July 2015 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

New Public Comment: IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Dear All, Kindly note that the At-Large Workspace for the following public comment period has been created: IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/LY1CAw>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

WEBCAST NOW: Kenya Internet Governance Forum #kigf2015
by Joly MacFie July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

This runs 1:30am - 1:30pm NYC Time. Right now it's the first panel (on multistakehoderism) which has morphed into a vigorous discussion on Net Neutrality and zero-rating. joly posted: "On June 24 2015 the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy hosted a symposium Completing the IP Transition: Confronting Technical Challenges and Maximizing Consumer Benefits. Given the premise that too little attention has been paid to either th" [image: kigf2015]Today *Friday 31 July 2015* the 5th *Kenya Internet Governance Forum* <http://kenyaigf.or.ke/> (KIGF) is underway in Nairobi. This year’s theme is *“Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development” <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/%22http://www.eventbrite.com/e/kenya-internet-governa…>. * The Kenya IGF is a unique platform for all stakeholders to openly exchange perspectives and concerns on key issues that may affect the future of the Internet for millions of Kenyans. The *Tenth Annual Global IGF Meeting <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2015-website>*, with the same theme, will be convened by the United Nations and is scheduled to take place in *João Pessoa*, Brazil, on 10-13 November 2015. It is in line with this that every year, the Kenya IGF is organized in partnership with stakeholders to address key Internet issues, and outcomes will feed into the Global IGF. There is a live webcast of today’s meeting on the Internet Society Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/keigf15>. Nairobi is UTC+3, 7 hours ahead of NYC time. *What*: *Kenya Internet Governance Forum* *Where*: Nairobi *When*: Friday 31 July 2015 08:30am-6:00pm EAT | 05:30-1500 UTC | 01:30-1100 EDT *Programme*: http://kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme *Webcast*: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/keigf15 *Twitter*: #kigf2015 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/kigf2015?f=realtime&src=hash> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7944#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7944#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7961 - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 31, 2015

July 31, 2015

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 31 00:53:03 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 1 | 35.53% | 54151 | ocl at gih.com 20.00% | 1 | 34.19% | 52105 | mail at christopherwilkinson.eu 20.00% | 1 | 16.10% | 24543 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 20.00% | 1 | 8.87% | 13510 | wjdrake at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 5.31% | 8088 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 152397 | Total

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Call for Candidates - ALAC Representative to the ICANN Working Group to Review IDN Implementation Guidelines
by Christopher Wilkinson July 27, 2015

