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

ICANN Domains Under Attack
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Dear All, This was an Article called "ICANN's Domains Under Attack" that was originally published in the December 2012/January 2013 issue of Intellectual Property Magazine. In the wake of ICANN’s failure earlier this year to dismiss anti-trust allegations arising from the new generic top level domain (gTLD) rollout, ICANN now faces challenges to the delegation of 190 of the newly applied for gTLDs. Two federal court filings in California, bookends to ICANN’s recent meeting in Toronto, portend just a few of the many minefields ICANN will be forced to navigate before the current gTLD rollout is accomplished. See: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/icanns-domains-under-attack-18367/ ICANN has been taking alot of heat for trying to insert a clause within the RAA but if you see the levels of exposure that it currently has and those that it stands to face, I personally can understand why ICANN would like to reserve the ability to exercise its authority to protect itself. 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 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com

1 0

Local Engagement and Outreach: Chinese ALSes Forum @ ICANN Beijing
by Hong Xue March 23, 2013

March 23, 2013

All are welcome! See you in Bejing! Hong Title: Local Engagement and Outreach: Chinese ALSes Forum URL: <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37181> Date and Time: April 11, at 8:00am-9:30am Room: Function 5 BC Language: Chinese/English (Interpretation available) Who joins: Chinese-speaking ALSes and anyone interested > Program > > 8:00-8:10 Welcoming and Introduction APRALO Leaders > Moderator: Hong Xue, CDNUA > > 8:10-8:35 Panel One: Privacy and Users' Data Protection > Mainland, TW and Hong Kong are either developing or improving the data protection laws. How would these laws impact the TLDs' operation and polices regarding protection of the users' privacy and personal data? > > > 8:35-9:00 Panel Two: TLDs' Registration Policies and Public Interest > The recent discussions on closed generic TLDs and newly-invented PICs mechanism are the ICANN's positive moves toward > safeguarding public interests. What are the Chinese-speaking community's concerns regarding this issues? > > 9:00-9:25 Panel Three: Cultural Diversity and New gTLD program > Variants policy and TMCH are very critical for Chinese-speaking community. Has the new gTLD program sufficiently contemplated the cultural diversity? If not, how to improvet? > > > 9:25-9:30 Closing Remarks > >

10 9

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

Total of 11 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 22 00:53:04 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.18% | 2 | 62.36% | 104821 | rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 4.63% | 7777 | hilyard at oyster.net.ck 9.09% | 1 | 4.39% | 7382 | julie.hammer at bigpond.com 9.09% | 1 | 4.29% | 7209 | narten at us.ibm.com 9.09% | 1 | 4.28% | 7197 | ali.almeshal at bis.org.bh 9.09% | 1 | 4.26% | 7159 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 4.26% | 7158 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 4.16% | 6992 | langdonorr at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 3.75% | 6295 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 3.63% | 6097 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 11 |100.00% | 168087 | Total

1 0

Outcome of new gTLDs, "Strawman" proposal
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

ICANN has announced the outcome of the new gTPD trademark protection discussion. http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio… Although the outcomes were not exactly as the ALAC advised (in terms of what required policy development), all of the IP protections that ICANN will be moving ahead with were supported by the ALAC, and the one additional protection that the ALAC explicitly did not support will not be implemented. Also a vlog from the CEO - http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/new-gtld-milestones-and-deadlines/. Alan

