January 2013 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Redelegation of the domain representing Mali to the Agence des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communications
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear All, Thanks to Dev who pointed out this morning that the Board will be considering the Redelegation of the domain representing Mali to the Agence des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communications, see: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-03oct12-en.htm I wonder whether ISOC Mali or At Large in general holds a view on the above. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

10 11

FW: Withdraw the gun database
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 12, 2013

Feb. 12, 2013

The story so far. Coming on the massacre in Connecticut, a suburban NY newspaper published (online) a database of gun owners in their area - all arguably, public information - inclusive of geo-tags. People were understandingly outraged. So a coalition of privacy rights advocate allied with the right to bear arms types jump up and down. The paper backed off and took away the database. Except it cannot do crapola about the mirrors of their site which includes the database. Here's the kick in the teeth: the fellas owing the mirrors, including the geek next door, have the unfettered right to tell you 'go fly a kite'. http://www.lohud.com/article/20130118/NEWS02/301180125/A-letter-from-Journa… -Carlton ============================ Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

20 86

Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the New gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) kindly requests the opinions from the At-Large community on the comments received on the following new gTLD applications: .amazon ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG ) .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG ) .nyc ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG ) .health ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.health_OG ) To date, there are not enough comments by the At-Large community on these applications to determine whether there is substantial opposition as described in Section 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook. This section describes 4 tests for the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that: * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. See https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg for more details about the criteria for objection grounds. You can post your opinions on the wiki pages linked to earlier or by visiting the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld before the next gTLD RG conference call on February 1 2013 Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 27, 2013

Jan. 27, 2013

Dear Jean Jacques, I wrote an opinion piece on the new US Cyber Security Bills see: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_b… I agree with your proposal and support it. Best Regards, Sala On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:41 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > *Dear Salanieta,* > * > * > *thank you for bringing this to our attention. It will be worth following. > * > * > * > *This draft bill comes on the heels of SOPA and other proposed > legislation which, under the guise of protecting citizens, businesses and > states, would allow public authority to curtail civic and individual > rights, without adequate protection for the Internet user, under the > convenient assumption that what is good for a sovereign state is of > necessity good for its citizens.* > * > * > *It is in this context, and in the face of this growing threat, that I > proposed, during an ALAC monthly meeting, that we take up the subject of > existing and foreseeable infringements on civic and individual rights, such > as the expanding practice of DPI without proper parliamentary oversight > (and this is done not only in states governed by a single political party > without representative democracy).* > * > * > *Best regards,* > *Jean-Jacques.* > > 2013/1/26 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators >> John >> D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and >> Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate >> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne >> Feinstein, >> Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a >> Press Release, see: >> >> http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… >> >> To see the Bill, visit: >> >> http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… >> >> This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical >> information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US >> Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration >> which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of >> the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State >> of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State >> and it has its challenges. >> >> This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> 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… >> > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 3

