- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 8, 2015

May 8, 2015

Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 8 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 1 | 92.90% | 565817 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 25.00% | 1 | 3.06% | 18646 | otieno.barrack at gmail.com 25.00% | 1 | 2.81% | 17104 | toml at communisphere.com 25.00% | 1 | 1.23% | 7489 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 609056 | Total

1 0

A message from the bottom on city TLD governance
by Thomas Lowenhaupt May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Fellow At-Large Members: With multistakeholder governance a bottom-up process, I thought the At-Large would be interested in the experiences we've had here in New York City with the .nyc TLD. While it's still under a year since our TLD was activated, some experience might aide those shaping the global governance structure. Our recent post "Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD" is available at http://wp.me/pBzzv-A6 and reprinted below. Also, we did a 6 month review of the TLD available here <http://www.connectingnyc.org/digital-nyc/>. The above activities largely reflect our traditional advocacy role. As an At-Large Structure we're exploring the local role we will play. Any experiences from At-Large Structures in other newly TLD'd cities would be greatly appreciated. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----------------------------------------------- Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. (former) Member, .NYC Community Advisory Board TomL(a)connectingnyc.org <mailto:toml@communisphere.com> Connectingnyc.org <http://Connectingnyc.org> Jackson Hts., NYC 718 639 4222 Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD (from http://wp.me/pBzzv-A6) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Toward Effective Governance Of The .nyc TLD <http://www.connectingnyc.org/toward-effective-governance-of-the-nyc-tld/> Posted by: Editor <http://www.connectingnyc.org/author/editor/> city hall question <http://www.connectingnyc.org/toward-effective-governance-of-the-nyc-tld/cit…>Jackson Hts., New York, April 29, 2015 – While there are no published governance documents for the .nyc TLD, it’s our understanding that oversight is shared by representatives from the Department of Information and Telecom Technology, the Economic Development Corporation, the Office of Innovation and Technology, with the Department of Law advising. It’s a fluid process outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the contractor implementing consensus decisions. But who does what and the existence (or not) of channels for public engagement remains unclear. Having emerged from the city’s democratic governance structure, we acknowledge the MOU as legitimate by traditional standards. However, considering the plethora of roles our city’s TLD will play, we believe additional channels for public engagement are essential – especially in these early days of .nyc’s development. Before offering our suggestions on an improved governance structure, we’d like to present some thoughts on the context in which .nyc exists. * Our City Charter was approved in 1987, before the Internet as we know it existed. It provides little guidance for oversight of .nyc or other Net resources. * New York City is among the first to develop a city specific-TLD and is ploughing virgin pastures with no experience among other global cities to draw upon. * Experience and expertise for operating city TLDs is emerging on a daily basis here and in the 30 other global cities developing their own TLDs. * The Internet will become an increasingly vital part of our city’s social and economic health in the coming years. Internet access, training, and our domain names must be managed with utmost care. * This is the Internet, it’s 2015, and people – especially our younger population – expect oversight to be open, transparent, and accountable. * There is some resistance to the development of Internet resources such as TLDs being managed in the public interest. Issues With minimal experience to draw upon, the scope and scale of issues requiring oversight remains an unknown. User experiences will set the oversight agenda over the next few years, however, questions such as the following will certainly need attention. bottom-line * How much should it cost to buy a .nyc domain name? * Should prices be uniform for businesses, nonprofits, individuals, etc., or should there be a pricing structure that encourages not-for-profit activity in this area? * Is the .nyc TLD infrastructure worthy of investment? * Must the .nyc TLD be self sufficient? ownership rights * Should some of the 3,000 premium names (.news.nyc, hotels.nyc, pizza.nyc, etc) be set aside for distribution by a means other than a high bid auction? * Should the encouragement of innovative proposals be given preference in making premium domain name allocation decisions? * Which premium names should have public interest commitments attached to their development rights? * What are these public interest requirements? * Who sets and approves them? * What should be the compliance mechanisms? efficiency * Does the city stand behind its TLD? * Where does one go to make a complaint about a service or product sold by a site using a .nyc domain name? * Who assures that complaints are addressed? * What monitoring of user registration (nexus) and activation is in place and planned? * Should the requirements of INTRO. 683-2015 <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact…>, setting accessibility standards for city government operated websites, be required for all .nyc sites? the public commons * How are civicly important domain names to be identified? * What usage level constitutes effective use of a civicly important domain name? * How can the city promote effective use of civicly important domain names? * What process should be followed to reclaim impotent civicly important domain names? * Should the city invest in templates to facilitate developing websites for categories of domain names, for example, the dotNeighborhoods? policy * What are the linkages between the city’s universal broadband policy, education, the public access channels, and domain names? * How can mom and pop businesses be encouraged to utilize .nyc domain names (and the Internet)? * Should individual domain name registrants be able to keep their home addresses private through some type of proxy service? * What pricing, training, and allocation policies will facilitate the equitable distribution of .nyc domain names? education * What programs should be used to educate New Yorkers about the utility and structure of the .nyc TLD? * What awareness and training programs can encourage civil society to better utilize the web? * How can we encourage a culture that proudly presents and protects our city’s internet resources? optimization * Would effective privacy and security features entice more New Yorkers to use our city’s TLD? * Should we explore “digital