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

Trip to Caucasus - Chapter 3 - Georgia
by Roberto Gaetano July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Hi all. Following up my previous reports on Armenia and Azerbaijan, I would like to continue with Georgia. I will also have some final considerations on the region, and some recommendations, but that will be part of a future message. My main contact in the country was Ramaz Kvatadze, from the Georgian Research and Educational Networking Association (GRENA - http://grena.ge/eng/) I had a very good meeting with him, and other short occasional conversations with other folks. The main points that came out from the discussion with Ramaz were (to the best of my recollection, in random order, after validation by Ramaz): . There is an ISOC chapter, not member of the At-Large, some groups are participating in ISOC Community Grants programmes. . The infrastructure is in average good, but there are substantial differences between big cities and remote villages. . While the main problem in the countryside is connectivity, that must be improved, the main complaint in big cities is compliance of the operators with the promised quality of service. . The government has undertaken efforts for developing eGovernment, as of today there are many applications that allow citizen and organizations to obtain certificates and make declarations online. . The scientific and research community is not active on ICANN matters because there is no benefit associated to its participation. . The scientific and research community has strong collaboration with similar communities in other Caucasus countries as well as other geographical areas worldwide, but the main interest and efforts are devoted to cooperation with Europe. . Although Georgia feels strongly more European than Asian, the current location in AP as ICANN geographic region is not felt as an obstacle. However, the main goal of Georgia is to become real member of European community. . The adoption of new technologies (mobile telecommunication, internet) have been slowed down initially by the monopoly situation, but now the competition among operators favours rapid development and strong improvement of the infrastructure. . The main obstacle for further improvement of the ICT infrastructure is lack of financial resources, as private business is unable to invest in development in rural/mountain areas as these are scarcely populated and there will be not enough return on investment. . Georgia has good relationships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, organizing regional meetings in Georgia is easier than in the neighboring countries. In fact almost all regional meetings are organized in Georgia. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have found fair to good internet connectivity. I have experienced a difference between cities and countryside, which confirms the feedback I had from Ramaz. However, the improvement of the connectivity seems no simple task, and other comments I have gathered from different sources, mainly individual internet users, is that the overall connectivity is not the first priority. From a different source, I have learned that Georgia is planning to lay down a second backbone cable that should connect east and west Georgia running close to the southern border (unfortunately, I was unable to get confirmation of this from other sources). It seems that addressing the risk of a cut in the intra-Georgian communication (between east and west Georgia) is a higher priority than addressing the connectivity in remote areas. The reason might appear obvious to people who know the recent history and the current threats of the region. I am under the impression that tourism, that is a flourishing business in Georgia, and rightfully so, can be an incentive to the improvement of the internet infrastructure. For instance, my last day was in Batumi, touristic area on the Black Sea, close to the border with Turkey. I have found a large number of bars, coffee shops, restaurants, that were offering free WiFi. On the other hand, I compare this with Mestia, in the Svaneti, another place with high touristic potential, but on the Caucasus mountains, where no B&B offered WiFi, and I was unable to find any establishment included it. My assumption was, although it was difficult to verify this with the local people, that the limited bandwidth in some areas was the limiting factor. But, as I said, it is just my personal speculation. I had another example of the situation in remote areas travelling to the Tusheti area (in the Caucasus mountains, north-east Georgia). The electric and telephone lines, installed in Soviet times, were abandoned because the cost of maintenance was too high, leaving the whole area without power and connectivity. It has to be said that the road itself to Omalo, the largest village in Tusheti, is passable only by 4x4 vehicles and the Abano pass itself is closed from October to May because of snow. However, the population got organized: almost every household has solar cells and is therefore autonomous for electrical power, and there are GSM (solar-powered) cells that ensure mobile phone connectivity to the valley. I was impressed by this, and thought that this could be an example for other parts of the world, where laying cables is too costly. Incidentally, at about the same time I heard the recent news about the experiments on internet connection via satellite in New Zealand, which shows that new ways are being explored. Talking about mobile phones, there seems to be excellent market penetration. While it is true that the monopoly situation has slowed down the progress, my observation, in cities and also in remote areas, is that the initial delay has been caught up. There is a wide offer, and if you get a local SIM card you can reload it also at ATM-like machines that are widely available for different types of payments. The last comment is about the geopolitical collocation of Georgia. I have to say that travelling through the country I had the impression to be in Europe. Just the signs in Georgian alphabet reminded me that I was in the Caucasus. As a matter of fact, this proximity to Europe made me forget to inquiry about another topic I wanted to get information on: the need, or not, for IDN. However, I have the feeling that, while this is probably an issue in large cities, the main problem in scarcely populated areas remains the connection. Best regards, Roberto

