- At-Large - lists.icann.org

first LAC SPACE at ICANN MEETINGS
by Vanda Scartezini Nov. 6, 2013

Nov. 6, 2013

We invite you to special events for our region - ICANN Meeting - Buenos Aires - Sheraton Hotel: DNS Forum - FRIDAY Nov. 15th From 11:30AM to 12:00 - link to all program: http://www.npoc.org/?p=2013dnsforum <http://www.npoc.org/?p=2013dnsforum> LAC SPACE in ICANN Meetings MONDAY Nov. 18th - from 10:30AM to 12:00 - San Telmo Room Program: LAC Project STRATEGY Organizations in LAC: LACNIC; LACTLD ; LACRALO , IGF , ISOC LAC Project Space Business Participation in ICANN Vision business ccTLDs Overview of new gTLDs Questions & Answers - how to increase business participation in ICANN meetings Business Cocktail - 7:00 PM 9PM participants from the region will be invited. Focus on business network. DNS FORUM Breakfast WEDNESDAY November 20 8:30 to 10:00 am Salon Catalina; Program - Doing Business at ICANN meetings - for companies from LAC region. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464

1 0

Implementing WHOIS Requirements per RAA 2013
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 5, 2013

Nov. 5, 2013

See the details here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jul13-en.htm -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

7 17

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 1, 2013

Nov. 1, 2013

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 1 07:27:04 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 63.31% | 12892 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 50.00% | 1 | 36.69% | 7472 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 20364 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN News Alert -- Announcement of the Launch of the Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 25, 2013

Oct. 25, 2013

Dear All, I am very pleased to see: Chaitanya Cheryl Evan Darryl Rudy Carlton Harmut all being involved in this space and congratulate them! Congratulations to all! Sent from my iPad > On Oct 26, 2013, at 3:37 AM, "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-24oct13-en.htm > > Announcement of the Launch of the Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice > 24 October 2013 > We are pleased to announce the launch of the Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT). Thirty-eight (38) individuals responded to the Call for Volunteers. IAG-CCT is an open group convened to serve for a limited duration and scope, focusing exclusively on evaluating the proposed metrics for data gathering to support a future review that is mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC).1 > > We welcome the following volunteers as members of the newly convened IAG-CCT: > > Ron Andruff > > Michael R. Nelson > > Brian Beckham > > Aga Neme > > Eric Brunner-Williams > > David Payne > > Phil Buckingham > > Ephraim Percy Kenyanito > > Olga Cavalli > > Artur Piechocki > > Nathalie Coupet > > Harmut Richard Glaser > > Steve DelBianco > > Santiago Rodriguez Ortiz > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > Jeremy Rowley > > Ray Fassett > > Carlton Samuels > > Michael A. Flynn > > Atdhe Sharku > > Anjali Hansen > > Judy Song-Marshall > > Judith L. Harris > > David C. Stuckman > > A.B. Ishiaku > > Christa Taylor > > Yamoah Kwaku > > Jeffrey Thomas > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > Umit Turk > > Evan Leibovitch > > Rudi Vansnick > > Reg Levy > > Christopher Wilkinson > > Alfredo Lopez Hernandez > > Darryl C. Wilson > > Lyndel McDonald > > Jonathan Zuck > > To track the work of this group, please visit the IAG-CCT Wiki. > > IAG-CCT Schedule and Operations > > The IAG-CCT is expected to commence its work in November 2013 and produce its recommendations by July 2014. > > A kick-off conference call will be scheduled in early November. > > The Group will hold a meeting at ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires on Wednesday, 20 November, 17:00 to 19:00 UTC. Remote participation will be available and the meeting is open to all interested individuals. The IAG-CCT will be briefed on the status of work to date, including an introduction and overview of the project; overview of proposed metrics from the GNSO and the ALAC; and a staff update on the evaluation of proposed metrics. > > A schedule of subsequent calls and meetings will be available on the IAG-CCT Wiki. > > IAG-CCT Mandate > > The mandate is to develop recommendations for the set of metrics to be collected by ICANN in preparation for a future review relating to New gTLDs1. Once the proposed metrics are delivered to the Board, the work of the IAG-CCT will be concluded. As directed by the Board, ICANN will develop the systems and collect the metrics approved through this process. > > The IAG-CCT will be responsible for: > > Evaluating the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of adopting the recommendations of the GNSO Council [PDF, 203 KB] and the At-Large Advisory Committee [PDF, 491 KB] (ALAC) with respect to the metrics to be used in conducting the review; > Evaluating other inputs, including historical data regarding metrics used to evaluate earlier rounds of new gTLDs (2000, 2004); > Engaging in outreach with the GNSO, ALAC and other interested ICANN stakeholders on the proposed metrics; > Evaluating the staff analysis to be delivered to the IAG-CCT on the feasibility and utility of each of the proposed metrics, and whether the implementation costs are reasonable in light of the value of the information to be revealed; > Proposing to ICANN a set of metrics to be compiled by ICANN in advance of the AoC review of the New gTLDs, if and when such review team is to be convened. > Where the proposed metrics from the IAG-CCT differ from those recommended by the GNSO Council or the ALAC, the Group is expected to consult with the GNSO and ALAC to share its rationale, and determine whether the collective set of metrics recommended by the Group sufficiently address the goals of the GNSO and the ALAC. > > Background > > ICANN announced a Revised Call for Volunteers to Evaluate Metrics Related to Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice on 17 September 2013. The current metrics and data gathering advice to be provided by the IAG-CCT is separate from a future call for volunteers to serve on a Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team. The CCT Review will not occur until the AoC requirement has been met ('If and when new gTLDs … have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness..")1. > > The AoC calls for periodic reviews of four key ICANN objectives: > > Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users; > Preserving security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; > Promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice; > WHOIS policy. > More information is available on the ICANN web site. > > 1 Affirmation of Commitments, 9.3: "ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion. ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years." > > > > This message was sent to salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Oct. 25, 2013

