- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Dear All, On behalf of the ALAC, Tijani Ben Jemaa, with assistance from Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Narine Khachatryan, has developed the first draft ALAC Statement on the Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group<https://community.icann.org/x/J5VlAw>. 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/J5VlAw. 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 15 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

DNS best practices
by Roberto Gaetano April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

Hi all. I attended the DNA session in Marrakesh - I think the official title was "Industry Best Practices - the DNA healthy domains initiative". The session has been very interesting, as it proposed some mechanisms that, IMHO, could be useful also from the consumer protection point of view. The only issue is that they are doing this by themselves, without input from the consumers. I have argued, as did Sebastién, that user input was needed. After the meeting, I had a chat with some DNA officials, and they told me that they would have contacted us (ALAC). I did not hear anything. Did somebody else in ALAC? If nothing has moved yet, I propose that we proactively take action, and start developing at least a bullet point list of items that we believe need to be taken into account if DNA wants to develop a proposal. Just FYI, they argued in the meeting that they take into account user needs because... we are their customers. My position is, and they seemed to be listening to this argument, that the proposal would be much weaker unless it is developed taking direct input from all stakeholders. Can we start a discussion on this, and maybe have a pool of people developing some considerations related to consumer interests? The url of the presentation made at the session is: https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-dna-healthy-domains-… Cheers, Roberto Inviato da iPad

2 1

Re: [At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by Seun Ojedeji April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Apr 2016 04:41, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" <toml(a)communisphere.com> wrote: > If we look closely into the root governance question, and after due consideration the At-Large decides that some newfangled treaty organization should be created, and the recommendation is rejected, or ignored, or even scoffed at, by the majority, we'll have fulfilled our duty. > SO: Recommendation to who? Nevertheless, while I doubt treaty is going to be on anybody's mind, there is going to be discussion on jurisdiction during the second please of CCWG on accountability. Since it's an open fora, I encourage everyone interested on the topic to participate once that phase commence. > Alternately, the At-Large might conclude that it's not an appropriate approach. > SO: but quite a lot of members already said this even on this thread. > That said, I realize that after the Herculean task of dealing with the IANA question there might be reluctance to take on another. Especially one that seems, at first look, to be quite challenging. But I think we should give a hard look at the merits and then decide if we should take it on. Let's not make our decisions based on likelihood of success. > SO: In practice I can imagine quite a number of demerit that outweighs the advantage and makes such cause not worthwhile. It will be a waste of resources[1] and time to venture into such process. So let's make sure to look at the demerits and not focus just on merit. Regards 1. The resources expended on this current process is a lot already (IMO) and I doubt we would get sponsor for such initiative. > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > > > On 4/9/2016 5:52 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >> So, as I understand things, we want to convince the governments of the world to enter into a new treaty where there does not seem to be a huge amount of current interest. But not a regular treaty, but one in which governments sign onto it, but cede much of their power to civil society, academics, the technical community and business. Oh yes, and End Users, a rather undefined term in their context. >> >> I'm really good at putting large efforts into difficult projects, because there is merit in their success, but this one sounds just a bit (ok, a lot) too "iffy" for my comfort. >> >> Alan >> >> At 09/04/2016 04:18 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >>> >>> Olivier, >>> >>> I got from Thomas's email that he proposes that we go outside of current norms and create a multistakeholder treaty model that incorporates all our stakeholder groups. Of course it doesn't exist now but we are in a transition phase so perhaps its timely. >>> >>> Maureen >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >>> Dear Thomas, >>> >>> On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>> > >>> > Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought >>> > bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see >>> > some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.) >>> >>> The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN >>> Member States. >>> http://www.un.org/en/member-states/ >>> >>> Where is Civil Society? >>> Where are End Users? >>> Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? >>> Where is the Private Sector? >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] R: R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

