- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Comments on George Sadowski's presentation to the ALAC and At Large
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 19, 2013

Nov. 19, 2013

Dear All, Cintra- please forward this to the NCUC and NPOC as well. I would like to correct some assertions that was made this morning when George addressed the floor and also something Tijani raised. I will first say that I am merely pointing to statements that were made and this is not an attack against both their persons as they are both colleagues and I value and respect them each but disagree. Firstly, there are ten years or more of proven cooperation on the ground in terms of development of ICT and internet proliferation whether on issues of access, technical policy development etc. By the way, Sally Costerton was a panelist. I am forwarding the Report and also links to the video that shows intense engagement and cooperation by civil society, private sector, and public sector etc. Nnenna gave examples from Africa and so did Adiel (head of Afrinic). For the record, there is extensive cooperation on national, regional and international fronts on development of ICT and internet proliferation. It is completely bad faith and strategy to try to silence voices that disagree with ICANNers when we should be engaging with them and sharing success stories. I was disappointed. There are a lot of civil society who engage on the ground with technical communities and we should not let the voice of a few who may not necessarily agree with our perspectives. As someone who is outgoing on the ALAC and was expressly told by Olivier (ALAC Chair) when I first joined that At Large is NOT civil society, and met resistance from both within the IGC and some in At Large for being on both, I cam safely say that the strategy and manner in which the discussions were headed were completely bad faith and contrary to what Fadi Chehadi spoke to us as civil society in Bali. We should not be afraid of diverse voices but rather ENGAGE! What are wes o afraid of???? Sally, the strategy of #OCCUPY civil society is bizarre and would like clarification as to which department this came from. From my personal interactions with you and your people, I refuse to believe that this strategy came from you. Kind Regards, Sala

2 2

Invitation to attend the AFRALO/AfrICANN joint meeting, tomorrow Wednesday November 20
by Fatimata Seye Sylla Nov. 19, 2013

Nov. 19, 2013

Hello All, You are kindly invited to come and participate to the AFRALO/AfrICANN joint meeting, in face-to-face or in remote participation if you are not in Buenos Aires, on the ICANN meetings strategy. Date: Wednesday, November 20 Time 14;00-15;30, Argentina Time (UTC - 3) Venue: Golden Horn room Remote participation : https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze48-goldenhorn Please attend to make your voice heard on this important issue for the participation of AFRICA in the policy development process for the technical governance of the internet. In attachment the draft statement to be discussed. Thank you and looking forward to your participation tomorrow. Best regards, -- Fatimata Seye Sylla ICT4D, Education & Genre Presidente d'AFRALO

1 0

ICANN 48 About to Commence
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 17, 2013

Nov. 17, 2013

Dear All, Warm Greetings from Buenos Aires! We have converged in Argentina for the ICANN 48 which marks some interesting transitions in the growth and development of policies, cross-constituency collaboration and sharing of Studies on critical policy areas. The meetings will be incomplete without participation of communities who may not necessarily be here in person. The good news is that there is Remote Participation available unless the meetings are marked as closed. For those who have issues in low bandwidth, there are streaming options and capabilities designed to bring the meetings to the comfort of your offices, homes and organisations. In a few hours, which is Sunday here, we will be having preparatory meetings before the ICANN 48 meeting officially opens on Monday. There are some constituencies that have already been meeting early this week, coupled with the ICANN Academy Training for selected leaders of cross constituencies. Simultaneously, the Latin American DNS Forum was convened this week in the lead up to the ICANN 48. To access the full meeting schedule, kindly visit: http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule-full Things To Watch Out For *For ccTLD Managers and Interested Parties The ccNSO meetings which will be held at the Aguila room tomorrow are closed to working group members only. *For those interested in Internet Cooperation in the Asia Pacific There is a meeting at Retiro C where stakeholders from Asia Pacific will give feedback on the Engagement Strategy for the region. For those of you who may not be able to stay up, please feel free to send in your thoughts so that we can collate it. Kindly send them directly to Save or respond to this email. Time: 8:00am-9:00am Argentina time which is UTC-3. *ALAC and Regional Leaders Meeting This will be held at the Golden Horn from 9:00am to 6:30pm Argentina Remote streaming is available via http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-alac-regional Translation will be provided in French, English, Spanish and Portugese *GAC sessions This is relevant for governments, policy makers, regulators, law enforcement etc. It will be held in the San Telmo room and remote participation is available for all the sessions throughout the day. *GNSO Session The in-person meetings held in conjunction with the ICANN meetings provide an opportunity for productive and constructive discussions on issues that involve ICANN consensus policies that relate to interoperability, technical reliability and/or stable operation of the Internet or domain name system. This will held at the Retiro B and remote streaming is available. For information on work that the GNSO is involved with, kindly visit: http://gnso.icann.org/en/ Hope to see you online or in the virtual rooms. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 15, 2013