Oct. 25, 2013

Total of 12 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 25 08:05:13 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 3 | 19.80% | 35770 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 16.67% | 2 | 25.18% | 45479 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 16.67% | 2 | 23.62% | 42676 | apisan at unam.mx 8.33% | 1 | 8.84% | 15969 | tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn 8.33% | 1 | 7.12% | 12864 | rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 6.44% | 11632 | dralialmeshal at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 4.94% | 8930 | joly at punkcast.com 8.33% | 1 | 4.06% | 7330 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 12 |100.00% | 180650 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] Pre-IGF Yesterday [Update from Bali]
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 23, 2013

Oct. 23, 2013

Dear JJS: I cannot fault your assessment, your identification of the core issues for our attention and the likely responses. Suffice to say, in the natural order of things these are as should be. If - and only if - we are fully informed. And once informed, have the gumption to address the matters. I submit it is not so much the case that our representatives did not know. Most did not care to know. Because they were convinced - and naturally inclined to believe - anything perpetrated against 'the other' in the name of the national security state is just fine. The outrage - and I'm convinced most of it is faux - did not come until the revelations about 'our' privacy came to light. A judge of the secret FISA court allows he can only make a ruling on what is provided by the government. Because the rules do not allow him to seek independent sources for corroborative information. This is the case, even as he knows he's dealing with people who's calling card is to be secretive and with a natural inclination to dissemble, shape information, in fact lie for a living and, to live. Go figure. Most are unaware that telecommunications regulations do authorize a lot of data collection as part of the regulatory oversight process. And in places where there are no legal disabilities, all that data can be shared with other state agencies. In the case of the US, they will tell you that there is law and regulation in favour and they would be right. For one, the Communications Act enables - and the regulatory powers vested in the Federal Communications Commission - empowers the collection and provisioning of so-called metadata, only in this case it is euphemistically labeled 'business data'. I have pointed out before now that if you just think about that for a few, metadata is the mother's milk of surveillance. Take a look at a call detail record - or for that matter an IP header - and think of applying some of the more powerful and readily available [mind]mapping tools against lots of them, the awesome spectre will just jump out at you. And as you so rightly point to the Patriot Act and companion legislation that are also in play. All were passed into law and even reauthorized by huge majorities of the people's representatives. Yes, there are real concerns for the freedom of the press. And we can see how what I call the foxnewsification of the American consciousness continues apace. You can see some in certain places fighting to remain true to the ideals; you can count the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, Huffington and Der Speigel among them. I read the Jerusalem Post and The Hindu time and again to get a sense of how they are faring too. But all this aside, I never lose sight of the Henry Kissinger's adage on realpolitik: there are only permanent interests. Not principles. Not allies or friends. Just interests. And when interests collide with principle in execution of statecraft, make no mistake, principle is default dead. This is how it has always been, from time beyond memory. I don't suspect this will ever change. Ol' Henry has a way of distilling the essence of being. Sure, his accent has not served him well in discussions on politics and strategy. But he gets it right. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs(a)dyalog.net>wrote: > Dear Carlton, > > as always, a message from you is a joy to read. Agreed: the spotlight on > NSA and GCHQ can also be directed at state agencies in any country that can > afford spying on any meaningful scale. True: blaming Washington does not > disculpate France, or Brazil, or Israel. But there's an elephant in your > room. > > Here are just 3 features of that elephant: > > - The debate launched by the Snowden revelations is, and should be, more > about having an adequate legal framework, and sufficient parliamentary oversight, > > than about the quantity of stuff this or that agency sucks up in any unit > of time. The "war on terrorism" is a convenient disguise for rampant abuse. > - The debate should also be about the role of the Fourth Estate. In the US > with its Patriot Act(s), and in the UK with the proposed new legislation, > journalism is in grave danger. Fox News can feel safe, but The Guardian is > being attacked. The fundamental question should not be skirted: in true > democracies, do we respect the role journalism plays in speaking truth to > power? Without Snowden, leading parliamentarians in Westminster, even those > within the committee meant to oversee surveillance, would still have no > clue, even about the existence of Prism or Tempora. Without Snowden, the > head of the US executive branch would never have acknowledged that there is > indeed an urgent need for a debate, and for a thorough review of the > legislation governing surveillance. > > - Finally, from the Internet user's perspective, there is breach of trust > on a grand scale. When the user purchases a laptop, or software, he is led > to believe that there is a default setting for the protection of privacy. > The back doors and other traps have the potential to eviscerate democracy. > Where do you draw the line? > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > À: "ALAC Internal List" <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: "APrIGF" <program(a)ap.rigf.asia>, "ICANN AtLarge Staff" < > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" < > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "apralo" < > apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Envoyé: Mardi 22 Octobre 2013 21:26:06 > Objet: Re: [ALAC-Internal] Pre-IGF Yesterday [Update from Bali] > > Dear Sala: > Thanks for this very informative assessment. I share almost all your > concerns and endorse your wishlist. > > Regarding the IXP matter. To some extent, this development will increase > the hurdle to mass surveillance but it is hardly a cure. So we must not > oversell it. Sure, it breaks up the current topography of global traffic > movement. But that is all it does. The possibilities to monitor and inject > [re/bi/multi] routing data against an IP address is endless within software > defined network tools. > > Yesterday, it was reported that Quai d'Orsay summoned the U.S. Ambassador > to France for a 'dressing down' when Le Monde reported - originating in a > Snowden leak - that some millions of Frenchmen had their email addresses > surveilled. The public outrage of the French is as laughable as the Captain > Renard moment in Casablanca - "I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is taking > place here" just as he pocketed his winnings. Even moreso that the French > themselves thru their SDECE agency do it routinely, albeit, they will tell > you, against assorted 'ragheads and fellow travellers', meaning 'The > Other'. No outrage, they deserve that. The tendency to exceptionalism is > nothing new. Yawnnnnnnn. I say again. The approach - sucking up > everything, store then spend time searching for the 'nuggets' - is the > optimal and most effective way to go at big data for surveillance purposes. > Nobody with a lick of sense and wanting to get the job done is going to > change that. And this is not likely to change, regardless of what is said. > Take that from me as incontestable for logic. I think all governments will > eventually take the Chinese approach; yes we do it and tell us why we > should give a damn that you're upset. Check your note on Chinese reaction > to the latest surveillance disclosures. They were always sure it was > hypocritical! Why you think they were so willing to remain silent? > > Just one little quibble with interpretation of what governments - bar the > US - mean when they plead for more participation in IG. I do not believe > it is about improved/increased multistakeholder participation. It is moreso > about increased multilateral participation unleavened by the equal presence > and voice of civil society actors. Look back on the various proposals from > the Brazilians, Indians etc. They really mean civil action is best > restricted to national borders with state actors being the responsible > voices for pronouncements for outside consumption. That is, screw > international civil society action. Don't think the BRICs were asleep and > didn't take note when the US delegation to the WCIT last time co-opted > well-known civil society actors! > > Actually, come to think, it might be the unease you sensed with the US > government delegation