city” relations with other TLD cities? * Should the city support a “green” policy that encourages .nyc websites to use power efficient systems? * Should access to .nyc sites be sped up by requiring that DNS servers be housed in the city? * What levels of transparency access should there be to DNS usage data? It’s worth reiterating that the .nyc domain was only activated in late 2014, and the range of issues a city TLD will face is only emerging. It’s reasonable to assume that the experiences of city dwellers here, and in 30 other cities just activating their TLDs, will help answer these questions and bring up others for resolution. But today there are no direct or dedicated channels for communicating with city government about our TLD. Today’s communications options are limited, with an email to the mayor or a council member being perhaps the most effective. Recommendations City-TLD governance is a complex process requiring a framework, operating model, and infrastructure to enable effective oversight and relationships between management and users. With 75,000 domain names sold and new websites being activated every day, we need engagement efforts and communication channels that facilitate sharing between residents and oversight entities. We need these here in the city and we need channels to share issues and best practices with the 30 other cities developing their TLDs. The experts on our city’s TLD are the 8,200,000 residents who are purchasing the domain names, making websites, and accessing them. It’s time we empower them to shape our city’s TLD. To do so City Hall should initiate short and long term governance efforts. *Long Term *– Looking back to 2001 and the Internet Empowerment Resolution that first called for our city to acquire .nyc, Queens Community Board 3’s recommendation was that the Commission on Public information and Communication <http://datanyc.org/nycgov/commission-on-public-information-and-communicatio…> (COPIC) be .nyc’s oversight entity. That still sounds like a reasonable approach. But COPIC needs funding, staffing, and a legislative fix. The Public Advocate, Trish James, has applied for funding, and staffing will follow. The legislative fix should create a more comprehensive purview of the digital city, taking into account the need for universal access, processes and programs to facilitate the Internet’s effective use, the role (cable’s) public access channels should play in the Internet world, as well as the oversight of domain names. Additional public members should be placed on COPIC, selected by individual owners of .nyc domain names. The digital revolution’s impact on all aspect of city government’s operation should be reflected in .nyc’s planning and development. With the similarities of domain names to real estate, we see value in the City Planning Commission participating in COPIC reviews. Lessons from its ULURP and other public participation processes would aide in exploring appropriate uses for our city’s digital land. Additionally, CUNY and our other universities should have a say in the review processes. *Short Term* – The .NYC Community Advisory Board should be reconstituted. This interim body was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg and strengthened by Mayor de Blasio. But it’s charter ended last December 31 and nothing has emerged to replacement it. * The .nyc Advisory Board had a knowledgeable and active core membership that should be reappointed. * It should be supported with staff and resources to facilitate broad public engagement. * The Board’s operation should be open and transparent with channels enabling contributions by the public, small businesses, and civil society. * Channels should be established with other TLD cities experiencing the same challenging birth to identify common issues and best practices. To a far greater degree than the global Internet, New York’s Internet is a tangible resource, with its impact seen and felt as we move through the city. Let’s assure that tools to enable our residents to effectively govern this new force are made available now and for the long term. In a future post we’ll take a look at the technology and relationships that enable the Internet’s global reach and see where and how the city might interact there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Seeking At-Large Members' Input on the CWG IANA 2nd Draft Proposal
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Dear At-Large Members, The 2nd Draft Proposal of the IANA Stewardship Transition Naming Related Functions is now seeking comments. Its public comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…> will close in 16 days (20 May 2015). You may read the 2nd Draft Proposal in two forms as follow: *Short form (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-… *Long form (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-… As the IANA Stewardship Transition is a critical issue that will greatly affect end users worldwide, the ALAC will submit a Statement on the 2nd Draft Proposal. As we are at the stage of identifying issues which the ALAC should comment about, we want to hear from our individual ALSes and unaffiliated members across the five RALOs to gather input internally. To provide your input, please use the template in the Word document or the PDF document attached. This template provides you the opportunities to write down general input on the proposal, as well as specific input per section. Please also note that there is no obligation to provide input on all sections. After completion, please save the document and submit it as an attachment to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large staff will compile all the input for the ALAC Statement drafter(s) to consider. The deadline for submission is 13 May 2015 at 23:59 UTC. To help you better understand the 2nd Draft Proposal, the ALAC conducted a Webinar on the Topic. The slide deck plus and full recording and transcripts of the Webinar in French, Spanish and English can be found on https://community.icann.org/x/iConAw. Please don't hesitate to contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> if you have any questions. We are looking forward to receiving your input on the 2nd Draft Proposal! 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>

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 1 00:53:04 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7810 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7810 | Total

1 0

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

April 24, 2015

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 24 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 1 | 22.20% | 7943 | gisella.gruber at icann.org 20.00% | 1 | 22.12% | 7915 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 21.50% | 7693 | narten at us.ibm.com 20.00% | 1 | 18.50% | 6620 | siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 15.69% | 5615 | h.raiche at internode.on.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 35786 | Total