1 0

APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Dear ALAC Colleagues and Members of the At-Large Community, I am pleased to share with you the finalized program for the APRALO Multistakeholder Roundtable in Beijing (attached and pasted below). Holly Raiche and I hope that you will all attend and participate in the discussions, which will focus on end user protection related to new gTLDs and community readiness for IDN Variant TLDs. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Co-Chair, APRALO Beijing Organizing Committee ALAC, Executive Committee Vice Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group --- *APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable * *@ ICANN 46 [Beijing, PRC]* Date: 8 April 2013 (Monday) Time: 17:00-19:00 Meeting Room: Function Room 6 ICANN’s new generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program will bring a dramatic expansion of the Top Level Domain Space where 1930 new gTLD applications have been received. 303 (15.7%) of the new gTLD applications are from the Asia Pacific region and 100 (86%) of the new gTLD applications for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) are for the languages of the Asia Pacific region. The APRALO Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable in Beijing will feature discussions on two thematic areas related to the new gTLDs with an emphasis on issues of concern to the end user and the public interest. [17:00-18:00] Policy Roundtable I - End User Protection with New gTLDs [18:00-19:00] Policy Roundtable II - Community Readiness for IDN Variant TLDs *Policy Roundtable I **[17:00-18:00]*** Theme: New gTLDs and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific Region Topic: End User Protection with New gTLDs Discussion Questions: 1. How can end users be best protected in the event that new gTLDs fail or are unsustainable? 2. What are the issues associated with turning applicant commitments into contractual obligations? 3. What are the issues related to the enforceability of contractual obligations and what recommendations should be made regarding the scaling up of ICANN compliance? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) *Lead Discussants:* 1. End User – Jeremy Malcolm (Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International) 2. Government – Peter Nettlefold (Vice Chair, ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee & GAC Lead on New gTLDs) 3. Business – Zahid Jamil (Executive Committee Member, ICANN Business Constituency & Member, GNSO Council) 4. ICANN Compliance - Maguy Serad (Vice President, ICANN Contractual Compliance Services) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board, ICANN Legal & Law Enforcement. * * *Policy Roundtable II **[18:00-19:00]*** Theme: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Implications for the Asian-Australasian-Pacific region. Topic: Community Readiness for IDN Variant Top Level Domains (TLDs) Discussion Questions: 1. Will the introduction of IDN Variant TLDs de-stabilize the Internet and undermine its security? 2. What is the level of readiness among language communities already active in ICANN in forming “Generation Panels” to propose script character repertoires and variant rules for the Root Zone that will enable variant IDN TLDs? What are the key issues in moving forward? 3. How can the readiness of language communities not yet active in ICANN be supported? Co-Chair: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALAC Executive Committee Member, Asia Pacific Region) & Holly Raiche (Chair, APRALO) Moderator: Edmon Chung (Chair, At-Large IDN Working Group & At-Large IDN Policy Liaison) * * *Discussants:* · Arabic Script - *Sarmad* Hussain (Al-Khawarizmi Institute of Computer Science, Pakistan) · Chinese Script – Wang Wei (China Domain Name Consortium) · Indic Script - Ram Mohan (Afilias) · Japanese Script – Hiro Hotta / Yoshiro Yonaya (Japan Registry Services) *· **Khmer Script - Norbert Klein (Internet Society Cambodia) *** *· *Korean Script - *Young*-*eum Lee (Korea National Open University)* ** *· **Sinhala Script - *Harsha Wijayawardhana (Internet Society Sri Lanka) ** · *ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee - *Jim Galvin (Deputy Chair, SSAC) Participation: This roundtable is open. Members of the following ICANN community are especially invited to attend - ICANN At-Large community, ICANN Variant Implementation Program Team, ICANN IDNA Root Label Generation Project Team Members, ICANN Advisory Committees, ICANN Supporting Organizations, ICANN Board.

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten March 15, 2013

March 15, 2013

Total of 12 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 15 00:53:09 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 4 | 41.28% | 38016 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 16.67% | 2 | 12.69% | 11689 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 8.33% | 1 | 9.57% | 8812 | avri at acm.org 8.33% | 1 | 8.67% | 7985 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org 8.33% | 1 | 7.56% | 6965 | narten at us.ibm.com 8.33% | 1 | 7.17% | 6605 | ali.almeshal at bis.org.bh 8.33% | 1 | 6.54% | 6019 | johnl at iecc.com 8.33% | 1 | 6.53% | 6010 | michele at blacknight.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 12 |100.00% | 92101 | Total

1 0

ATRT-2: How to get on group skype chat?
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

YOo need to contact someone who is already on it, either directly or via another group chant that I, Olivier, Avri or At-Large Staff are good places to start. Alan At 14/03/2013 12:34 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at >http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. > >The Wiki page is: >https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting > >I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. > >Alan

1 0

ATRT-2
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2013

March 14, 2013

The first face-to-face is off and running. It can be followed at http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrt2/. The Wiki page is: https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/ATRT+2+Face-to-Face+Meeting I have started a group Skype chat - ATRT-2-At-Large. Alan

1 0

Message to the ALSes within At Large [Capacity Building WG]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 11, 2013

March 11, 2013

Dear Colleagues, The At Large Capacity Building Working Group is in the process of verifying information and we would be grateful if you could advise us whether your At Large Structure (ALS) is spelt correctly or if there has been a substantial name change. We would also like to know what primary language is spoken in your country and what the secondary languages are. To see the list, please visit: https://community.icann.org/x/3oc3Ag You can place your comments directly on the wiki or send us an email by replying to this email to let us know of any corrections or additions that we should make. Kindly note that we are in the process of adding new ALSes that have recently joined At Large. By this email, we would like to request each RALO Secretariat to urge their members to send us feedback and to forward this message to their respective RALOs. Many Thanks, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Chair At Large Capacity Building Working Group

3 4

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC and .HEALTH
by Avri Doria March 9, 2013

