crisis is resulting from financially dominant people/entities (speculators and corporate interests), the international standardization mechanics is to protect market driven standardizing from lead users disrupting innovation. 5. The strategic impact. This battle is now conducted at the ITU, IAB/IETF, IEEE, ISO, Governments level. This results in particular from the Dubai December meeting (<http://world2012.itu.int/>http://world2012.itu.int/) that is to revise the International Telecommunications Rules (<http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx>http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx) In this debate, commercial leaders plan to oppose and negotiate with States alone, since Civil Society is absent and users are represented by their Governments. In the Internet case, the IAB and IETF Chairs (the IAB Chair is a Microsoft employee) have prepared a draft document putting the (now ISOC affiliate) IETF in the commercial leaders' orbit. Being the facilitator of the Civil Society IETF iucg(a)ietf.org mailing list and one of the bootstrappers of the "3.0" IUTF (Intelligent Use Task Force), I posed the question of us, the IUsers, of the non-consulted IUCG channel and of our emergent IUTF standardization pole and called for a WG/RFC3869bis (a WG dedicated to rewrite RFC 3869), * To consensually adapt the description of the IAB/IETF position regarding the standardization referents (market or people, commerce or sustainable development), as we do not think that market and commercial interests can develop without the support of the end-users. * To document what the IETF means in its mission statement of "influencing those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work *better*" and to protect us against the RFC3869 IAB identified threats of sole merchant sponsoring bias of the Internet R&D. Our remarks have been acknowledged as part of the working file of the IAB (Track #202). We also maintain an information portal on the matter and our Civil Society Technical Rights in this area at <http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm>http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. The best place for debating and building up a Civil Society technical position that can really help as part of the IETF standardization process, at least to show that we actually feel concerned by the "constitution of the Internet" (the source code as documented by Dr. Lessig) is the non-WG (i.e. permanent) <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>iucg(a)ietf.org mailing list and helping us with the <http://iucg.org/wiki>http://iucg.org/wiki site. 6. A civil society ethitechnical doctrine More generally, there is a need for Civil Society to have a technical doctrine or at least mutually informed presence. The reason why is that technology choices are not ethically neutral. * As documented by the IAB RFC 3869, there are no technically rooted influences. They are commercial in the current episode, but they respond to (magnified) real political risks of influences. Civil Society has to make sure that the people's best interest is the reference. * Network neutrality is something difficult to enforce. The easiest way to get it is to get the technology designed in such a way that it is difficult or costly to not respect it (what is not the case today, but that a "3.0" evolution helps in making it very complex to filter the network). * A multilinguistic internet (the cybernetic of all the languages and cultures considered as equal on the common network) is to be explored and discussed. This is a typical civil society concern and, moreover, the real issue is our (we the people) relations to mecalanguages, i.e. our own native languages as spoken by our machines and in our anthtropobotic society ("on the internet, nobody knows I am a dog" or a machine). We did start in France an effort in that area, creating the MLTF, participating with MAAYA (<http://maaya.org>http://maaya.org) and ITU, UNESCO, SIL, Union Latine, Linguasphere, etc. This effort is to be resumed. * The civil society has accepted a stewardship inherited from the "1.0" legacy. Experience has been gained during the last decade regarding the various forms of governance tools, stakeholders, etc. common decision/trend processes, etc. while the 2.0 evolution and the 3.0 preparation will make several of them obsolete. * One of the major concerns, since it is traditionally a main part of the Internet Governance, is certainly the plain technological deployment of the DNS, content centric networking, and the resulting opportunities and evolutions in the understanding of the domain name nature, use, economy, and impact on commercial, IPR, and societal usages. To address these needs, a clear understanding of the very technical nature of the Internet tool and of its cons and pros is necessary. We cannot object to politics if they do not understand the internet nature when they discuss SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, HADOPI, etc. legislations and act as if we are actually no better than them. The IUCG is certainly the best place to discuss and document the Internet as a global and coherent system, under the control of engineers, in a way that civil society and decision and lawmakers can understand and master it. Help would certainly be welcome, in every language that governments and users use, as documented in ISO 3166. The best way to join the IUCG and to help us (me) is at <http://iucg.org/wiki/>http://iucg.org/wiki/ jfc

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Aug. 17, 2012

Aug. 17, 2012

Total of 11 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 17 00:53:04 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 27.27% | 3 | 22.01% | 19414 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 18.18% | 2 | 21.09% | 18597 | vanda at uol.com.br 9.09% | 1 | 14.14% | 12471 | derek at aa419.org 9.09% | 1 | 11.39% | 10046 | johnl at iecc.com 9.09% | 1 | 9.33% | 8228 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 8.45% | 7449 | narten at us.ibm.com 9.09% | 1 | 7.66% | 6759 | krosette at cov.com 9.09% | 1 | 5.92% | 5223 | devtee at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 11 |100.00% | 88187 | Total

1 0

GTLD Summit by and for Brand/IP Constituents?
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 16, 2012

Aug. 16, 2012

Now here's an idea. The event is co-located with one focused on IP in the entertainment industry. Kurt Pritz is a featured speaker. Here's a link: http://www.worldrg.com/showConference.cfm?confcode=AW12007&goback=%2Egde_11… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 2

Consent Order FTC vs. Facebook on consumer privacy
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 13, 2012

Aug. 13, 2012

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a consent order binding Facebook to several actions in respect of privacy of FB users. This came on allegations that FB 'deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.' With its consent, FB is agreeing not misrepresent how it maintains the privacy or security of users’ personal information; commit to obtain users’ “*affirmative express consent*” before sharing their information with any third party that “materially exceeds the restrictions imposed by a user’s privacy setting(s); to implement procedures to prevent a third party from accessing users’ information no later than 30 days after the user has deleted such information or terminated his or her account; establish, implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program; must obtain initial and biennial assessments and reports regarding its privacy practices for the next 20 years. Here is the order in full: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookagree.pdf One of the commissioners dissented, both on technical grounds and what appears to be a pushback on the concept of 'plausible deniability' inherent to US administrative law. Here, his stated reasons for the dissent: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/120810facebookstmtrosch.pdf - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0