sitting with ISOC/ICANN. Maybe harmless - people tend > to gravitate to people you know - but you're quite right in sensing the > picture is subject to a wide swath of interpretation. > > -Carlton > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > *Update from Bali – Pre- IGF* > > > > > > > > This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set > the > > tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!! > > Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would > be > > engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on > Internet > > Governance. > > > > > > > > Remote participation is available over IPv6! :) > > > > > > > > *About Indonesia* > > > > > > > > It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general > > update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also > > the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on > > the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about > > their resource allocations visit: > http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html > > > > In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see: > > > > > http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS20… > > > > > > > > > > > > *IGF Schedule* > > > > * * > > > > To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/** > > > > * * > > > > *Snippets from Yesterday* > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *High Level Leaders Meeting* > > > > > > > > It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions > > were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that > > there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The > > meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of > > public sector, civil society and private sector were invited. > > > > > > > > *What I Heard* > > > > * * > > > > *[There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out]* > > > > > > > > The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the > > Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the > > Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government > > representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the > > delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in > > Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that > > cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. > The > > US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state > > activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese > > Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson, > > Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized > > the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive > > cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms > of > > the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and > > the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative > > said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the > US > > government. > > > > > > > > Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake, > > Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are > > challenges and there needs to be change and empathy. > > > > > > > > > > > > *What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying]* > > > > I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my > > view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year. > > > > > > > > *US* > > > > When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state > > actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector > > such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking. > > The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows > for > > redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries > have > > policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has > > come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police – > > Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big > > data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly > > update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data > > market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD > > $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent > > from > > > > 2012 to 2018. > > > > > > > > I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to > > other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less > > clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks > > volume. > > > > > > > > *China* > > > > They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government > surveillance > > shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and > > economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is > > diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to > build > > stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as > > multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as > > well as through Internationalized Domain Names. > > > > * * > > > > *Japan* > > > > The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust > > representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly > they > > were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their > > administration functions except to instill incremental changes. > > > > > > > > *Brazil* > > > > I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have > forums > > more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to > > administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and > > stakeholders in the coordinating bodies. > > > > > > > > It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they > > alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points > to > > avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an > end > > user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater > > room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing > > infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet > > community. > > > > * * > > > > *Civil Society*** > > > > It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited > > comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their > > speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt > > that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the > > solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various > > workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and > > vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions. > > > > > > > > Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few > > things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into > > workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype > > into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators(a)igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > > > > > * * > > > > *GigaNet* > > > > Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended > > two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on > > Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I > > attended was on Surveillance and Snowden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Final Thoughts and Wish List*** > > > > > > > > I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance. > > However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly > > discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the > > 8thInternet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core > > critical issues > > rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is > > clear: > > > > > > > > 1. Meaningful participation: > > > > a. In Policy processes, representations into various administration > > > > b. Capacity Building > > > > c. Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs > > > > 2. Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies > and > > building trust in light of the following situations > > > > a. Patenting things which are RFCs eg. > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_appli… > > > > b. Compromised Algorithms > > > > > http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=te… > > > > (I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the > > implementation of the standard) > > > > > > > > 3. Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are > > governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale. > > > > 4. Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away > from > > Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to > > aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create > a > > robust and open internet. > > > > 5. Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights > > principles as a base for complex policy discussions. > > > > 6. Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can > just > > learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally > > where constituencies become insulated instead of porous. > > > > > > > > *What is your wish list?* > > > > * * > > > > * * > > > > *Social Media* > > > > > > > > As per Anriette’s email: > > > > > > > > For everything: #IGF2013 > > > > Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D > > > > Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR > > > > Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC > > > > Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS > > > > Internet Governance Principles: #IGP > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