Nov. 15, 2013

Total of 24 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 15 07:05:33 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 6 | 79.93% | 1372423 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 12.50% | 3 | 2.77% | 47503 | cdel at firsthand.net 12.50% | 3 | 1.88% | 32229 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 12.50% | 3 | 1.56% | 26704 | joly at punkcast.com 4.17% | 1 | 8.87% | 152329 | rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com 8.33% | 2 | 0.80% | 13787 | karl at cavebear.com 4.17% | 1 | 1.03% | 17606 | vanda at uol.com.br 4.17% | 1 | 0.94% | 16180 | h.raiche at internode.on.net 4.17% | 1 | 0.83% | 14294 | ocl at gih.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.53% | 9089 | evan at telly.org 4.17% | 1 | 0.44% | 7557 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.43% | 7335 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 24 |100.00% | 1717036 | Total

1 0

VIDEO : Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?
by Joly MacFie Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

This event has spawned ongoing conversations on multiple mailing lists. This is our updated archive, which includes YouTube, plus downloadable video and audio. If you are yet to view I recommend at least you take in Eli Noam's opening remarks on the theme "Internet, go disrupt yourself!" Anyone who pitches in on the AMARA transcription effort is a star. joly posted: "On Tuesday November 12 2013 at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) hosted an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?” The conference asked t" [image: CITI]On Tuesday November 12 2013 at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information <https://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi> (CITI) hosted an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “*Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?*”<https://citicolumbia.webex.com/citicolumbia/j.php?ED=266817567&UID=50436209…>The conference asked the question "Are there models of internet governance that establish internet independence from the US without the UN or other governments expanding their influence or control? What are their advantages and disadvantages?” Speakers included:*Eli Noam*, Director, CITI; *John Curran*, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN); *Alejandro Pisanty*, Director of Computing Academic Services, National Autonomous University of Mexico, ICANN Board Member; *Fred Goldstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior Member of the IEEE; *Milton Mueller*, Professor, Syracuse University; *Lorenzo Pupillo*, Economist, Telecom Italia; *Fred Golstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior member of the IEEE; and *Robert Atkinson* of CITI. Moderator was *Dave Burstein* of ISOC-NY. The conference was relayed via the Internet Society Chapters Webcast Channel<http://bit.ly/isoctv>and is archived below. *View on YouTube*: http://youtu.be/ve9bTQvGmH8 *Transcribe on AMARA*: http://www.amara.org/en/videos/p04RmtFRgkPm/ *Download*: video <http://isoc-ny.org/misc/citi_third_way.mp4> | audio<http://isoc-ny.org/misc/citi_third_way.mp3> *Twitter*: none but, say, #thirdway<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23thirdway&f=realtime> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