March 9, 2013

On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. > > Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. > > > So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. > > > Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. > These references all speak of ALAC ability to file a Community Objection on behalf of an ALS for harm done to itself as a community. https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Blue+Sky+Exercise http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000573.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2011q4/000588.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000634.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000635.html http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/2012q1/000643.html In terms of ALAC Meeting transcripts: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.01.24+Transcription+-… Avri Doria: Yes and I want to thank Dev for doing that. I wanted to add just a couple of points and a question to you all as ALAC. First of all Dev has been putting an amazing amount of work into this. This is still a draft that the intention is within the next week or two within the group to get it to a stable point where it can be sent to the RALOs for further review and a review cycle and an update cycle. So, I just wanted to make sure that I said that. In terms of the beginning of this there was a discussion over the scope of community objection. And the scope of community objection ranges from the very narrow interpretation of it's only if it's the ALAC community, the At-Large community, that's being targeted by the application. There's a slightly wider view that sort of says it’s not just ALAC or At-Large, it's any of the components of the At-Large so to speak the RALOs and the ALSs. The most expansive region of it is as At-Large responsible for the user community as it faces ICANN policy implementation etc. that basically championing any of those in an At-Large relevant topic area should be included. Now this is a question that the Working Group itself can't really answer. It's a question A for you all to sort of say what understanding does ALAC as an advisory committee have on this. And then probably a secondary step if you take anything other than the most narrow interpretation is confirming that, stating that, declaring that, in any way that is appropriate to ALAC making its point and declaring if understanding of what ALAC community is. The last point I wanted to make is that on some of these things there's still some technical issues that we're following-up for all of that to be there. We obviously are on a crash course to get this done because it has to go through the review cycle, the upset cycle, and basically go through whatever approval cycle it needs to go through before the objection process starts. So before that end of April date when all the applications are announced and I assume the approval and notification to ICANN or its staff as to what it is you're doing needs to happen before that. So thanks. --- I currently can't find the place where I got the answer I interpreted as " we will cross that bridge when we get there". Certainly those specific words were not said, but what I recall being said, but can't find it the message, that we can deal with this issue later if we need to. Then again, I can't find any answer to my question fo ALAC of Jan 24. Also I find that: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+2012.02.28+-+Transcription… is empty, so it is hard to check. I am not sure if I brought it up in the December meeting (I think I might have), but https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+20.12.11+Transcription+EN is also empty. In any case the fragments I have found in this brief search indicate: a. it was an issue in the Wg b. the prevailing opinion was that the scope should include ALS community harm in scope c. there was uncertainty about a wider scope that that d. there seems to be no answer on the issue of wider scope, leaving that issue open for you all to deal with now. I will keep looking, but given the press for time, wanted to pass on what I could find In sad that bringing this up angers some of you enough to make scary noises in my direction. But I think it is important that any decision that ALAC makes be fully informed. In this case, being fully informed means understanding that this Objection may not be in scope for ALAC to make. avri On 7 Mar 2013, at 14:18, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > On 7 March 2013 13:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > >> While people generally understood the basis for an ALS prompting a community objection if they were going to be harmed as they are part of our At0-Large community, many never understood the notion of the ALAC right to object on behalf of any community in the world. >> > Even a most superficial reading of the ICANN bylaws related to the status of At-Large should answer those people. > > >> So we asked ALAC, what is the allowable scope? The answer we got was we will cross that bridge when we get to it. >> > > Reference, please. I honestly don't recall such a debate, or the need for one. > >> Well the bridge stands in front of you and I suggest you give it serious consideration before approving these objections. > > Um, exactly who here is not taking this seriously? > > (If only all the issues in ICANN attracted such attention and thought. But this one, because money is at stake, is somehow more special? Pfftt.) > > >> I personally agree with their note, and do not think ALAC has standing to object i this case. >> > I started as also being a champion of laissez faire. The more time goes on, the more I am inclined to support the objections. The counter arguments have been far from convincing. > > >> I wish I had thought of it yesterday when NARALO was discussing the issue, > > > Why? The point had already been made, and NARALO chose not to advance the objection. However, three other regions did. > >> Also, of course, when you write a letter, you include all the possible arguments. There is not time for serialization. I think deriding them for that reason is a bit much. >> > You're right, I guess, in that there are much better reasons for derision. > > >> I advise great care in your next steps. > > IMO this wording constitutes a threat -- unless you have ANY evidence that this issue is being addressed without care anywhere in the community. > > The implication -- that agreeing with the objections is somehow not giving the issue sufficient care and attention -- is offensive, > > >> Those who indicated this Objection might actually injure ALAc's reputation might have had good reason to say what they said. It may begin to look like ALAC is being manipulated by a bitter past applicant who did not apply this time, who has not argued that there is a community, and is not an ALS member. > > And I might be inclined to say "screw it, the Internet will not fall over if one controversial string is held up for a round while the various parties work it out.". That does not harm our reputation one shred. > > In fact, I am being more inclined to say that with each email I see on the matter. > > - Evan On 7 Mar 2013, at 12:12, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > Curious choice of recipients for the letter. I understand Olivier and Dev, > but why me and Avri? > > Oh well, I'm sufficiently fascinated: "You don't have standing to object. > But just in case you DO.... " > > Precious. > > - Evan (via mobile)

4 5