- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Link to the NomCom¹s Report Card
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 3, 2016

May 3, 2016

Dear All, Please find the link to the NomCom’s Report Card for February/March 2016. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-report-card-02apr16-en.p… Thank you. Kind Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png]

1 0

WSIS Forum 2016 underway in Geneva – remote participation details
by Joly MacFie May 2, 2016

May 2, 2016

A LOT of great sessions at this. I already attended a comprehensive one on accessibility this morning. It's not clear if archives will be available. In previous years only highlights and side interviews have been posted on their YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/WSISProcess/videos>, and none since 2013! Hopefully they've turned over a new leaf, but one shouldn't depend on it. Markus Kummer has sent word there'll be an *IGFSA info session* <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Agenda/Session/227> on Friday at 11:00 CEST = 09:00 UTC, 5am in NYC. joly posted: "This week May 2–6 2016 ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP host the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2016 in Geneva, Switzerland. The WSIS Forum serves the UN as a mechanism for coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation activities, inf" [image: WSIS]This week *May 2–6 2016 ITU <https://www.itu.int>*, *UNESCO <https://en.unesco.org/>*, *UNCTAD <http://unctad.org/>* and *UNDP <http://www.undp.org/>* host the *World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2016 <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/> *in Geneva, Switzerland. The WSIS Forum serves the UN as a mechanism for coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation activities, information exchange, creation of knowledge, sharing of best practices and continues to provide assistance in developing multi-stakeholder and public/private partnerships to advance development goal, building on the *UN General Assembly Overall Review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes <https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/125>* which recognized the necessity of holding this Forum on an annual basis, and called for a close alignment between WSIS and the *Sustainable Development Goals* *(SDG)* <https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1> processes. Ambassador *Daniel A. Sepulveda* (USA) will serve as Chairman Designate of the WSIS Forum 2016 High-Level Track. The Policy Sessions will be moderated by *High-Level Track Facilitators <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/About/Chairman>* (HLTF) nominated and identified by Civil Society, Private Sector, Technical Community and Academia stakeholders. Remote participation is available through both *Adobe Connect <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/AdobeConnect>* and live *webcast* <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/Webcast/Live/>. Geneva time is CEST, 6 hours ahead of NYC. *What: WSIS Forum 2016 <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/>* * Where: ITU Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland* * When: May 2–6 2016* * Program: https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Agenda/ <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Agenda/>* * Webcast: https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/Webcast/Live/ <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/Webcast/Live/>* * Adobe Connect: https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/AdobeConnect <https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/Media/RP/AdobeConnect>* * Twitter: #wsis https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSIS <https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSIS> | #wsis2016 https://twitter.com/hashtag/wsis2016 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/wsis2016>* * Facebook: https://facebook.com/hashtag/WSIS <https://facebook.com/hashtag/WSIS>| #wsis2016 https://facebook.com/hashtag/wsis2016 <https://facebook.com/hashtag/wsis2016>* Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8457#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8457#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8457 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: ALAC Statement on the Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

Dear All, This is to let you know that the ALAC Statement on the Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update is now final. Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that the 15 ALAC members to ratify this final Statement. To read the final Statement, please visit: https://community.icann.org/x/HiKAAw. Please note that the ALAC ratification vote will start on 30 April 2016 23:59 UTC and end on 05 May 2016 23:59 UTC. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com April 29, 2016

April 29, 2016

Total of 36 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 29 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 12 | 32.62% | 148760 | pranesh at cis-india.org 11.11% | 4 | 12.90% | 58826 | leonfelipe at sanchez.mx 11.11% | 4 | 8.63% | 39375 | michele at blacknight.com 8.33% | 3 | 10.45% | 47675 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 8.33% | 3 | 6.19% | 28243 | dogwallah at gmail.com 5.56% | 2 | 7.96% | 36292 | joly at punkcast.com 5.56% | 2 | 6.07% | 27691 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 2.78% | 1 | 3.46% | 15800 | vanda at scartezini.org 2.78% | 1 | 3.46% | 15772 | ocl at gih.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.44% | 11129 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.10% | 9585 | bzs at theworld.com 2.78% | 1 | 1.98% | 9021 | apisan at unam.mx 2.78% | 1 | 1.72% | 7845 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 36 |100.00% | 456014 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Seth As a non-US registrar I’ve got a bit of experience in this area – see responses inline below Two observations. 1. What is to stop a non-US court from taking a similar enforcement action against a registrar within that country and seizing domains? Non-US courts have been known to take jurisdiction over business outside their countries based upon the business’s goods and services being accessible within the country through the Internet. Short answer – nothing. 2. Cannot the non-US business that conducts itself legally within the laws of its country register its domains with a non-US registrar? Yes and they do, however if the registry operator is a US based entity then a US court can issue a court order to have the domains seized directly at the registry. It’s happened to clients of ours. I do not deny there is an uneven playing field because ICANN is more easily subject to US jurisdiction and law than the jurisdictions and laws of other countries, but your arguments may go too far. The issue around domain seizures has nothing to do with ICANN. Any domain seizure cases I’ve seen (including the examples cited by Parminder) were all made either at the registrar or registry level. I haven’t see any cases where ICANN has been involved directly (though they often get named in cases) If you want to avoid the reach of the US then you need to use: * a non-US registry * A non-US registrar * A non-US hosting provider Obviously if you want to go down that route you won’t be able to use .com or a lot of the other gTLDs, as even the ones that aren’t US owned are often using US based providers for their backend services. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