Dear all, please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira(a)icann.org> Dear Olivier and Evan, In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to privacy and intellectual property. As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 jun13-en.pdf. The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" where not all applicable rights were enumerated. Best, Samantha -- Samantha Eisner Senior Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 samantha.eisner(a)icann.org On 9/25/13 6:33 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN > >Dear Fadi, > >I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my >colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban: > >Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87: > >EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the >ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of >conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. >Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he >said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. >Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and >replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and >"responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing >way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and >responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then >there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. >The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can >someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by >the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, >there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it >crept into the RAA. > >STEVE CROCKER: Management response here? > >FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to >find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the >distinction between the two. That's all I can say. > >--- end of transcript --- > >The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September >monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a >particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore >writing to you to ask for this clarification. > >It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several >copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section >9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68. > >Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant >Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in >the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during >the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' >Rights and a Registrants' Benefits. > >But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on >that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" >and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of >Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a >list of Registrants' Rights. > >Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an >educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation >Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this >Agreement, located at: >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.h >tm)." > >On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and >Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or >provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities >Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent >with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." > >and: > >"3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a >link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification >attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the >corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." > >So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like >my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are >entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note >that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the >distinction between the two. > >Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title >of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" >when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed? > >Warmest regards, > >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >ALAC Chair

5 6

Fwd: [pacnog] Training Opportunity on Open Spectrum and Applications of White Spaces Technologies
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 12, 2013

Nov. 12, 2013

Dear All, If there are ALSes that may be interested in participating in this training, see email below. The Training is in Italy. I am also copying Wolf Ludwig in in case there may be interest from EURALO. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Steven G. Huter <sghuter(a)nsrc.org> Date: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:23 AM Subject: [pacnog] Training Opportunity on Open Spectrum and Applications of White Spaces Technologies To: afnog(a)afnog.org, sanog(a)sanog.org, pacnog(a)pacnog.org, lacnog(a)lacnic.net, Marco Zennaro <mzennaro(a)ictp.it>, Ermanno Pietrosemoli <ermanno(a)gmail.com> Hello everyone The International Centre for Theoretical for Physics (ICTP), in collaboration with the International Telecommunication Union, the Network Startup Resource Center (NSRC) and the National Institute of Telecommunications (NIT, Poland), is organising a training course on Open Spectrum and Applications of White Spaces Technologies to be held in Trieste, Italy from 3 to 14 March 2014. Attached is a poster with more information about the TVWS course and how to apply. Application deadline is December 1. As there are some people on this list who might be interested, or know people in their countries who might be interested, please feel free to distribute this info. Steven Huter Network Startup Resource Center (NSRC) http://nsrc.org/

3 2

E-conference Tuesday: Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence? #governance
by Joly MacFie Nov. 11, 2013

Nov. 11, 2013

As At-Large participants are likely aware Internet Governance is going through somewhat of an existential crisis, following the WCIT in Dubai last year, compounded by circumstances that are now universally referred to as "recent events", leading up to the Montevideo statement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Statement_on_the_Future_of_Interne…>, and the announcement of a summit to be held in Brazil next year. Much discussion has taken place over the last two weeks at the IGF in Bali, and the IETF in Vancouver, much of it dedicated to finding workable solutions that will maintain the independence and integrity of the global open Internet. This e-conference promises to markedly further that discussion. Note that it will be relayed on the ISOC Chapters livestream channel. joly posted: "On November 12th at 12:00pm EST Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?” The conference asks the question "" [image: CITI]On Tuesday November 12th at 12:00pm EST the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information <https://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi> (CITI) will host an e-conference on Internet Governance titled: “*Is There A Third Way For The Internet: Neither The US Nor The UN But Independence?*”<https://citicolumbia.webex.com/citicolumbia/j.php?ED=266817567&UID=50436209…>The conference asks the question "Are there models of internet governance that establish internet independence from the US without the UN or other governments expanding their influence or control? What are their advantages and disadvantages?” Speakers include:*Eli Noam*, Director, CITI; *John Curran*, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN); *Alejandro Pisanty*, Director of Computing Academic Services, National Autonomous University of Mexico, ICANN Board Member; *Harold Feld*, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge; *Fred Goldstein*, Interisle Consulting Group, Senior Member of the IEEE; *Milton Mueller*, Professor, Syracuse University; and *Raul Katz*, Director of Business Strategy Research, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information. The conference will be on webex, but will also be relayed via the Internet Society Chapters Webcast Channel<http://bit.ly/isoctv> . *What*: CITI e-conference: Is There A Third Way For The Internet?<https://citicolumbia.webex.com/citicolumbia/j.php?ED=266817567&UID=50436209…> *Where*: Webex<https://citicolumbia.webex.com/citicolumbia/j.php?ED=266817567&UID=50436209…> - (Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3207 Access code:731 150 813) *When*: Tuesday November 12th at Noon-2pm EST | 1700-1900 UTC *Webcast*: http://livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Twitter*: none but, say, #thirdway<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23thirdway&f=realtime> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6092 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