Fwd: Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

This new PDP will be looking at several issues that have the potential to impact all gTLD registrants. For those not familiar with the term FOA, it means Forms of Authorization - standardized forms for registrars to request and confirm transfers. I would appreciate if people who join this WG also let me know so that I can brief them on additional issues. Alan >http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jan13-en.htm >Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process >(PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D > >In Brief >The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) >Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working >Group that will address issues related to the >transfer of domain names between registrars. >After investigating and considering specific >issues (detailed below), the Working Group is >expected to recommend how to handle these >issues, which could include proposals for >changes to the existing ><http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>Inter-Registrar >Transfer Policy (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). > > >What This Group Will Do >The initial tasks of the group will be to >consider the following six questions[1] and make >relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: > > >a) Whether reporting requirements for >registries and dispute providers should be >â¨developed, in order to make precedent and >trend information available to the â¨community >and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; > >b) Whether additional provisions should be >included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute >Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes >when multiple transfers have â¨occurred; > >c) Whether dispute options for registrants >should be developed and implemented asâ¨part of >the policy (registrants currently depend on >registrars to initiate a dispute on â¨their behalf); > >d) Whether requirements or best practices >should be put into place for registrars to make >information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; > >e) Whether existing penalties for policy >violations are sufficient or if additional >provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; > >f) Whether the universal adoption and >implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. >How This Group Will Work >ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open >processes. The meetings of this WG will be >recorded, and the recordings will be available >to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP >Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working >Group members are expected to submit Statements >of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate >using a public workspace. The Working Group is >expected to follow the ><../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.htm>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines. > >How to Join >The Council invites interested parties to >provide names of expected participants who can >then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO >Council may also invite stakeholders and experts >to join. Participants in the Working Group that >addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged >to apply. Community members who wish to be >invited to join the group should contact the ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group>GNSO >secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This >WG is already forming; please apply promptly. >Background >The ><http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm>InterâRegistrar >Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy >adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward >procedure for domain name holders to transfer >domain names between registrars. An overall >review of this policy identified areas that >require clarification or improvement. At its >meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names >Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a >resolution chartering a Policy Development >Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the >topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies >(IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review >identified a wide range of issues related to >transferring domain names, the issues have been >categorized into subsets. This Working Group >will tackle the issues referred to as "Part D". > >Glen de Saint GÃ©ry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > >[1] See the final ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf>Issue >Report on the IRTP Part D for further details on each of these issues.

2 2

US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

Dear All, The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… To see the Bill, visit: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 25 00:53:05 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 7.34% | 8 | 41.93% | 541072 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 25.69% | 28 | 16.16% | 208484 | karl at cavebear.com 15.60% | 17 | 8.33% | 107494 | johnl at iecc.com 9.17% | 10 | 5.91% | 76275 | evan at telly.org 8.26% | 9 | 5.82% | 75143 | h.raiche at internode.on.net 8.26% | 9 | 5.63% | 72594 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 3.67% | 4 | 2.53% | 32684 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 3.67% | 4 | 2.13% | 27530 | icann-list at sorehands.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.70% | 21953 | joly at punkcast.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.58% | 20372 | ocl at gih.com 1.83% | 2 | 1.16% | 15018 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.83% | 2 | 0.91% | 11791 | neil at cauce.org 1.83% | 2 | 0.91% | 11780 | avri at acm.org 0.92% | 1 | 1.32% | 17012 | derek at aa419.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.75% | 9716 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.92% | 1 | 0.59% | 7660 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.55% | 7107 | pt at dothiv.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.54% | 7027 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6755 | jaap at nlnetlabs.nl 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6689 | pranesh at cis-india.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.49% | 6272 | dogwallah at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 109 |100.00% | 1290428 | Total

1 0

ATRT2
by Avri Doria Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Hi, Currently ALAC is in the process of picking its candidates for the ATRT2. I am wondering, to what extent is the vetting public on the At-Large list. A sub-committee has done what appears to be a good job in vetting several candidates for consideration and the ALAC appears ready to vote. To what extent has the At-Large, whose view these candidates need to represent, be given a voice in the matter. How much do those who us who are responsible for ALS support of ICANN know about what is going on? In this case have even the RALOs been involved in this critical choice? Will they be? For those who don't know, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) are a critical components of ICANN credibility as a multistakeholder organization. Is there any At-Large accountability and transparency transparency in ALACs preparations for ATRT2? Have I missed the discussion on this list? Or on the RALO lists? avri

1 0

Same discussion over again? The recurring WhoIs issue
by Roberto Gaetano Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