1 0

Apology noted - APRALO meetings
by Gisella Gruber April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Dear Sala, Thank you for your email - your apology has been noted. Kind regards, Gisella On 21/04/2015 06:07, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dear Siranush, > >Apologies that I cannot make the call due to a conflicting schedule. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >P.S If there is any pressing matter that requires the South Pacific >Computer Society's input, please advise so that we may prepare the >appropriate written submissions if/where relevant. > > >On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Siranush Vardanyan < >siranush_vardanyan(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Holly, >> We will switch to Thursday for May call. Thanks a lot. >> Best >> Siranush >> >> > From: h.raiche(a)internode.on.net >> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:35:30 +1000 >> > To: apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > CC: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > Subject: [At-Large] APRALO meetings >> > >> > Hi Everyone >> > >> > As I have already indicated, I cannot make today's call as I will be >> tied up teaching. I notice that the May call is also on a Tuesday - >>which >> I also cannot make. Could we please go back to Thursday calls - >> > >> > thanks >> > >> > Holly >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > >-- > >*Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* > >*P. O. Box 17862* > >*Suva* > > >*Republic of Fiji* > >*Cell: +679 7656770; +679 8024129; +6797144838* > >*Home: +679 3362003* >*Twitter: @SalanietaT* > > > > >*"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the >greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* >_______________________________________________ >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

APRALO meetings
by Holly Raiche April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Hi Everyone As I have already indicated, I cannot make today’s call as I will be tied up teaching. I notice that the May call is also on a Tuesday - which I also cannot make. Could we please go back to Thursday calls - thanks Holly

3 2

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

April 17, 2015

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 17 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 40.00% | 2 | 32.62% | 12328 | toml at communisphere.com 20.00% | 1 | 25.05% | 9469 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 21.97% | 8305 | devtee at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 20.35% | 7691 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 37793 | Total

1 0

Question about Specification 11
by Thomas Lowenhaupt April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Fellow At-Large Members, Concerning Public Interest Commitments for the .nyc TLD, SPECIFICATION 11, 3., c. <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/nyc/nyc-agmt-html-23jan14-en…>of the ICANN agreement says: c.Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies. Can someone refer me to an explanation about this. For example, the phrases "transparent manner," "general principles of openness," "non-discrimination," and "clear registration policies" are unclear. Are there definitions? Have there been challenges to Spec. 11 that might shed light? Best, Tom Lowenhaupt Connecting.nyc Inc.

2 2

Off-topic: Call for proposals: 10th GigaNet Annual Symposium
by Fatima Cambronero April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

*10th GigaNet Annual Symposium* 9 November 2015 João Pessoa, Brazil *Call for proposals* Extended abstract submission deadline: 15 April 2015 Full papers due: 15 September 2015 On Monday, 9 November 2015, the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) will hold its 10th annual symposium in João Pessoa, Brazil. As in the past nine years the event will take place one day before and in the same location as the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF). GigaNet is an international association of academic researchers with a focus on the multidisciplinary field of Internet Governance. It was founded in 2006 and is open to researchers from all over the world who are contributing to local, regional and international debates on Internet Governance. More information on GigaNet's institutional structures and activities can be found on the website http://www.giga-net.org. For its 2015 annual symposium GigaNet is now receiving proposals for papers to be presented during the event in João Pessoa. The scope of the contributions is not limited to any field of study or topic as long as it is relevant for global Internet Governance. Therefore, authors are invited to submit abstracts on a broad spectrum of Internet Governance topics that include, but are not restricted to: · Changes in the Internet Governance ecosystem · Internet Governance 10 years after the WSIS · Analyzing, critiquing or supporting multistakeholder governance as an ideology or practice · The governance and legal implications of decentralized systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum · Sustainable development as it relates to global Internet Governance · Technical, legal and policy initiatives for cybersecurity and their impact on global Internet Governance Submission requirements Abstracts should consist of 800-1000 words and describe the main research goals and the methodological background of the paper. Proposals can be submitted in English, Portuguese or Spanish language. Applicants should also hand in a one page cv or submit a link to an online cv including academic background, institutional affiliation and a list of relevant publications. GigaNet encourages young and emerging scholars to submit their proposals. All documents must be uploaded until 15 April 2015 to: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2015 Selection Process and Participation GigaNet will select abstracts and inform the authors until mid-May 2015. Final papers can be written and presented in English, Portuguese or Spanish and need to be handed in by 15 September 2015. Selected authors who do not submit their complete papers until this date will be removed from the program. Participation in the GigaNet symposium is free of charge. Timetable 15 April 2015: deadline for submission of proposals and cv 15 May 2015: GigaNet informs selected authors by email 15 September 2015: deadline for submission of complete papers 09 November 2015: GigaNet symposium in João Pessoa, Brazil Contact Further details on the event can be found on GigaNet's website: http://giga-net.org/page/symposiums-1 Queries can be send to the Program Committee Chair: giganet2015(a)easychair.org -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero

1 0