13 40

Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by Seun Ojedeji April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Apr 2016 6:03 a.m., "parminder" <parminder(a)itforchange.net> wrote: > The substantive point it; is to proceed from an existing case, rojadirecta had taken a gTLD, it were .rojadirecta (or for wikipedia's case .wikipedia), and the same case had come to the same US court, where would its order to take down the web presence of the respective businesses be directed? Would you care to respond to this point? Thanks. > SO: Not Alejandro but I would say in theory that such order may go to the registry first but could also go to ICANN and whether ICANN would comply depends on the existing agreements ICANN has with the registry running .rojadirecta. However it's one thing to receive an order, it's another thing to comply, that's why ICANN has legal team who try to defend/explain/educate in such cases (if it exists) However, I guess your question above still begs the response of asking what will be different if it was a non-US order; will ICANN not receive an order if it's based outside USA? Will ICANN not receive an order if it's based on treaties? Cheers! > parminder > >> This is a deep misunderstanding. No reasoning based on this statement will lead to any valid conclusion (unless the logic in the reasoning is as flawed as the statement.) >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> <message tail snipped> > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

11 21

New Public Comment: Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HYUNDAI, .KIA and .GODADDY TLDs
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the ‘Release of Country and Territory Names within the .HYUNDAI, .KIA and .GODADDY TLDs' has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2016-04-27-en. Public comment will end on 9 June 2016 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-ctn-release-tlds-27apr16(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here:https://community.icann.org/x/5E2AAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: 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

LAST DAY - Call for Comments: Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 28, 2016

April 28, 2016

Dear All, On behalf of the ALAC, Tijani Ben Jemaa has developed the first draft ALAC Statement on the Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan Update<https://community.icann.org/x/HiKAAw>. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/HiKAAw. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 28 April 2016 at 23:59 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. 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

Re: [At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by Seun Ojedeji April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 26 Apr 2016 19:36, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh(a)cis-india.org> wrote: > > > My simple point, which you have not refuted, is that a treaty can be a basis for or can recognize a multistakeholder organization (e.g., the ILO). > SO: Theoretically yes and my response to your point is that the life span/overall decision on such MS would be based on the treaty which is formed by govt. I hope you agree that the decision to renew IGF was not decided by the MS (in practice) but by the UN. Can you then imagine we put ICANN in such a suspense; that has been "somewhat" happening so far (with NTIA contract), the transition fixes that. Let's not go back to our vomit! > At any rate, there have been calls for a long while for changing the current legal structure of ICANN. Of course, people on this list are liable to view these as not "important": > SO: I understand and it may surprise you that I wish it was possible as well and I am open to hearing ways that it can be done without costing me/us something else that I/we place higher on my/our priority list. Regards > Here are some demands from the civil society caucus (IGC) at WSIS in 2005: > >> “ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. >> "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules. … >> "It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed [Internet Governance] Forum." > > > https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/sca/hbf-29.doc > > Regards, > Pranesh > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society > http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 > sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org > https://twitter.com/pranesh >

1 0

Rant
by Roberto Gaetano April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

I don't like American cars. That's why I do not buy one. All the cars I have owned have been either European or Japanese. I do not ask that American cars be subject to a different jurisdiction, I just ignore them. If I did not like the jurisdiction under which American TLDs operate, I would just pick a non-American one - and a non-American registrar, there's plenty of choice. There is no compelling reason, in particular now with the wide choice of TLDs, to register under .com or other American-based TLDs. I do not ask that American Registries and Registrars be subject to a different jurisdiction, I just know that I can use different ones, and ignore them, if I wish so. I do not like complaining about one solution if alternatives are available. Unfortunately, I have not reached yet the nirvana status where I can just ignore loud complaints without search for alternative solutions. But I am working on it. Cheers, R.

1 0