I think that over the years I have heard the same discussions, with the same argumentation, many times. I had therefore planned not to reply. However, since I have already broken this plan with my previous message, I might as well provide my full version (which is not much different from the conclusions of the WG). First of all, I do not enter in the gun registry issue, because this is a local issue, and must be fully on the authority of the local laws. Different countries (maybe even different States in the US) have different legislation, and there is no need for a globally uniform approach. But for the Internet, as global resource, things are different, and therefore more complicated. My approach can be summarized in the following points: . WhoIs data *must* be complete and accurate. There's no point in even having a WhoIs if we cannot rely on its content . The entity that accepts the registration (generally it will be the Registrar or the resellers that act anyway under the authority of the Registrar) are responsible for completeness and accuracy of data. Of course, this is an additional burden on Registrars, but if it is enforced in the whole system it will not cause competitive advantage by some. . ICANN must have the authority (and the means) of enforcing the completeness and correctness of the data. This does not mean that a Registrar will be sanctioned if an entry is incorrect, it means that procedures have to be defined to deal with these cases. We have to understand that data can be complete and accurate at the creation, but might become inaccurate in time. . WhoIs information will be of two types: public and restricted. We can even think of using the experience of social networks to define what is public and what not, for instance we can allow a nickname to be public and the real name being hidden, if the result of the PDP is going in this direction. . Information on organization and individuals are not necessarily the same. In particular, the public and private part might differ. Of course, in some jurisdiction it is OK to have a completely fake organization, but this is a problem that we cannot solve as it impacts local legislation. I assume that those "fake" organizations will be clustered among a small subset of Registrars, and since the Registrar is known... . LEAs have full access to Registrant's data. ICANN maintains a list of the organizations that have full access (it can be slightly wider than LEAs themselves, it will include probably ICANN itself, the Registries, the RIR, and others. GAC will have access to the list and has the authority to determine whether an organization operating in the country they represent is authorized or not. International LEAs, like Europol and Interpol, are a limited number anyway. . Local organizations like vigilantes can get the right to access data if they are recognized and authorized by a LEA. The LEA is fully responsible for the actions of the entities to whom they have delegated authority, as well of keeping complete and accurate data of them. ICANN, in particular the compliance department, has full access to the complete data of these organizations that act under LEAs' authority. These data are otherwise restricted (unless the organization itself wants to make them, or part thereof, public). . A private citizen will have access only to the public part of the WhoIs data. To access the restricted part, he/she must do so via a LEA or authorized vigilante (I am using this term for lack of a better term). I am working under the assumption that there will be organizazions, like SpamHaus, who will be accessible by private citizen to perform requests in their behalf and that will be more responsive than the official LEAs. Of course, there are problems. For instance, privacy is not fully guaranteed. We have the potential case of refugees from a regime whose data can be detected by a LEA operating under that very regime. However, I believe that we cannot solve this problem because it would never be acceptable that a LEA, by its very nature, cannot access the WhoIs data. We have to think about other means to exert the right of free speech in a way that does not necessarily implies the registration of a domain name. I am sure that in the world there exist already so many cases of fighters for freedom who have obtained substantial results without registering domain names. I know I am not making friends here, but I have the right to free speech as well. The consequence is that I have to be ready to accept flames. Cheers, Roberto

3 3

France Proposes Internet Tax - Old War Resurfacing
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear All, You would have read in the New York Times about France proposing Internet Tax - I have blogged about this here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130121_france_proposes_internet_tax_an_old_… Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

6 10

Whither EU Data Protection Laws
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 19, 2013

Jan. 19, 2013

...and extensions thereto, like, the one on being forgotten! That one had more holes than commonsense and a slice of Swiss cheese could accommodate. FWIW, this has implications for WHOIS. Or, whatever we will choose to call it. Doubt is good. It is the beginning of real knowledge. There's a discussion paper on "*certain key issues*" from the Informal Home and Justice Minister's Meeting at Dublin last week. Somebody is finally waking up to the idea that traditional notions of authority and authorisation, use and utility and storage have long gone. Yes, that passions aside, the interactions are way more complex. In a strange kind of way, it appears they are now keying in to the world since yesterday, how data and information transmutate and, is transformed on use. And some notions of the commons.......and the responsibilities of those who seek to be on the commons. I've attached it here. Here's a companion NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/business/global/ministers-express-doubts-… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 18, 2013

Jan. 18, 2013

Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 18 00:53:04 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 22.22% | 2 | 96.45% | 1706891 | devtee at gmail.com 33.33% | 3 | 1.73% | 30638 | ocl at gih.com 11.11% | 1 | 0.72% | 12715 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 0.39% | 6954 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 11.11% | 1 | 0.39% | 6898 | narten at us.ibm.com 11.11% | 1 | 0.32% | 5621 | avri at acm.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 1769717 | Total