1 0

REMOTE PARTICIPATION: Core Internet Values Workshop @IGF2013 11pm tonight EDT
by Joly MacFie Oct. 23, 2013

Oct. 23, 2013

I haven't pushed the IGF this time round. I expect that everyone can make their own way. But this workshop, as always ably organized by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy of ISOC Chennai, is perhaps the ultimate indicator of the spiritual health of the Internet. Last year, as the WCIT loomed, there was a note of doom and gloom. This year, compromising surveillance is bound to be a topic. ** joly posted: "At 11pm tonight NYC time today Wednesday 23 October 2013 the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values will be held during the 7th Internet Governance Forum in Bali, Indonesia. The objective of the dynamic coalition on Core In" New post on *ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD* At 11pm tonight NYC time today Wednesday 23 October 2013 the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values<http://coreinternetvalues.org/>will be held during the 7th Internet Governance Forum<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/121-preparatory-pr…>in Bali, Indonesia. The objective of the dynamic coalition on Core Internet Values is to debate and find answers to fundamental questions such as “What is the Internet? What makes it what it is? What are its architectural principles? What are the core principles and values? And what is happening to the core values in the process of its evolution? What is it that needs to be preserved and what changes are inevitable? Internet Hall of Famer George Sadowsky will chair this year's event. Panelists are Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Policy Officer, Consumers International; Alice Munyua, Chair, Kenya Internet Governance Steering Committee; Alejandro Pisanty, Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico(by remote participation); Carolina Rossini, Project Director, New American Foundation; and Hong Xue, Director, Institute for Internet Policy and Law, Beijing Normal University. The webcast will be available in six languages. There will be live text transcription, and remote participation. *What*: 4th Annual Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values<http://coreinternetvalues.org/>meeting *Where*: Bali, Indonesia *When*: Thursday 24 October 2013 1100-1230 WITA | 0300-0430 UTC | 2300-0030 EDT (Oct. 23) *Webcast*: http://webcast.igf2013.or.id/#7 *Transcript*: http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-RPC7 *Webex*: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=233127672&UID=0&PW=NMjAz… *Twitter*: #coreinternetvalues<https://twitter.com/search?q=coreinternetvalues&src=typd&f=realtime> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6025#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6025#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6025 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

2 2

Fwd: IGF 2013 APRALO-ICANN Workshop on Next in IDNs
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Oct. 23, 2013