New Procedure for the DNS Root Zone Affecting Linguistic Diversity at the Top Level
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 11, 2013

Nov. 11, 2013

Dear Colleagues, At the recent Internet Governance Forum in Bali, a workshop was held to share information and discuss implications of a new procedure that will affect the DNS root zone and allow the delegation of IDN variants at the top level. Variants are considered important for many languages used by the global population. Attached is the full report and I paste below the summary of the issues discussed for your information. Best regards, Rinalia ----- Note: · The process of implementing the procedure is currently underway with the most immediate need being the establishment of Generation Panels for 17 scripts that have IDN TLDs requested under two TLD programs - the country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) Fast Track program and the New generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) program. Prioritization of the 17 scripts does not exclude other script communities from moving forward to form Generation Panels. The 17 scripts that have IDN TLDs requested are: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek, Gujerati and Gurmukhi, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu and Thai. A significant proportion of the scripts are Asian language scripts. *Main Issues Raised * *Spillover benefits of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) development * · The development of the Root Zone LGR, though focused on the top level of the Root system, has applicability at the second and third levels in terms of guidance for dealing with variants. · The ICANN rights protection mechanism for trademark owners in the new gTLD program is currently not addressing variants in an integrated way due to the legacy mentality of only thinking in terms of Latin script and ASCII for solutions. · The Root Zone LGR is expected to guide ICANN’s implementation of key TLD initiatives involving variants in the future. *The complexity of variant management * · Variants are complex and what is defined as variants tends to differ from language to language. · Visual similarity is a major concern that is shared across languages and scripts. Complex scripts with characters that change shapes depending on adjoining characters require a rendering engine at the Operating System and browser level for accurate visual representation. · Challenges in grappling with variants include achieving consistency across and within TLDs, dealing with the innumerability of variants, having the right tools to deal with the technical challenges of managing IDNs and ensuring that IDNs are usable in applications used by users. · Variant management at the Registry level requires deciding whether variants should resolve or point to the same IP address. There is no one size fits all solution. The decision is dependent on three variables: locale, registry and user community. Variations may be needed across registries to achieve consistency of variants. · Language communities have recommended to ICANN that variants should be allocated to the same TLD applicants and not to different applicants to avoid confusion and ensure consistency of user experience. *The challenge of universal acceptance of IDNs* · With the implementation of the Root Zone LGR procedure, the most important concern for the user community is the universal acceptance of IDNs and IDN variants. Software intended for end users such as web browsers, email clients and operating system needs to support IDN and IDN variants to ensure a positive user experience. · The introduction of IDN TLD and IDN Variant TLD to Internet users will realistically not be smooth and is likely to encounter some barriers and difficulties. Historically it has been extremely challenging to ensure universal acceptance - some of the labels introduced with the new TLD expansion in 2001 still do not work consistently everywhere. There are various points of potential failures in enabling universal