1 0

At-Large comments on objection grounds for several new gTLD applications received by the gTLD Review Group on January 16 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

Dear All, Several At-Large comments on limited public interest and community objection grounds for several gTLD applications have been posted to the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld They are: .amazon : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG .cba : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.cba_OG .nyc : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG .patagonia : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG comment on multiple strings by RJ Glass : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/multiple-strings-by-RJ-Glass The At-Large Community is invited to read and post further comments on the wiki pages. The gTLD Review Group will be having a conference call on Monday January 21 2013 to consider the comments on the wiki, as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. See the PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD for more information Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Fellowship Application Round for ICANN 47 in Durban, South Africa is Open
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

Dear Janice, Great, as Always!!! And in addition to all of these fellows having found a "home" in ICANN, several have actually not only found a home in At-Large but some have registered their organisation, or an organisation they were involved with, as an At-Large Structure (ALS). It is partly thanks to your efforts that I am glad to let you know that At-Large has reached 151 ALSes. For this, I have to thank you! Best Wishes, Olivier On 15/01/2013 03:02, Janice Douma Lange wrote: > Hello friends, > > Please outreach to your communities and network with acquaintances to > let them know that the Application round for the ICANN 47 in Durban > South Africa is now open. Please see the banner on top of the ICANN > webpage to find out more: _http://www.icann.org/_ > > The Fellowship Program will mark its 6th year in Durban, and we are > excited about the work of our alumni these past years-- here are some > examples: > > * _Dalsie Greenrose Kalna Baniala_ > <http://www.diplomacy.edu/SCM/scripts/Pool/GetBin.asp?IDPool=1382> from > Vanuatu, Tracy Hackshaw/Trinidad and Tobago, Gao Mosweu/Botswana > and Sam Goundar > <http://www.diplomacy.edu/SCM/scripts/Pool/GetBin.asp?IDPool=1383> from > Fiji were allcited as Emerging Leaders for the Digital Worldfor > raising awareness of Internet governance issuesin their regions > * Gabriella Szlak and Celia Lerman, both lawyers from > Argentina,joined the Business Constituencyand as well as directing > and coordinatingeGobernanza Initiative in conjunction with > Universidad Torcuato Di Tella > _http://www.einstituto.org/site/iniciativas/egobernanza/_ > * Dr. Sarmad Hussein, Pakistanand Narayan Gangalaramsamy, Mauritius > were invited into SSAC > * Siranush Vardanyana member of EURALO/At Large, has submitted > anapplication for a new ALS in Armenia > * Margarita Valdes