So, as I understand things, we want to convince the governments of the world to enter into a new treaty where there does not seem to be a huge amount of current interest. But not a regular treaty, but one in which governments sign onto it, but cede much of their power to civil society, academics, the technical community and business. Oh yes, and End Users, a rather undefined term in their context. I'm really good at putting large efforts into difficult projects, because there is merit in their success, but this one sounds just a bit (ok, a lot) too "iffy" for my comfort. Alan At 09/04/2016 04:18 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >Olivier, > >I got from Thomas's email that he proposes that we go outside of >current norms and create a multistakeholder treaty model that >incorporates all our stakeholder groups. Of course it doesn't exist >now but we are in a transition phase so perhaps its timely. > >Maureen > >On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ><<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >Dear Thomas, > >On 09/04/2016 20:51, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't Parminder's thought > > bottom-up, and in-line with the multi-stakeholder concept? (And I see > > some merit in his concerns about gTLD governance.) > >The Treaty Model which Parminder argues for requires signature from UN >Member States. ><http://www.un.org/en/member-states/>http://www.un.org/en/member-states/ > >Where is Civil Society? >Where are End Users? >Where are the Technical & Academic Communities? >Where is the Private Sector? > >Kindest regards, > >Olivier >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list ><mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >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

3 2

Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by parminder April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

My take on the ICANN oversight transition as an op-ed in The Hindu 'Why the Internet is not just free yet" http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-the-internet-isnt-just-free-yet/a… parminder

11 32

Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving away from the US government?
by parminder April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