July 27, 2015

> > Good evening: > > > SSAC and ALAC members are being added for additional consideration of SSR and usability issues. > > I am sure that this is a necessary and useful initiative, however, I suspect that At Large/ALAC would be quite hard put to it to find _one_ expert who could cover the whole IDN field. > > At this stage of implementation, I would expect the "usability issues", among other issues, to be quite distinct among the different groups of scripts and languages, world wide. > I would invite ALAC to consider whether it would be justified to request a rather broader At Large representation in this WG. > > Just a thought > > CW > > > On 27 Jul 2015, at 21:13, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> ICANN is forming a new Working Group to review the IDN Implementation Guidelines. One member in this Working Group will be representing the ALAC. An ideal candidate should have expertise in IDN usability and universal acceptance matters and be also involved with the universal acceptance initiative of ICANN. Please see the full announcement below. >> >> If you are interested in applying this position, please send your resume and Statement of Interest to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by Thursday 30 July 23:59 UTC. The ALAC will review the candidate(s) and make the selection. >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew >> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge >> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge >> >> >> >> News Alert >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-20-en >> >> Call for Community Experts to Review the IDN Implementation Guidelines >> 20 July 2015 >> 1. Introduction >> >> The IDN Implementation Guidelines address the IDN registration policies and practices, designed to minimize the risk of cybersquatting and consumer confusion, and respect the interests of communities using local languages and scripts. These Guidelines are for registry operators to implement IDNs at the second level. Registry operators that offer IDNs under the new gTLDs, resulting from the 2012 application round, are contractually bound to adhere to the Guidelines per Specification 6 of the Registry Agreement. The IDN ccTLDs are encouraged to follow the Guidelines through the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process, but are not contractually obligated to do so. >> IDN Implementation Guidelines were last updated in 2011. ICANN is now initiating a revision of these guidelines and soliciting the participation of expert community volunteers to form a working group for this purpose. The working group will comprise of expert volunteer members from GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC and ALAC, as per the details below. >> Interested experts should be endorsed by their respective SOs/ACs and should send their Resumes and Statements of Interest to IDNProgram(a)icann.org by 3 August, 2015. >> 2. Background >> >> Historically, the IDN Implementation Guidelines have been updated when there was a change to relevant protocols or other demand from the community, but not on a regular basis. As there are contractual obligations associated with the Guidelines, updating them may have a significant impact. To date, there have been five versions of the Guidelines, available through the link: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/implementation-guidelines-2012-02-25-…. The current Version 3.0 was developed through a community based effort and finalized on 2 September 2011. This wasendorsed by the ICANN Board of Directors on 28 October 2011. >> Since publication of the latest version of the Guidelines in 2011, there have been changes in the terminology around IDNs and language tables (e.g. see Appendix 2 of Integrated Issues Report [PDF, 2.15 MB]), as well as a definition of the formal representation of the language tables to make them machine readable. Additional analysis and data are also available, including Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR), informational RFC 6912 and revised IANA IDNA tables for Unicode 6.3.0. Finally there have been recommendations for consistency and manageability of variants across different levels in a domain name, e.g. in the User Experience Study [PDF, 1.38 MB] and related SSAC comments in SAC 60 [PDF, 655 KB] report. >> Based on the experience with implementing IDNs accumulated since 2011, GNSO Council and its members have asked ICANN to update these guidelines. >> 3. Working Group Expertise and Composition >> >> The working group members should have expertise in one or more of the following areas, as relevant for the second level. >> DNS and IDNA protocols >> IDN language or script tables, including variants and label level rules >> IDN policy >> IDN implementation >> IDN label registration process and registration data >> IDN related SSR issues, including string similarity >> IDN usability challenges and universal acceptance >> The working group is anticipated to have expertise in all these areas, with tentatively seven members: GNSO (3), ccNSO (2), SSAC (1) and ALAC (1). The number of GNSO and ccNSO members are based on membership during previous revisions of IDN Implementation Guidelines. SSAC and ALAC members are being added for additional consideration of SSR and usability issues. >> 4. Tentative Work Plan >> >> The working group will determine its own work plan and deliverables, after its formation. The following are tentative steps and the timeline the working group may undertake to complete its work. The working group is expected to hold regular conference calls to undertake this work. >> Formation – August 2015 >> Identification of relevant issues >> Public comment on issues – ICANN 54 >> Finalization of issues >> Development of initial recommendations against the issues identified >> Public comment on Interim draft – ICANN 55 >> Finalization of recommendations >> Development of complete draft >> Public comment on complete draft– ICANN 56 >> Publication of updated IDN Implementation Guidelines – August 2016 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC-Announce mailing list >> ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Fwd: Re: Third and final try...
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