Cortes, Jacqueline Morris, Yaovi Atohounand > Siranush Vardanyan have all served or are serving on the > Nominating Committee > * Walusungu Gondweof Malawi joined Amr Elsadr/ Egypt, Blaise > Arbouet/Haiti, Dwi Elfrida Simanungkalit/Indonesia,Hago > Dafalla/Sudan, Mohab Altlaity/Egypt,MagalyPazello/Brazil, Yuanyuan > (Leslie) Guan/China, Oksana Prykhodko/Ukraine, Raquel > Gatto/Brazil, Virgina Paque/Venezuala,Shefqet Meda/Albania, Salieu > Taal/Gambiaand Imran Ahmed Shah/Pakistanin the gNSO/NCUC > * Hago Dafalla continues to bring his contributions through > participation in Internet Governance Forums(Sudan, Kuwait and > Egypt to name a few) > * Abibu Rashid Ntahigiye/Tanzaniawill begin serving on the ccNSO > Council in Beijing, Arnold Chetty from Seychelles applied for > membership to the ccNSOcouncillate last year andSokol Haxhiuis a > ccNSO councilor from Albania > * Sonny Zulhuda, SiranushVardanyan, FatimaCambronero, UlkarBayramova > <http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/igf-ambassador/ulkar-bayramova>, > Natalia Encisco, Tracy Hackshaw and Sorina Teleanuall participated > in Baku at theIGF(5 as ISOC ambassadors) > * Grace Githaiga coordinated both the Kenya IGF and the East Africa IGF > * Karlene Francis kept busy in Jamaica implementing a regional > egovernment project in six OECS countries > * Eddy Kayihura was instrumental in the process of redelegation of > .rw to RICTA > * Zmarialai Wafa from Afghanistanand a member of ccNSO,has stayed > actively working with ICANN Security team in his role in the > Afghanistan Ministry of Communications > * María Dolores Puyjoined NPOCafter her second fellowship opportunity > * Tatiana Chirev and Fahd Batayneh both are serving on the > Fellowship Selection committee (Fahd also member of ccNSO and > several WGs) > * Olga Cavalli, Sorina Teleanu, Tracy Hackshaw, Nelly Stoyanova, > Tepua Hunter, . Jolden J. Johnnyboy, Gary Campbell,Victor Martinez > Vanegas, Rachida Fakhri, Pokotoa Sipeli, Syed Iftikhar H. Shah, > Nicolas Caballero, Saso Dimitrijoskiand Ivo Ivanovskihave been or > are seated in the GAC > * At Large is home to many of our fellows including Tijani Ben > Jemaa, Baudouin, Schombe, Wilson Abigaba, Fatima Cambronero, > Natalia Encisco, Victor Ndonnang(organizer of an IPv6 Launch day > in Cameroon 2012), Jose Francisco Arcewho has been serving as > Chair and President of LACRALOfor over a year,Pastor Peters > Omoragbon, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Moataz Shaarawy, Fouad > Bajwa, Jean Marie Altema, Shaarawy Abd Elbaky, > > > > There are more stories than listed and we will continue sharing; in > the meantime, all of the alumni and I appreciate your support of the > program and look forward to seeing many of you inBeijing; feel free to > drop by the Newcomer Area, a morning meeting or the Sunday Social to > meet current and future ICANN participants and leaders. > > Janice > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Deadline for At-Large comments for consideration of ALAC objections to new gTLD applications is January 16 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