Oct. 23, 2013

Hello, everyone. Please join us for the ICANN-APRALO workhop at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on 23 October 2013. *IGF Workshop #32 - **Next in IDNs: Linguistic Diversity in the Internet Root* Date: 23 October 2013 (Wednesday) Time: 14:30 - 16:00 local time (UTC 0630 - 0800) Room: Room #1, Nusa Dua Hall 2, Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center (BNDCC) *Workshop Title* Next in IDNs: Linguistic Diversity in the Internet Root *Workshop Theme* The Internet as Engine of Growth and Development *Workshop Organizers* APRALO – Asia Pacific Australasia Regional At-Large Organization ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers *Workshop Description* The introduction of IDN variants in the root zone serves to enhance the Internet’s multilingualism and cultural diversity at the level of Top Level Domains (TLDs). The ICANN community has studied the viability of this introduction and has developed a process that will make it a reality. This process has implications for language communities. Language communities that share a script (e.g., Chinese, Japanese and Korean, which share the Han script) must agree on rules related to variant script characters in order to proceed. Furthermore, while allowing language communities to self-mobilize and proceed at their own pace, there are advantages to being an early participant or first mover. This process of allocating Variant TLDs in the Internet root* *requires language communities to collaborate and will require effective facilitation. This joint APRALO-ICANN workshop will provide an overview of the ICANN process, discuss the issues implicating language communities and outline the way forward. *Key Discussion Questions* *Process* – What is the process and what are the structural constraints of the process? How was the multistakeholder model deployed in the development of the process and how will it evolve in moving forward? How will language and technical communities be engaged? *Variants *– What are the key variant issues for scripts such as Arabic, Han, Indic, Latin and Cyrillic that have a large community of users worldwide and whose script is shared across different language communities and across national borders? What variant issues can realistically be addressed within the structural constraints of the process? *Community* - How can the readiness of language communities for IDN Variant TLDs be supported? How can the disadvantage to late entrants be minimized? What models of engagement can be used to support the collaboration of language communities that transcend national borders? What best practice models of dispute resolution can be deployed to address disputes among language communities that span the globe? * * *Workshop Role-Players* *A. Moderators* · On-Site Moderator – *Rinalia Abdul Rahim* (Executive Committee Member, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee; APRALO Representative & Executive Council Member, ISOC Malaysia Chapter) · Remote Moderator – *Maureen Hilyard* (APRALO Representative, Cook Islands & Board Chair, Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society) * * *B. Panel of Technical Experts* · *Ram Mohan* (Chair, ICANN Board IDN Variants Working Group & Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Afilias Limited) · *Andrew Sullivan *(Principal Architect, Dyn, USA) · *Sarmad Hussain* (Professor of Computer Science and Head of the Center of Language Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Pakistan) · *Akshat Joshi* (Project Engineer, GIST Group, Center for Development of Advanced Computing, India) · *Edmon Chung* (CEO, dotAsia & Vice-Chair, Internet Society Hong Kong) * * C. *Panel of Internet End User Representatives * · *Mohamed El Bashir* (Manager, Technical Affairs Department, ictQATAR, Qatar) · *Hong Xue* (Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Internet Policy & Law, Beijing Normal University, China) · *Satish Babu* (Director of the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software, India) * * *Workshop Agenda* 1. Moderator’s welcome and introduction (5 min) 2. Overview of the ICANN Process for Developing Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone by Ram Mohan and Andrew Sullivan (15 min) 3. Responses from Panel of Internet End User Representatives - Mohamed El Bashir (4 min) - Hong Xue (4 min) - Satish Babu (4 min) 4. Responses and Views from Panel of Technical Experts - Sarmad Hussain - Arabic Script (8 min) - Akshat Joshi - Indic Script/Devanagari (8 min) - Edmon Chung - Han Script (8 min) 5. Discussion involving panelists and participants (30 min) 6. Wrap up *Workshop Organizers * *Rinalia Abdul Rahim*, Managing Director, Compass Rose Sdn Bhd ( rinalia(a)compassrose.my) * * *Baher Esmat*, Vice President, Stakeholder Engagement – Middle East, ICANN ( baher.esmat(a)icann.org)