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 5 00:53:04 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 77.29% | 23244 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 33.33% | 1 | 22.71% | 6829 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 30073 | Total

1 0

Fwd: Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee | ICANN
by Carlton Samuels July 4, 2013

July 4, 2013

Board NGPC Resolutions on a few matters.... ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13… Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 2 July 2013 1. Main Agenda: a. Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names". Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in the BGC's Recommendation. Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was warranted with respect to Request 13-3. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN. b. Initial Protection for IGO Identifiers Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué reiterated the GAC's previous advice to the Board that "appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch" (the "IGO GAC Advice"). The IGO GAC Advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-IGO; Whereas, in response to a number of issues raised by the Board, the GAC noted in the Beijing Communiqué that it is "mindful of outstanding implementation issues" and that it is committed to "actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward"; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the advice on the New gTLD Program, including the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, in a 6 June 2013 response letter to the GAC on the IGO GAC Advice, the ICANN Board Chairman proposed that a small number of NGPC members and ICANN staff begin a dialogue with the GAC on these issues http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-2-06jun13-en ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm includes IGO protections, but does not yet specify the names and acronyms to be protected; Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG03), the NGPC confirms that appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO identifiers will continue to be provided as presented in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm while the GAC, NGPC, ICANN Staff and community continue to actively work through outstanding implementation issues. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG04), the NGPC determines that pursuant to Specification 5 in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm , registry operators will implement temporary protections for the IGO names and acronyms on the "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 until the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 Meeting in Durban. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG05), the NGPC will dialogue with the GAC prior to its first meeting following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban to work through outstanding implementation issues concerning protections for IGO names and acronyms. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG06), if the NGPC and GAC do not reach an agreement on outstanding implementation issues for protecting IGO names and acronyms by the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban, and subject to any matters that arise during the discussions, the NGPC determines that registry operators will be required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 . c. Category 1 Safeguard Advice from GAC Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included Category 1 safeguard advice, which is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-1 (the "Category 1 Safeguard Advice"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11, 18 and 25 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Category 1 Safeguard Advice; Whereas, the NGPC met on 2 July 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments on the Category 1 Safeguard Advice submitted during the public comment forum; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG07), the NGPC agrees to begin a dialogue with the GAC during the ICANN Meeting in Durban to clarify the scope of the requirements provided in the Category 1 Safeguard Advice. (Note: the dialogue with the GAC on Category 1 will also include discussion of GAC's Category 2.1 Safeguard Advice regarding "Restricted Access" since that advice applies to the strings listed under Category 1.) Resolved (2013.07.02.NG08), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants who have applied for TLD strings listed in the GAC's Category 1 Safeguard Advice, pending a dialogue with the GAC. d. Registry Agreement Whereas, the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system; Whereas, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the New gTLD Program, and included a draft New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to delegation; Whereas, on 5 February 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed "Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification," which announced proposed revisions to the agreement in response to developments since the last posting of the AGB in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the New gTLD Program; Whereas, on 29 April 2013, ICANN posted for public comment the "Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement," which included certain updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement in response to community feedback on the version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 5 February 2013 and discussions of the agreement at the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, China; Whereas, ICANN and a group selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registry Negotiating Team, have continued negotiating the proposed terms of the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued advice in a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included advice, which if implemented as suggested by the community, in some cases would require revisions to the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, on 25 June 2013, the NGPC adopted resolutions to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement to respond to certain elements of the GAC's safeguard advice in the Beijing Communiqué http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13… ; Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community from the various public comment forums, and has determined that the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 includes significant improvements in response to the concerns raised by the community; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG09), the NGPC approves the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1; Resolved (2013.07.02.NG10), the President and CEO is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and to move forward with implementation of the New gTLD Program. e. ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants - Discussion of letter No resolution taken. -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5&6 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: +90.212.381.8727 Fax: +90.212.381.8731 Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 ****

1 0