ICANN’s At-Large Community (At-Large) through the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has the ability to file objections to new gTLD applications received by ICANN for its New gTLD program at http://gtldresult.icann.org/ . The At-Large New gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) is seeking comments from At-Large on new gTLD applications by *January 16 2013*. Such At-Large comments will be used by the gTLD RG to decide whether to draft a formal objection statement to a gTLD application on limited public interest or community grounds for the RALO's consideration and the ALAC's before the end of the Objection Period in March 2013. Please read the attached flyer to understand how the ALAC can file an objection to a new gTLD. Visit the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtldto learn how to review information about the gTLD applications and applicants, read At-Large comments on gTLD applications and how to submit your comments to the gTLD RG before January 16 2013. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 1

Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

With respect to gTLDS - purposely draw for distinction against ccTLDs - the larger problem is philosophical; the Internet as commons, a resource accessible to all peoples. This is about whether we concede rules for the commons that all must obey, regardless of provenance, location or how exceptional - or worthy of exception - we think we are. WHOIS is a perfect setting for the evolving tragedy of the commons. In some ways the .cat business is a red herring, since it has all the trappings of a private club and with restricted access. [I can't wait for the contest surrounding the so-called 'private' gTLDs in this round.] Current WHOIS policy commits registrars to collect and store certain pieces of data, inclusive of personal data, from all lessees of domain names. We call lessees 'registrants' and that data collected the WHOIS 'data set'. Current policy also compels registrars to make this data available on request by one or other means. The policy does not address use thereafter. And it expressly redlines access for ordinary Internet users; registrars may not place any hindrance whatsoever to their access. The WHOIS debate surrounds four (4) top-of-mind issues: Compliance, Accuracy, Access and Enforcement. For the arguments to take hold, these are now viewed thru the lens of certain 'rights' and 'freedoms', be those justiciable or notional. Never the collective responsibilities. There is the right to privacy, to be left alone, to be anonymous and to be forgotten. Like the moving finger of Khayyam's verse, to write and move on. Except in this case, to be blotted from consciousness and from memory. Or, concession granted, to be ignored. Then there is the right to be informed. And by extending some arguments, to be misinformed. There is the freedom of thought, of conscience and of speech. The freedom to freely access information, to impinge or impose one's presence on others on the commons without let or hindrance. All rights and freedoms are equal and indivisible. Some channel Orwell in disputation here. They contend some rights are definitely more equal than others. The little fellas, sometimes labeled 'usual suspects' are of a mind here. They make a self-serving extension to this argument. They say tell me what right or freedom it is. And I will tell you how much of it you have! Of course, authoritatively speaking. Some say registrants equal users, the universal set, indivisible. They are happy to equate/conflate the needs/objectives of all users with the needs/objectives of registrants. And they implicitly accept all needs/objectives as benign. Free peoples everywhere have an unfettered right to redress of grievance; the 'knowing' is the beginning for this process. When these views - or their mashups! - are examined within the WHOIS context, they together produce a frothy blend, all the way from the philosophical thru the political, even to the far plainly contrarian edge. Some tend to the philosophical belief that if one chooses to be on the commons then there are no rules to which one could be compelled. So therefore collection of any data whatsoever, regardless of intended use, is a rank violation of rights and privileges to which one is entitled. By extension, one readily accepts inaccurate WHOIS data as indignant pushback against an oppressive regime and scabrous imposition. As Sir Humphrey might have said, a case for 'moral *manoeuvreability*'. Others believe sure, collect. But until we can guarantee use/interpretation of the data, then demand for that data is overreaching. They equally fervently hold that to impose pre-screening of anything they themselves would place on the commons for whatever purpose is a squalid attempt to suppress the several freedoms to which they are born. And no, we do not need a referee for this conundrum. Here's the thing. These arguments/beliefs/justifications will not go away with another WHOIS data model or an implementation that allows 'differentiated access'. For long before we get to the access question, there are the questions what to collect and why collect? Someone or thing must decide what and why. Even more acutely political, that agency must account the context in which these questions must be asked. That exists today and the fight is joined. For sure, the new dispensation that is wished comes with access questions. Yes, questions. I can see the battle lines now. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Patrick Vande Walle < patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> wrote: > While on the subject, it is worth noting, as Michele Neylon pointed out > on his blog, that the .Cat Registry Whois Now Respects EU Privacy Laws > > http://www.internetnews.me/2013/01/10/cat-registry-whois-now-respects-eu-pr… > > Of course, the ICANN process to allow a contracted party to simply obey > the law is than optimal. It could be made less burdensome by simply > including a one-liner in agreements stating that the the provisions > regarding the WHOIS which are contrary to the local law are void. > > Anyway, this once again demonstrates that the current WHOIS system is > broken, and that we need a replacement ASAP. The work on WEIRDS/RDAP is > well advanced, as are several open source implementations. > It will allow differentiated access. However, it is not up to IETF to > draft the policies regarding this. One suggestion the ALAC could make is to > start right away with designing the policy side. It will take time. So, the > sooner the ICANN community begins, the sooner we will have a working > replacement for the WHOIS that will, at the same time, both address the > LEAs concerns and repect the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech. > > -- > Patrick Vande Walle > > Twitter: twitter.vande-walle.eu > Facebook: facebook.vande-walle.eu > LinkedIn: linkedin.vande-walle.eu > > > > On 10/01/13 16:52, Carlton Samuels wrote: > > This questionnaire with its answers reiterates the ALAC's WHOIS positions > expressed at multiple times and in many places in this one place. > > It gets my support. > > Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go. > > -Carlton > Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > >> ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a Thick >> Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements made it clear >> that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we had not specifically >> addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG. >> >> A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg. >> >> Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I have >> said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, but quick >> action would be appreciated. >> >> A copy is also attached here for your convenience. >> <http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu> > > > > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULTS: ALS Applications 175, 173, 159, and 158
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 15, 2013