1 1

At Large Human Rights [At the IGF, Bali] #ICANN
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

*BRIEF OVERVIEW: HUMAN RIGHTS #Internet Rights Principles #Charter* *What's on Today:* FOCUS Session on Internet Governance and Principles *Time:* 9:30-11:00 Main Hall, Nusa Dua Hall 5 *Remote Participation Link:* http://webcast.igf2013.or.id/ Spotlight: See how IDNs are a mechanism to enable people to express themselves in the language of their choice. Learn about how this is played out with a fantastic moderator: Rinalia Ibrahim, At Large Advisory Committee and member of ALAC ExCom and leading experts on IDNs. *What's on Today:* APRALO on IDNs *Time:* 2:30pm – 4:00pm, Room #1, Nusa Dua Hall 2, Bali *Remote Participation Link:* http://webcast.igf2013.or.id/#0 *Comments on the Feedback from the IGC on 10 Principles – Charter* The At Large through the ALAC or the RALOs may wish to consider submitting their views on the Draft Charter. There are 10 principles that are extended through 21 clauses. To see the Charter, see: http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IRP_… * * *Internet Rights and Principles Online * * * For those like me who did not attend the IRP session yesterday, the entire session was captured via video, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KlYW1BNV38 Pranesh raised rights and access for disabled persons and spoke in representation of a colleague that is visually impaired. He mentioned that screen reader platforms such as JAWS are only accessible through piracy and it raises some conflicts between intellectual property rights and access issues. Marianne Franklin initiated similar discussions on proprietary software versus open source software and challenges to access to education, knowledge. Joy Liddicoat of APC talked briefly about women and Internet Governance. She suggested that there was very poor dialogue on women in the Internet. Joy also raised challenges of surveillance in countries that have rule of law challenges. She also raised that ICANN is not a Human Rights Standards making body and struggled as a Non Commercial User Group to address Human Rights issues in ICANN. She raised things like .pantagonia and that the global south needs to dialogue more and rights violation such as criminalizing expression. Microsoft also spoke about how as a corporate entity and their role in Human Rights advocacy. To see Microsoft's position, see: https://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/working-responsi… UK Govt Rep spoke about challenges from a government perspective due to lack of a clear framework and challenges in international and national policy making. There were some interesting interactions from the floor and how the conversation on the local scene has been happening for three years in Argentina. Eduardo (Professor and Human Rights Expert) wants the document to have something concrete and a final document and suggests that the current charter be the final version. He raised that the Charter should also be accessible in multiple languages. UNESCO raised the importance of multilingualism. *[Sala's Thoughts] * 1)What are some things that can be done to address the moral and ethical conflict? 2)Should there be some form of government subsidy that pays for the software to enable this to be used by those that are physically challenged? 3)How do these rights and principles trickle down into practical and tangible solutions. 4)Is the poor dialogue on Gender and the Internet something that the MAG should address by enabling this discussions. There is a roundtable on Gender and Rights later this week. 5)Are these factored into ICT policies for national contexts. 6)Should funding be given to research units in Universities in these jurisdictions that allow students to build similar platforms? There are many ways to skin a cat. What are some ways in which civil society, private sector and public sector can cooperate to address these challenges in practical and tangible way? 7)How can the Charter influence multilingualism in things like IDNs and policies around IDNs within ICANN? 8)How can Charter principles be adhered to by ICANN? There are many examples of cross sectoral collaborative initiatives to design solutions to encourage "access" and it will be great to share these examples.

