- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Nov. 10, 2013

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…

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC-Internal] US loses its vote in UNESCO
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 9, 2013

Nov. 9, 2013

Dear Jean-Jacques, I am glad to be of service. Personally I feel that the Surveillance Debate that happened in the European Parliament over the study is different. The Hearing was mainly to look at whether the countries mentioned had violated EU law and relevant instruments and to see whether the study and its recommendations were of any value. The context of the Press Release by the US State Department shows that US cannot vote in the UNESCO. Their not being able to vote unfortunately was due to statutory restrictions which they are attempting to fix. At this critical juncture in Internet Governance, UNESCO plays a critical role in Internet Governance amongst other things. The loss of the vote is unfortunate and it would mean that when it comes to voting on critical matters, the US will have to rely on its allies. In this instance with the recent revelations on surveillance we are watching a change from the usual BRIC v US on the issue of surveillance to other traditional alliances such as France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands etc who are not happy with the "surveillance". Last time I checked 87 countries signed the Seoul Framework on Cyber Security. When Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel who made open calls for Europe to re-examine its cooperation with US Intelligence signals a breach of trust. The fact that Angela Merkel has been touted the de facto leader of the European Union with Germany shouldering and providing the much needed stability to ease the stress on financially economies in Europe coupled with her being former President of the European Council and Chair of G8 places her in a very key position of power and influence in this time. Dev shared a piece of news on skype that Europe was considering building a pan-European equivalent of the NSA. (war begets war -what a messed up world!) This of course does not discount the G90 who met in Fiji recently. The chair is from Fiji, I think unless it has lapsed. Given the current deals across the tables between the EU and G90 who knows what the tradeoffs would be for certain decisions. We are in significant times and I doubt much will happen as there are too many other pressing matters that countries have to prioritise such as Super Typhoon which devastated Philippinnes and Palau. Not to mention the global food, water, energy crisis that is causing the price of bread to rise and shortage in Eastern Europe, Middle East. But I still think that it is a significant piece of news that affects the current chess pieces on the board. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs(a)dyalog.net>wrote: > Dear Salanieta, > thank you for forwarding this. > Well, every country has its own priorities. From the point of view of the > surveillance agencies in the country you mentioned, and in the UK, making > the "war against terror" as the lodestone of public policy is probably a > smart choice, as their budgets have increased by orders of magnitude. > Viewed in this specialized light, culture, rights and education must seem > like things for sissies. The initiative taken by Viviane Reding, > vice-president of the European Commission, which you pointed out a few days > ago, shows that the priorities of the EU are somewhat different from those > which led to the US losing its voting rights in UNESCO. > JJ. > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > À: "apralo" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" < > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Internal List" < > alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Envoyé: Samedi 9 Novembre 2013 12:13:42 > Objet: [ALAC-Internal] US loses its vote in UNESCO > > Dear All, > > The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. For details see the Press Statement > released by the US Government today: > > Dear All, > > The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. See the Statement released by the US > Gov: > > U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement on the Loss of U.S. Vote at > UNESCO <http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/217394.htm> > 11/08/2013 08:54 PM EST > > ------------------------------ > > AS DELIVERED > > Today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, > Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a > result of legislative restrictions that prohibit the U.S. from paying its > dues. While these restrictions are motivated by concerns that we share, > the loss of the United States' vote in UNESCO diminishes our influence > within an organization that is looked to around the world for leadership on > issues of importance to our country, including the rights of women and > girls, Internet governance, freedom of the press, and the recognition and > protection of cultural heritage. The Obama Administration has called upon > Congress to approve legislative changes that would allow needed flexibility > in the application of these statutory restrictions. > > U.S. leadership in UNESCO matters. As such, the United States will remain > engaged with the organization in every possible capacity, including > attending meetings, participating in debates, and maintaining our seat as > an elected member of the Executive Board until 2015. > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal > > ALAC Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 1

US loses its vote in UNESCO
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 9, 2013

Nov. 9, 2013

Dear All, The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. For details see the Press Statement released by the US Government today: Dear All, The US just lost its vote in UNESCO. See the Statement released by the US Gov: U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement on the Loss of U.S. Vote at UNESCO <http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/217394.htm> 11/08/2013 08:54 PM EST ------------------------------ AS DELIVERED Today the United States lost its vote in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference as a result of legislative restrictions that prohibit the U.S. from paying its dues. While these restrictions are motivated by concerns that we share, the loss of the United States' vote in UNESCO diminishes our influence within an organization that is looked to around the world for leadership on issues of importance to our country, including the rights of women and girls, Internet governance, freedom of the press, and the recognition and protection of cultural heritage. The Obama Administration has called upon Congress to approve legislative changes that would allow needed flexibility in the application of these statutory restrictions. U.S. leadership in UNESCO matters. As such, the United States will remain engaged with the organization in every possible capacity, including attending meetings, participating in debates, and maintaining our seat as an elected member of the Executive Board until 2015.