Jan. 15, 2013

On 11/01/2013 22:29, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Please note that with the results of these votes, At-Large has reached a major milestone of surpassing 150 At-Large Structures! The current number of ALSes is 151. 151 ALS reached! Bravo! Congratulations to all of you who have reached out to new potential At-Large Structures. Outreach is hard work! Being present at the ICANN Booth at the worldwide IGF or ICANN meetings; visiting with the ICANN fellows during ICANN Meetings; reaching out at local IGFs; packing kilos of brochures in your luggage, sometimes at your own expense; writing and following-up with potential applicants. I know many of you are doing that, and are not necessarily thanked when an application comes through. So this message is to thank *you* for initiating the dialogue with our new members. At some point, most of us and our organizations were potential new members. How did it feel to join At-Large? How much help were you given by your new peers into becoming more active? I understand that in the 151 ALSes now listed, some are not as active as we would like them to be. So our work is to make sure that in-reach is as important as outreach and to get all ALSes to be as active as possible. My colleagues and I on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) are always looking for new ideas to keep ALSes interested in At-Large's work so if you have an idea how to improve in-reach, please let me or the ALAC know and we'll see if we can implement it. Until now, a really limiting factor has been the funding of any outreach activity outside ICANN meetings. With the new ICANN Management Team in place, we are told that this is a new Season for ICANN. With the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) behind us, I believe that this is more than a new Season. It is a new Era. Why? Because this is the first time the multi-stakeholder system which the Internet operates by and which ICANN runs, was clearly challenged formally by another system, the multi-lateral system. Multi-lateralism is a segregated system where governments take decisions with other governments, listening to advice from the private sector and from civil society but keeping full control over the taking of decisions. On the other hand, a multi-stakeholder system takes the input from *all* stakeholders and searches for consensus to reach a decision. Most of the other Supporting Organisations (SO), Advisory Committees (AC) and Stakeholder Groups (SGs) in ICANN can build their support from common goals in their membership. On the other hand, as the part of ICANN attempting to reflect the views of the Internet End Users, it is harder to build a community on common goals. But we should have at least one common desire, which is to make the multi-stakeholder system work for ICANN, and we are an incredibly resourceful community! Yes - incredibly resourceful: we have a worldwide footprint in every continent (except Antarctica). We bring together an incredibly wide range of cultures and perspectives. We also bring a wide range of skills from all disciplines. We have members who have extensive contacts in governments and industry; members who shape policy; members who are in touch with their local community on a daily basis; members who were key to the Internet's success; members who work tirelessly a local and international level... and then they spend their spare time to volunteer in the At-Large process. Through the ALAC, we have the unique possibility of commenting on everything and anything that is ICANN-related, insofar as it relates to Individual Internet Users. That's pretty broad. So we need the help of *all* of our At-Large Structures to make sure the Interests of Internet Users are defended worldwide. So I appeal to you all to continue looking for new potential ALSes. I appeal to you all to get more involved in At-Large's work in ICANN. There is so much more that we can do - and that we need to do! Join Working Groups, for example: https://community.icann.org/x/loIi Review Policy documents and comment: https://community.icann.org/x/bwFO The clock is ticking on the multi-stakeholder model. You are given a voice to stop that clock. Let's use it before it's too late. Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

1 0

[ALAC] The ESADT, Board Seat 15 and voting
by Avri Doria Jan. 13, 2013

Jan. 13, 2013

Originally submitted this to the wrong list. Accidentally submitted it to: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Instead of: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> I wonder how I made that mistake. --- Hi, I just submitted a blog piece on my disappointment that we will not be seeing a vote the next time ALAC selects someone for the ICANN Board. http://avri.doria.org/post/40444728591/letinternetusersvote avri _______________________________________________ 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

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 11, 2013

Jan. 11, 2013

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 11 00:53:04 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 1 | 85.64% | 1700189 | devtee at gmail.com 40.00% | 2 | 13.70% | 271953 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 20.00% | 1 | 0.37% | 7336 | narten at us.ibm.com 20.00% | 1 | 0.29% | 5796 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 1985274 | Total

1 0

Location Data - Fighting Over Who Can Access and Keep
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 6, 2013