1 0

Pre-IGF Yesterday [Update from Bali]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

*Update from Bali – Pre- IGF* This year’s Pre-Internet Governance Forum which was held yesterday set the tone for this week. Today is Day 1 of the IGF! It’s finally here!!! Yesterday was like a barometer testing how stakeholders generally would be engaging in the discussions and dialogue on the diverse issues on Internet Governance. Remote participation is available over IPv6! :) *About Indonesia* It was also great to hear the CTO of Telecom Indonesia give a general update on ICT and the Internet in Indonesia. By the way Indonesia is also the world’s second largest biodiversity and the fourth largest country on the earth being home for 250, 588, 688 people. If you are curious about their resource allocations visit: http://bgp.potaroo.net/iso3166/v4cc.html In 2011, Indonesia ranked 95 on the ICT Development Index, see: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2012/MIS20… *IGF Schedule* * * To see today’s Schedule, visit: http://igf2013.or.id/schedule/** * * *Snippets from Yesterday* * * *High Level Leaders Meeting* It was a great meeting for testing the mercury levels of how institutions were feeling about Internet Governance. There seemed to be consensus that there needs to be improvement when it comes to Internet Governance. The meeting was hosted by the Indonesian Government where representatives of public sector, civil society and private sector were invited. *What I Heard* * * *[There were many speakers but am picking that which stood out]* The nature of improvement is at this stage ambiguous except for the Japanese Government making calls for increased functionality of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. Brazil’s Government representative wants more democracy on the Internet and advised the delegates that they would be hosting and Internet Governance meeting in Brazil next year. There was overwhelming consensus by governments that cyber security is critical in the wake of vulnerabilities and threats. The US Government representative pointed out those unlawful non state activities that threaten the Internet should be addressed. The Chinese Government advocated social and economic rights. APNIC CEO Paul Wilson, Chair of the Number Registry Organisation (NRO) and MAG member emphasized the need to rebuild trust and leaders to collaborate and have aggressive cooperation. Citizen’s Lab advised that there should be caution in terms of the reaction of stakeholders to recent revelations by Edward Snowden and the threats of excessive regulation by governments. Google representative said that Surveillance was nothing new and done by all and not just the US government. Jovan Kurbalija, Director of Diplo Foundation said, “Make no mistake, Internet Governance is in crisis”. Kurbalija suggested that there are challenges and there needs to be change and empathy. *What I Observed [How I interpreted what they were saying]* I won’t go into all of the speakers but just some key snippets that in my view helps set the tone and context for the IGF this year. *US* When the US government made comments about unlawful activity by non-state actors which in my view canvasses stakeholders within the private sector such as when Google had to pay $22.5million in fines for Safari tracking. The US government has to be commended for having machinery that allows for redress when it comes to corporate surveillance. However not countries have policies and laws that enable regulators to address breaches. Google has come under fire by Australian Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand Police – Cyber Crime Unit. There are other commercial stakeholders who exploit big data for commercial purposes. VeriSign reports in its recent quarterly update that Transparency Market Research highlighted that Global Big Data market was worth USD $6.3 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $48.3 billion by 2018, at a compound annual growth rate of 40.5 percent from 2012 to 2018. I would have preferred if the US Government representative sat next to other country representatives rather than ICANN and ISOC CEO to be less clique and more global. In diplomacy, even seating arrangements speaks volume. *China* They are probably relieved to have the spotlight on government surveillance shift from them to the US (tongue in cheek). They