1 0

Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society #Azerbaijan #Moldova #Turkey #US State Department
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 9, 2013

Nov. 9, 2013

Dear All, For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available through the US State Department, see below: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) November 8, 2013 ------------------------------ Department of State *Public Notice* *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey) *SUMMARY* The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access * *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or * *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in order to obtain a username and password to submit your application. For more information, please see DRL’s Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*. * *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES* DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the following issues: *Moldova* *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000 available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social, economic and political conditions. This program should focus on one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals which address more than one of the categories. *Civic Engagement* – Civic Engagement proposals should focus on developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance. Activities could include, but are not limited to: training minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making process; providing opportunities for participants to network with other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement, organizational management, or communication skills. *Social Inclusion* – Social Inclusion proposals should focus on minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication, tolerance, and understanding through components such as inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with the majority group in joint activities. *Education* – Education proposals should focus on improving educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms of educational opportunities and outcomes. *Turkey* *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to build the voice of civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase citizens’ awareness that they should be informed about and participate in the political process. The program should support civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions, the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and educate citizens on their right to participate in the political process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices, including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability. Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to educate their constituents and the general populace on fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms. Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens expectations for political participation. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political environment for civil society in Turkey and an established ability to work with diverse civil society groups. *Azerbaijan* *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000 available):* DRL’s objective is to strengthen the role of civil society in enhancing government accountability and respect for fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory democratic system of government. The program should also support the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to: technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan’s regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional independent civil society. *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY* Please refer directly to DRL’s posted Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm> . Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI). To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL Review Committee will review the first page of the requested section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages organizations to use the given space effectively. An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically ineligible.* Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in the solicitation and this document. *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov* <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.* Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S. Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review process has been completed. *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>. *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the organization or other sources, such as public-private partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health, technology, or science- related projects unless they have an explicit component related to the requested program objectives listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative. DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support, for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of government. The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements. This request for proposals will appear on *www.grantosolutions.gov*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>. *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION* Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM(a)State.gov* <SpitzerEM(a)State.gov>. Once the deadline has passed, State Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed. ------------------------------ Stay connected with the State Department:

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY: Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief #igf @isocdc
by Joly MacFie Nov. 8, 2013

Nov. 8, 2013

Another event from ISOC-DC - this one could be a great timesaver, as rather than plough through hours of IGF archives, wade through pages of email back and fro - this will provide a cohesive insight into what went down in Bali, and what it all means .. For those outside the US note that time may have changed from last week as our clocks were turned back last weekend. joly posted: "Today, Friday November 8 2013 at 9am EDT the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter will present a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief - at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than " [image: Bali and Beyond]Today, Friday November 8 2013 at 9am EDT the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter will present a forum - Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2013/11/bali-and-beyond-an-internet-governance-forum…>- at the Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC. Late last month, more than a thousand delegates from almost a hundred countries gathered for four days at the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss a wide range of issues related to the future of the Internet–from online privacy to management of domain names to NSA surveillance to human rights in cyberspace. Much of the discussion in Bali revolved around a proposal by ICANN and the Brazilian government to hold a high-level conference on Internet issues in Brazil in late April or early May. At today's event more than a dozen IGF participants will share their observations and experiences and participate in a public forum. It will be webcast live via the Internet Society Chapters Channel<http://bit.ly/isoctv> . *What*: Bali and Beyond: An Internet Governance Forum Debrief<http://www.isoc-dc.org/2013/11/bali-and-beyond-an-internet-governance-forum…> *Where*: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC *When*: Friday November 8 2013 at 9-10.30am EDT | 1400-1530 UTC *Agenda*: http://www.isoc-dc.org/2013/11/bali-and-beyond-an-internet-governance-forum… *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Twitter*: #isocdc <https://twitter.com/search?q=isocdc&f=realtime> | #igf<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23igf&f=realtime> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6075#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6075#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6075 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 8, 2013

Nov. 8, 2013

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 8 01:41:38 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 2 | 25.02% | 22021 | vanda at uol.com.br 20.00% | 2 | 21.22% | 18672 | ocl at gih.com 20.00% | 2 | 20.56% | 18091 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 9.28% | 8163 | julie.hammer at bigpond.com 10.00% | 1 | 8.76% | 7712 | dogwallah at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 8.05% | 7087 | narten at us.ibm.com 10.00% | 1 | 7.11% | 6255 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 10 |100.00% | 88001 | Total

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] REMINDER: Internet Governance Webinar - Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives - Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 7, 2013