FYI. Tom has found my suggested text to be acceptable. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Third and final try... Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:26:16 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com> CC: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Thanks Tom. I am trying to deliberately make the list as generic as possible because if we go to further detail then we'll have people complaining we did not go into details in listing other category of TLDs, like Community TLDs. Would the following text work: "How would city administrators, businesses, people using City TLDs have their voice heard in GNSO processes"? Kindest regards, Olivier On 24/07/2015 04:14, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Olivier, > > Just to be clear, here's my recommended text: > > "How would city administrators, businesses, health, education, and > cultural entities, and ordinary people using City TLDs have their > voice heard in GNSO processes"? > > Thanks again, > > Tom > > Olivier, > > Sounds good. I'd suggest one change. > > Where it says: "How would the people using City TLDs have their > voice heard" > > I'd elaborate a bit to show the complexity, thus: "How would city > administrators, businesses, health, education, and cultural > entities, and ordinary people using City TLDs have their voice > heard in GNSO processes"? > > Thanks, > > Tom > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR > COMMENTS: ALAC > Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names > Supporting > Organization > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> > Date: Thu, July 23, 2015 8:04 pm > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide > <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > > Hello everyone, > > thank you very much for your comments which have been very > helpful. > > I suggest appending the following text to the reply to > Recommendation #23 > > · The ICANN core value cited as the reason the Report > provides for more constituencies is about broad participation > in policy making. The formation of more constituencies is not > the only way to expand participation, and it ignores the > existence and role of the ALAC. ALAC, with its > representatives from five regions, from a wide range of > language groups and myriad internet user groups is far better > placed to provide that broad participation. A better and more > achievable way to achieve the broad participation sought is to > support and encourage ALAC members to engage in policy processes. > > > Also adding the following main text in the General Comments > Section: > > --- cut here --- > > Whilst the ALAC support almost all of the recommendations made > in the Westlake Report, the ALAC is concerned that the vast > majority of the recommendations focus on GNSO Working Groups > and suggest making small adjustments rather than taking a > serious look at the GNSO Council's bicameral structure. > Examples of areas for review are numerous and not limited to: > · The current structure of the GNSO Council provides > the ability for a more united vote in the Contracted Party > House whilst fragmenting the Non-Contracted Party house to the > point of imbalance. The unprecedented growth of Contracted > Parties caused by the new gTLD Program has not been addressed. > What might have been a homogeneous Constituency might now be > more heterogeneous and the potential consequences of this > change have not been studied. For example, City TLDs are an > entirely new breed of Registry; so are Brand TLDs. How does > this affect the current status quo? How would the people using > City TLDs have their voice heard > · Other commenters in the At-Large Community have noted > that the proposals for more geographically balanced > representation appeared to be focused on finding new > participants from outside the GNSO’s usual territory. A > question to ask is how many gTLD registries and gTLDs are > domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN > regions both before and after the recent expansion of gTLD > space under the GNSO's auspices. The Westlake Review misses on > the opportunity to potentially reveal a hidden pattern that > the ICANN GNSO is self-reinforcing the domain name business > geopolitically and whether that is underpinning the Westlake > observation of the concentration of the GNSO’s constituencies > as North American and European. > · GNSO Working Groups are open for all participants > including non-GNSO Constituency members – but the GNSO > Council, thanks to its very structure, has the ability to > affect a working group’s results. Voting is one of the ways to > support or halt recommendations from a bottom-up PDP. > The ALAC believes that the complex issues of GNSO structure > and processes need to be studied now. The ALAC reminds the > Reviewers of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group R3 > White Paper > (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm > ) drafted in 2012 and containing proposals that should be > explored. > > Reinforcing ALAC’s view is its recollection of several of its > members that during the first GNSO Review, it was understood > that Constituencies and the creation of “Stakeholder Groups” > were going to be reviewed at the next iteration. Tragically, > this is missing from the current report. > > --- cut here --- > > As we only have 24 hours until the closing of the comment > period, please let me know ASAP if this is satisfactory. > > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Hello all, just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Hello all, > > of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the > Review. Suggestions welcome. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments >> be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of >> the Generic Names Supporting Organization >> <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> in preparation for the start >> of the ALAC ratification process. >> >> The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public >> Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace >> here: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. >> >> Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments >> function by* 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC*. >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >> Peregrine and Terri Agnew >> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> >> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge >> <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> >> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> >> >> >>

6 6

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 24 00:53:03 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 22.22% | 2 | 47.10% | 151237 | ocl at gih.com 22.22% | 2 | 16.63% | 53393 | toml at communisphere.com 11.11% | 1 | 13.00% | 41756 | ariel.liang at icann.org 11.11% | 1 | 12.26% | 39359 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 11.11% | 1 | 5.50% | 17654 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 3.07% | 9853 | cdel at firsthand.net 11.11% | 1 | 2.45% | 7855 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 321107 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by Thomas Lowenhaupt July 24, 2015

July 24, 2015

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
by Thomas Lowenhaupt July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 17, 2015

July 17, 2015

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 17 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 72.03% | 22973 | vanda at uol.com.br 50.00% | 1 | 27.97% | 8921 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 31894 | Total

1 0