acceptance. The problem lies not with the DNS, but with applications. · ICANN has highlighted the issues of universal acceptance in its Report on “Examining the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs” ( http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/active-ux-21mar13-en.pdf ). The Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Names Working Group (JIG) at ICANN believes that industry-wide collaboration involving the technical and user communities is essential to address the problem of universal acceptance effectively. · Concrete policy recommendations to address the problem of universal acceptance include: (1) Discourage systems that do not accommodate IDN and IDN Variants; (2) Develop ways of identifying what is a legitimate IDN TLD label; (3) Encourage IDN TLD Operators and Accredited Registrars to ensure that they support universal acceptance of IDN TLDs in their own systems; (4) Advocate for universal acceptance, raise awareness and provide reference/learning materials. *Language community engagement and mobilization issues* · The Root Zone LGR procedure puts in place an open process that is welcoming and embracing of all languages that have been encoded in Unicode. Engagement in the process requires that language communities be aware of the initiative, be interested to engage and be ready to mobilize their respective communities to fulfill the requirements for forming Generation Panels. · The Arabic, Brahmi/Devanagari and Han script communities are already mobilizing to form Generation Panels. They comprise large language communities that are prepared for engagement because of their previous engagements with ICANN via case studies that led to the development of the Root Zone LGR procedure. Securing the involvement of smaller language communities that have not engaged with ICANN before is a challenge without dedicated or targeted outreach, which is essential to nurture interest and support readiness. · The disadvantage to late entrants or language communities that are not able to engage can potentially be addressed by the Integration Panel, which can produce Label Generation Rules for certain languages without waiting for proposals from Generation Panels, provided that the languages are in active use and are encoded in Unicode. · The Chinese language community experience in making the first proposal for IDN Variant management in 2000 offers the following principles to guide the implementation of the Root Zone LGR procedure: (1) Adopt an open language community concept (i.e., if you speak the language, you are part of the language community irrespective of territorial/country jurisdiction); (2) Adopt a bottom up and consensus-based decision-making and dispute resolution model for the language communities; (3) Ensure that permissible code points are those that are acceptable to the user community. *Importance of the ICANN Public Comments for the Root Zone LGR procedure* · The Root Zone LGR procedure specifies the ICANN Public Comments as the only governance oversight and appeals mechanism for the decisions of the Integration Panel. Generation Panels will essentially engage in a public negotiation process with the Integration Panel through the Public Comments process. The openness of the process allows for input from other stakeholders/interested parties for the Integration Panel’s consideration. · Via the Public Comments process, the Integration Panel is required to defend its decisions in an open and transparent way and in a sufficiently rigorous manner (i.e., provide defensible rationale for its decisions against high standards of scrutiny/challenge). Should the Integration Panel fail in this respect, ICANN is empowered to act to have the Panel replaced. · The Public Comments process still has certain weaknesses such as impediments to the effective participation/input of relevant stakeholders in a timely manner. The ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 is currently addressing issues related to improvements of the Public Comments process. END