Nov. 7, 2013

Hello all, just to let you know this is open to our whole community, not only SO/AC Leaders. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Soac-infoalert] REMINDER: Internet Governance Webinar - Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives - Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:44:24 -0800 From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> * REMINDER: Internet Governance Webinar - Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives - Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC* --------------- *The call details are as follows: * *Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann* *Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321* *Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac* * * First Session: Friday, 8 November at 12:00 UTC Second Session: Friday, 8 November at 19:00 UTC ------------------------ *Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives* Dear SOAC Leaders: Based on recent discussions within the broader community and your feedback over the past couple of weeks regarding the Montevideo statement, we think it would be most useful to have a community call before everyone departed for the ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss recent Internet governance developments -- specifically the Montevideo statement - and plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil next year. Fadi has had or is planning a few individual conversations with community groups, but we thought some broader community engagement opportunities with ICANN senior executives would also be helpful so that Fadi, Tarek and Theresa could: § Provide background and context of the recent I-Star discussions leading to the Montevideo statement; § Explain the Board/Staff partnership in this effort; § Explain what has been done to date and share perceptions of the recent IGF-Bali meeting; and § Highlight next steps/prep plans for Brazil next April. *As a result, we have arranged for two community webinars scheduled for next Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC so that the team can share its thoughts and field community questions and comments*. We are scheduling two separate sessions to cover the global geographic spread of the community and hope that you will be able to share information about the opportunity with your communities. Each session will be an hour long and any questions or comments that the team can't get to on the calls will be saved for further discussion in Buenos Aires. The call details are as follows: Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321; Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac To help the team prepare for the sessions, please feel free to share any pre-session questions that you have with me. I will pass them on to the ICANN Strategy Team in preparation for the sessions. Best regards, David -- David A. Olive *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters --Istanbul* * * *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) * *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5* *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey * * * *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611*

1 0

Thick WHOIS WG Recommendations published for public comments
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 7, 2013

Nov. 7, 2013

The Thick WHOIS WG has published its report which was recently adopted by full consensus of the GNSO. It has been passed to the Board and is now open for public comment. Go here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06n… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [APAC-Discuss] Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 7, 2013

Nov. 7, 2013

Dear All, These are my questions for Fadi, Theresa et al. 1)The meeting that ICANN had with Brazil was designed to discuss the Summit in Rio, in the CEO's mind when he was talking about the Internationalisation of ICANN did he mean: a) change of oversight from the US, via IANA, DoC to one under a global framework (treaty or otherwise - of more pluralism in architecture); or b)the continued diversification of its offices throughout the globe to enable access to communities such as the hubs off shore coupled with increasing participation from global communities through existing ICANN structures such as increasing stakeholder participation through aggressive outreach etc; or c)something else 2)Will there be greater diversity and inclusion within SSAC? At the moment, the SSAC decides who it lets into its fold. The SSAC had recently criticised the Risk Management Framework suggesting the use of ISO instead of a standard by the NIST. In light of deliberate compromised vulnerabilities introduced coloring the perception of NIST*, and despite appearances of internationalization at the core of structure, there remains concerns that the SSAC is inevitably part of US National Cyber Security Strategic Frameworks and there is conflict between ICANN's role as a global steward versus its traditional legal obligations. P.S This was why I voted against the ALAC Statement supporting calls for implementation of NIST standard instead of the ISO standard. * See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist (Hoping that this will get discussed in the IETF88) Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org> > Date: November 7, 2013 at 8:26:27 AM GMT+13 > To: ALAC Announce <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, AFRALO M <afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA-Discuss NARALO <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, EURALO m <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, LACRALO <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, APRALO m <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Subject: [APAC-Discuss] Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives > > The call details are as follows: > > > Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann > Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321 > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac > > > ------------------------ > Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives > > Dear SOAC Leaders; > > Based on recent discussions within the broader community and your feedback over the past couple of weeks regarding the Montevideo statement, we think it would be most useful to have a community call before everyone departed for the ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss recent Internet governance developments – specifically the Montevideo statement - and plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil next year. > > Fadi has had or is planning a few individual conversations with community groups, but we thought some broader community engagement opportunities with ICANN senior executives would also be helpful so that Fadi, Tarek and Theresa could: > > > § Provide background and context of the recent I-Star discussions leading to the Montevideo statement; > > § Explain the Board/Staff partnership in this effort; > > § Explain what has been done to date and share perceptions of the recent IGF-Bali meeting; and > > § Highlight next steps/prep plans for Brazil next April. > > As a result, we have arranged for two community webinars scheduled for next Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC so that the team can share its thoughts and field community questions and comments. We are scheduling two separate sessions to cover the global geographic spread of the community and hope that you will be able to share information about the opportunity with your communities. > > Each session will be an hour long and any questions or comments that the team can’t get to on the calls will be saved for further discussion in Buenos Aires. > > The call details are as follows: > > > Adigo Call Numbers : http://adigo.com/icann > Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321; > > Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac > > To help the team prepare for the sessions, please feel free to share any pre-session questions that you have with me. I will pass them on to the ICANN Strategy Team in preparation for the sessions. > > Best regards, > > David > -- > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5 > 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey > > Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

4 3

European Parliament Hearing on Surveillance #EU
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 7, 2013

Nov. 7, 2013

Dear All, The European Parliament will be holding a Surveillance Hearing where it will be considering a Study: National Programmes for Mass Surveillance of Personal Data in EU Member states and their compatibility with EU law. This follows Snowden's revelations which looks specifically at EU members namely UK, Sweden, France, Germany and Netherlands. To see the Study, visit: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/studiesdownload.html?langu… To watch the Hearing tomorrow, visit: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/video?event=20131107-09… Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad

1 0