Jan. 6, 2013

Um, Natasha seems to have an inkling of the nuances; you give up something to participate and be on the 'commons'. And a major reason why you should always look the gift horse in the mouth! Lots of personal data get collected every day - and shared without let or hindrance - by commercial organisations. Often times with their governments. Often in furtherance of the wishes of the national security state. The states with their 'little corporals' and usual suspects well know this.....and sundry other hypocracies. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/technology/legislation-would-regulate-tra… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2013

Jan. 6, 2013

>Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:28:52 -0500 >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Draft Statement on the questions from IGO/INGO PDP WG > >The PDP WG on special protection for IGO/INGO names has requested >that ACs and SOs submit comments on a number of questions related to >special protections of IGO/INGO names. > >Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and >possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at >https://community.icann.org/x/5IFQAg. Input was requested to be >submitted by 08 January 2013, but there should be no problem with >getting it in a bit later. > >Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were >substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that >it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC. > >I am not sure if Olivier wants to subject this statement to a formal >ALAC vote. In my mind, it does not need a formal vote, but we do >need to ensure that it (or what it gets revised to) does conform to >general ALAC feelings. So please post your comments to the Wiki. > >A copy is attached here for your convenience. >

1 0

Fwd: Draft Statement on the "Strawman" Rights protection mechanisms
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 6, 2013

Jan. 6, 2013

>Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:17:02 -0500 >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Draft Statement on the "Strawman" Rights protection mechanisms > >As you are aware, the Business and Intellectual Property >Constituencies of the GNSO Commercial Stakeholder Group submitted a >request to ICANN during the Toronto meeting to make a number of >changes to the rights protection mechanism associated with new >gTLDs. Based on a number of a hoc meetings a "strawman" proposal was >developed and ICANN has put it out for public comment. More can be >found at https://community.icann.org/x/KYlEAg. > >This process has been extremely controversial, and there is >significant opposition to it within the GNSO (some arguably for very >good reasons). > >Evan and I were asked to draft a statement for the consideration and >possible approval of the ALAC and it can be found at >https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38045993. >The comment period closes on 16 January, so please post any comments quickly. > >Evan is travelling at the moment, but his contributions were >substantive and the document has his support. We both believe that >it conforms well to positions previously taken by the ALAC. > >A copy is attached here for your convenience. >

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 4, 2013

Jan. 4, 2013

Total of 11 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 4 00:53:07 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.18% | 2 | 17.36% | 11451 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 11.16% | 7363 | ndonnang at isoc-cameroon.org 9.09% | 1 | 10.36% | 6830 | narten at us.ibm.com 9.09% | 1 | 10.10% | 6659 | cdel at firsthand.net 9.09% | 1 | 9.42% | 6215 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 9.03% | 5955 | ocl at gih.com 9.09% | 1 | 8.47% | 5589 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 8.28% | 5462 | jmamodio at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 8.28% | 5459 | dralialmeshal at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 7.54% | 4974 | avri at acm.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 11 |100.00% | 65957 | Total

1 0

Google Makes some concessions with US FTC
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 4, 2013

Jan. 4, 2013

Google Inc. has agreed to change some of its business practices to resolve Federal Trade Commission concerns that those practices could stifle competition in the markets for popular devices such as smart phones, tablets and gaming consoles<http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1210120/130103googlemotorolastmtofcomm.pdf>, as well as the market for online search advertising. See: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm You can also read a write up about this on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20899032 Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

FW: Happy Birthday to the Modern Internet
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 3, 2013

Jan. 3, 2013

Vint tells the story..... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/marking-birth-of-modern-day-internet… CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 2

Fwd: US states enact Web privacy laws- ITP.net
by Ali AlMeshal Jan. 3, 2013

Jan. 3, 2013

Good day to all, http://www.itp.net/591767-us-states-enact-web-privacy-laws -- Thanks Ali AlMeshal Bahrain Internet Society - BIS Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business Payment Industry Expert Advisor Mobile: +973 39440025 Skype: alialmeshal email: dralialmeshal(a)gmail.com ali.almeshal(a)bis.org.bh www.bis.org.bh Twitter :@internetBH

1 0