highlighted social and economic aspects of human rights over the internet. To me this is diplomatic speak for increase in access and empowering communities to build stronger IP backbones and would include things like culture such as multilingualism and diversity on the Internet in forms of expression as well as through Internationalized Domain Names. * * *Japan* The suggestion to increase GAC functionality is a cry for more robust representation from governments into the policy processes. Indirectly they were saying that they are happy to have institutions carry on with their administration functions except to instill incremental changes. *Brazil* I am assuming that Brazil wants increased participation and to have forums more democratic. It remains unclear whether they are referring to administration or meaningful participation from other nation states and stakeholders in the coordinating bodies. It is helpful to separate this core issue from the other notion that they alluded to in their speech and increasing local Internet Exchange points to avoid local traffic getting routed offshore and being exposed. From an end user perspective having local IXPs have a direct correlation to greater room for increasing local content, lower costs and increasing infrastructure which is in sync with building a vibrant and open internet community. * * *Civil Society*** It would be great for the two speakers from civil society to have invited comments from the rest of civil society as they were developing their speeches. Whilst they identified the security and vulnerabilities, I felt that they could have done more to clearly and concisely highlight the solutions. Throughout this week as, civil society engages in the various workshops, it is critical that we not only raise the issues and vulnerabilities but also suggest solutions. Today, the IGC is meeting during lunch hour where we will discuss a few things, one of which is how we can coordinate civil society input into workshops aside from administrative matters. For those who wish to skype into the session let us know by emailing: coordinators(a)igcaucus.org * * *GigaNet* Apparently for much of the day, there was standing room only. I attended two sessions at the Giganet where a Panelist presented a Study on Transferring Blocks and Routing Information. The other session that I attended was on Surveillance and Snowden. *Final Thoughts and Wish List*** I am personally not worried about the future of the Internet Governance. However, I feel that we need to create a culture where we can openly discuss concerns without retreating into our caves. I find that in the 8thInternet Governance stakeholders need to zero into the core critical issues rather than skirting superficially over the issues. For me, my list is clear: 1. Meaningful participation: a. In Policy processes, representations into various administration b. Capacity Building c. Multilingualism – Freedom of Expression, IDNs 2. Strengthening Integrity of National and Global Standards bodies and building trust in light of the following situations a. Patenting things which are RFCs eg. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_appli… b. Compromised Algorithms http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/can-you-trust-nist/?utm_source=te… (I have been told that the issue was not the standard but the implementation of the standard) 3. Increasing Accountability and Transparency in the way things are governed and administered both on a global, regional and national scale. 4. Deliberate and Conscious Strategic Engagement on Shifting Away from Territorialism of Actors and stakeholders in Internet Governance to aggressive collaboration, coordination of resources and energy to create a robust and open internet. 5. Pursue dialogue using the Internet Governance Human Rights principles as a base for complex policy discussions. 6. Bug the MAG to arrange for a sports side event where people can just learn to relax and disagree on certain issues and not take it personally where constituencies become insulated instead of porous. *What is your wish list?* * * * * *Social Media* As per Anriette’s email: For everything: #IGF2013 Internet as engine for growth - #IG4D Human Rights, Freedom of Expression - #HR Security - Legal and other frameworks - #SEC Principles of Multistakeholder Cooperation - #MS Internet Governance Principles: #IGP

2 1