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] RE : Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum
by cdel.firsthand.net Nov. 10, 2013

Nov. 10, 2013

Many users do self manage today. As far as the policy allows. They'd take it further. But Policy does not serve that benefit but instead embeds dependency. You don't have to get rid of all registrars to cease to assume they should always be in the middle. Christian de Larrinaga > On 10 Nov 2013, at 14:23, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs(a)dyalog.net> wrote: > > Well... > I wish you good luck. > JJ. > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "cdel.firsthand.net" <cdel(a)firsthand.net> > À: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: "jjs" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Envoyé: Dimanche 10 Novembre 2013 13:15:14 > Objet: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] RE : Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum > > Why not get rid of registrars and get back to simplicity of network users directly in control over their own domains? > > > > > Christian de Larrinaga > > >> On 10 Nov 2013, at 10:43, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> >> Jean-Jacques >> >> You are far more polite and diplomatic than I felt at first reading. >> >> My version -The statement is a simple restatement in plain English of what the registrars must do anyway, so the use of the term 'benefits' is misleading; it is a statement of what registrars MUST do and can be compelled to do.. >> >> If it is more, then what is the process for making it more - i.e., what is the process for turning what is now merely a restatement of RAA obligations on registrars to a statement of what should be happening. It is only when the document goes beyond what the RAA requires that the term 'benefits' can be justified. Right now - it is only 'rights'. I look forward to a process that makes the statement more than that. >> >> Holly >>> On 10/11/2013, at 7:54 PM, jjs wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Olivier. >>> >>> Samantha's account is honest and comprehensible. >>> >>> But from the user perspective, >>> >>> - the whole exercise is considered a "negotiation". Why? Because successive Boards have accepted the premise that ICANN is in no way a regulatory body, in spite of the fact that it does have some regulatory powers. This attutude can also be seen in the growing distance between a mantra recited by part of the community ("ours is a very limited, purely technical remit") and ICANN's Vision statement (into which the public interest finally made its way). >>> >>> - "Negotiation" is also used to underline the MSM nature of the corporation. But we should tease out the fact that imposing rules in the global public interest does not contradict MSM, it simply carries it out at a higher level. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> -------- Message d'origine -------- >>> De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >>> Date : 10/11/2013 11:15 (GMT+02:00) >>> A : ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Cc : At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Objet : [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan >>> had asked at the public forum in Durban. >>> The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant >>> Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >>> ALAC Chair >>> >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum >>> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 >>> From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> >>> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>> <ocl(a)gih.com> >>> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey >>> <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, ICANN >>> At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira >>> <cassia.oliveira(a)icann.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Olivier and Evan, >>> >>> In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA >>> negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community >>> had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly >>> referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to >>> serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed >>> that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly >>> found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this >>> topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the >>> "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader >>> scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to >>> privacy and intellectual property. >>> >>> As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version >>> of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, >>> there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as >>> alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant >>> Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was >>> not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and >>> responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it >>> is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and >>> responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to >>> consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the >>> suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period >>> incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to >>> discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To >>> help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering >>> clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." >>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 >>> jun13-en.pdf. >>> >>> The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars >>> Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose >>> of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of >>> registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of >>> the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key >>> contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the >>> positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, >>> such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we >>> were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on >>> removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" >>> where not all applicable rights were enumerated. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Samantha >>> >>> -- >>> Samantha Eisner >>> Senior Counsel, ICANN >>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>> Los Angeles, California 90094 >>> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 >>> samantha.eisner(a)icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9/25/13 6:33 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN >>>> >>>> Dear Fadi, >>>> >>>> I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my >>>> colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban: >>>> >>>> Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87: >>>> >>>> EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the >>>> ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of >>>> conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. >>>> Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he >>>> said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. >>>> Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and >>>> replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and >>>> "responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing >>>> way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and >>>> responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then >>>> there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. >>>> The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can >>>> someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by >>>> the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, >>>> there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it >>>> crept into the RAA. >>>> >>>> STEVE CROCKER: Management response here? >>>> >>>> FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to >>>> find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the >>>> distinction between the two. That's all I can say. >>>> >>>> --- end of transcript --- >>>> >>>> The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September >>>> monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a >>>> particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore >>>> writing to you to ask for this clarification. >>>> >>>> It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several >>>> copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section >>>> 9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68. >>>> >>>> Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant >>>> Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in >>>> the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during >>>> the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' >>>> Rights and a Registrants' Benefits. >>>> >>>> But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on >>>> that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" >>>> and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of >>>> Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a >>>> list of Registrants' Rights. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an >>>> educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation >>>> Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this >>>> Agreement, located at: >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en..h >>>> tm)." >>>> >>>> On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and >>>> Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or >>>> provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities >>>> Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent >>>> with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." >>>> >>>> and: >>>> >>>> "3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a >>>> link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification >>>> attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the >>>> corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." >>>> >>>> So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like >>>> my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are >>>> entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note >>>> that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the >>>> distinction between the two. >>>> >>>> Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title >>>> of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" >>>> when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed? >>>> >>>> Warmest regards, >>>> >>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >>>> ALAC Chair >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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