On Thursday 07 April 2016 11:46 PM, Seth M Reiss wrote: > > 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? > None.... Any company is in any case subject to the jurisdiction of its incorporation.... So, what you are saying IMHO is completely besides the point. The issue that I am framing is 'why should a company that intended to do and have no business with the US be subject to US enforcement action?' > 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. > > 2. Cannot the non-US business that conducts itself legally > within the laws of its country register its domains with a non-US > registrar? > Right.... So you are inter alia saying/ accepting that if a business really wants to avoid being subject to US jurisdiction, which it has a right to, it should never apply for and get a gTLD for itself..... Because gTLDs are directly registered with ICANN, a US based corporation, subject fully to US jurisdiction... It is such a pity that we can are ready to accept such a situation - for a non US business, if it has to avoid extraterritorial application of US jurisdiction, it should avoid taking a gTLD for itself... Or, to put it other way, the facility of getting a gTLD gets closed to that business... I dont think this is any way to run a global governance establishment, and to run a group - ALAC - that is supposed to make such an establishment more fair and democratic for all.. This is quite a self damning admission... parminder > > > > 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. > > > > Seth > > > > *From:*at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2016 6:32 AM > *To:* McTim > *Cc:* At-Large Worldwide > *Subject:* Re: [At-Large] R: R: Is ICANN's oversight really moving > away from the US government? > > > > McTim / All > > (Sorry for the delay in the response. I was travelling.) > > So, you say that the problem is only in my head, and we can safely > ignore all that I am proposing as a problem! Let me then produce some > clear evidence of the problem, and see how you respond to it. > > You of course know that US authorities have been using US based > registries to frequently seize domains, for all kinds of reasons. Dont > tell me you dont! The first famous case was when the domain of a > travel site based in an European country was seized for offering > holidays in Cuba to a customer in another European country, because US > entities are banned from commercial transactions with Cuba. Note that > the transaction had nothing at all to do with anything US. But US > authorities used the US registration of the registryto seize the > website nonetheless > <http://arstechnica.com/business/2008/03/us-interferes-with-travel-to-cuba/>. > > > Next famous case was of the Spanish sports streaming website > Rojadirecta > <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-se…> > whose legality had been tested in Spanish courts and it had been > declared legal... But that mattered two hoots to US government > agencies which used its US registration to seize it.... > > Later has been this case of a Canadian gambling site > <http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-vi…> > being seized similarly by US agencies. Earlier, wikileaks website had > got seized > <http://www.cnet.com/news/swiss-bank-in-wikileaks-case-abruptly-abandons-law…>. > > > There have been many more cases of such domain name seizures by US > authorities > <http://www.thedomains.com/2010/07/01/feds-seize-9-domains-for-copyright-inf…>, > quite often when the focus of the concerned companies was non US. > Interesting, there have been court orders which transferred control > over domain names of businesses to other, US, companies > <http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/06/millions-of-dymanic-dns-users-suffe…>. > > > All such legal enforcement by US agencies ( courts as well as > executive agencies) has been got done through exercise of > jurisdiction over US based registries, mostly Verisign controlling .com. > > Lets now move on to the times of thousands of gTLDs, made possible by > the new gTLDs rounds, and every big business encouraged to, at least > legitimately entitled to, have its own gTLD. > > What if the above non US companies, or similar ones like them, now > take on gTLDs of their own, which they have a right to. What is the > option now for US agencies if they mean to pursue similar enforcement > acts as they did earlier. And there simply is no reason why they > wont. Now, get this one thing clearly - for an US agency, there is > absolutely no difference at all between a Verisign controlling .com > registrations or an ICANN controlling gTLDs. *They are the same for > them, US registered private entities, subject fully to US jurisdiction.* > > When they want, US agencies (courts and executive agencies) will > similarly order ICANN, like they did earlier to Verisign, to take down > the 'offending' gTLDs.... The logic is clear and simple, and > irrefutable. Can anyone argue why and how they would not.... And that > precisely is the problem that I have been positing, taking the very > likely example of an Indian generic drug company, with a gTLD, falling > foul of the US pharma industry's high Intellectual property > aspirations and standards (which are not global). > > So, in the circumstances, the option for non US businesses is one of > the two > > 1. They keep strictly on the right side of US law, even when their > business does not have anything to do with the US. This amounts to a > global enforcement of one country's law and jurisdiction, covering all > kinds of areas. This is highly undemocratic, and not should not be > acceptable to non US entities. > > 2. Non US companies play safe and do not take up new gTLDs. This > amounts to a virtual denial of a key DNS service to non US companies. > Which should be almost equally unacceptable. > > What is your response to this situation... If this is not a real > problem for an organisation whose main task is to provide DNS services > to the world, I dont see what would be a problem for it. And if this > is not an issue for ALAC to address, whose main purpose should be to > the serve the interests of more the peripheral groups on DNS related > issues, I dont know what would be? > > Since I have put forth clear evidence and propositions logically > ensuing from such evidence, I will very much appreciate clear and > direct responses, to the issues I raise and the 'problem' I frame. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 29 March 2016 08:53 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, parminder > <parminder(a)itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote: > > > > > What amazes me in all the responses I am getting is that no one is > either saying that the problem I have posed does not exist or it > is not important to resolve, nor providing any alternative ways to > resolve it. > > > > > > > > > > > > They are just arguing with parts of my proposal, which is > fine, although I think, while no doubt this is a somewhat > complex solution to a complex problem, no one has been able to > show why it really cant work. > > To remind; the problem I had posed was about the very likely > wrongful US's jurisdictional imposition on ICANN's process and > vis a vis the root server maintainer. I had given a concrete > example; of a US court pushing the well-known over-zealous US > intellectual property law and enforcement to take away the > gTLD of an Indian generic drug manufacturer even when the > latter has no direct business interests or activities in the > US... What is your response to such a very likely occurrence? > > > > It is highly unlikely, the likelihood approaching zero IMHO. > > > > > > > > Should we simply ignore it? > > > > yes, it is safe to do so. However, you must realise that after > the IANA transition is finished, there will be absolutely zero > appetite inside ICANN to make major reforms. I doubt you could > get that Community to even consider such a proposal. > > > > > > > > Or, do you not think it likely, in which case lets discuss that > > > > > > If we must. Let's say that your scenario comes to pass. You do > realise that ICANN would use the hundreds of millions of dollars > in its legal kitty to fight such a court order, right? > > > > > > > > > > .... You cannot simply not respond to this key global > governance problem that stares us in the face... (Apart from > it, is the less likely but still to be remained prepared for > possibility of the The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the > US playing hanky panky with the gTLD of a country > > > > > > countries don't have gTLDs. > > > > > > that the US gets into serious enmity with.... every country > likes to remain prepared for such an eventuality. You cannot > deny them that right. )... > > No one seems to want to address these key global governance > problems. Do they not exist? If they do, then what is your > response to and preparedness for these? > > > > > > They are not key. They exist as a problem largely in your head. > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. > A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > >

2 3

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Total of 17 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 8 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.76% | 2 | 21.67% | 76401 | crg at isoc-cr.org 17.65% | 3 | 15.35% | 54108 | at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 11.76% | 2 | 10.26% | 36162 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 9.35% | 32971 | seth.reiss at lex-ip.com 5.88% | 1 | 8.32% | 29334 | ariel.liang at icann.org 5.88% | 1 | 7.92% | 27919 | parminder at itforchange.net 5.88% | 1 | 6.38% | 22504 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.88% | 1 | 6.26% | 22065 | michele at blacknight.com 5.88% | 1 | 5.01% | 17665 | joly at punkcast.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.52% | 8868 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.40% | 8475 | ocl at gih.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.40% | 8455 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.15% | 7586 | raquino at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 17 |100.00% | 352513 | Total

1 0

Reply to Cruz' letter
by Roberto Gaetano April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-cruz-lankfor d-lee-06apr16-en.pdf

2 1

WEBCAST TUESDAY: Internet Society Briefing Panel at IETF95
by Joly MacFie April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Often policy is proposed without sufficient consideration of the technical issues involved. Here's a rare opportunity to hear what the engineer's have to say! joly posted: "On Tuesday April 5 2016 at 13:45 UTC the Internet Society will present a briefing Public Policy and Internet Technology Development at IETF 95 in Buenos Aires. A panel session will identify the important issues for Internet public policy makers generally " On *Tuesday April 5 2016* at 13:45 UTC the Internet Society <http://isoc.org> will present a briefing *Public Policy and Internet Technology Development <https://www.internetsociety.org/internet-society-briefing-panel-ietf-95>* at IETF 95 <https://www.ietf.org/meeting/95/> in Buenos Aires. A panel session will identify the important issues for Internet public policy makers generally and the Latin American region in particular. We will discuss the relevance of the IETF to their work. In particular we will address the following questions: What are the high priority issues for Internet policy makers today? Why are policy makers interested in the work of the IETF? Where does the work of the IETF and Public Policy intersect? What could/should be done to improve two-way dialogue between technologists and public policy officials? Panelists: *Fred Baker*, Cisco Fellow; *Dilawar Grewal*; *Nelson Guillén Bello*, Dominican Republic; *Raul Lazcano Moyano*, Head of Regulatory Division, SUBTEL, Chile; *Tim Polk*, Assistant Director for Cybersecurity, U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy. *View on Livestream:* https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ietf95 *Twitter: *#isoc + #ietf95 http://bit.ly/isocietf95 *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8406 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Second Draft Uploaded - Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Dear All, Please note that the second draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups<https://community.icann.org/x/ZxaAAw> has been uploaded to its wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/ZxaAAw. If you wish to provide input, kindly submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 08 April 2016 at 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<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> From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:11 PM To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: EXTENDED - Call for Comments: ALAC Statement on the Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups Dear All, Given the extension of the public comment period on the Draft Framework of Principles for Cross Community Working Groups<https://community.icann.org/x/ZxaAAw>, At-Large’s internal commenting period on the draft ALAC Statement on this topic has been extended for 8 more days. You may find the draft ALAC Statement, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZxaAAw. 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 08 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>

3 2