- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 5 00:53:04 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 77.29% | 23244 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 33.33% | 1 | 22.71% | 6829 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 30073 | Total

1 0

Fwd: Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee | ICANN
by Carlton Samuels July 4, 2013

July 4, 2013

Board NGPC Resolutions on a few matters.... ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13… Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 2 July 2013 1. Main Agenda: a. Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names". Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in the BGC's Recommendation. Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was warranted with respect to Request 13-3. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendat… Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN. b. Initial Protection for IGO Identifiers Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué reiterated the GAC's previous advice to the Board that "appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch" (the "IGO GAC Advice"). The IGO GAC Advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-IGO; Whereas, in response to a number of issues raised by the Board, the GAC noted in the Beijing Communiqué that it is "mindful of outstanding implementation issues" and that it is committed to "actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward"; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the advice on the New gTLD Program, including the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, in a 6 June 2013 response letter to the GAC on the IGO GAC Advice, the ICANN Board Chairman proposed that a small number of NGPC members and ICANN staff begin a dialogue with the GAC on these issues http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-2-06jun13-en ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the IGO GAC Advice; Whereas, the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm includes IGO protections, but does not yet specify the names and acronyms to be protected; Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG03), the NGPC confirms that appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO identifiers will continue to be provided as presented in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm while the GAC, NGPC, ICANN Staff and community continue to actively work through outstanding implementation issues. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG04), the NGPC determines that pursuant to Specification 5 in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm , registry operators will implement temporary protections for the IGO names and acronyms on the "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 until the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 Meeting in Durban. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG05), the NGPC will dialogue with the GAC prior to its first meeting following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban to work through outstanding implementation issues concerning protections for IGO names and acronyms. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG06), if the NGPC and GAC do not reach an agreement on outstanding implementation issues for protecting IGO names and acronyms by the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban, and subject to any matters that arise during the discussions, the NGPC determines that registry operators will be required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 . c. Category 1 Safeguard Advice from GAC Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included Category 1 safeguard advice, which is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-1 (the "Category 1 Safeguard Advice"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11, 18 and 25 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Category 1 Safeguard Advice; Whereas, the NGPC met on 2 July 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program; Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments on the Category 1 Safeguard Advice submitted during the public comment forum; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG07), the NGPC agrees to begin a dialogue with the GAC during the ICANN Meeting in Durban to clarify the scope of the requirements provided in the Category 1 Safeguard Advice. (Note: the dialogue with the GAC on Category 1 will also include discussion of GAC's Category 2.1 Safeguard Advice regarding "Restricted Access" since that advice applies to the strings listed under Category 1.) Resolved (2013.07.02.NG08), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants who have applied for TLD strings listed in the GAC's Category 1 Safeguard Advice, pending a dialogue with the GAC. d. Registry Agreement Whereas, the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system; Whereas, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the New gTLD Program, and included a draft New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to delegation; Whereas, on 5 February 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed "Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification," which announced proposed revisions to the agreement in response to developments since the last posting of the AGB in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the New gTLD Program; Whereas, on 29 April 2013, ICANN posted for public comment the "Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement," which included certain updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement in response to community feedback on the version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 5 February 2013 and discussions of the agreement at the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, China; Whereas, ICANN and a group selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registry Negotiating Team, have continued negotiating the proposed terms of the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued advice in a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué"); Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en… ; Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included advice, which if implemented as suggested by the community, in some cases would require revisions to the New gTLD Registry Agreement; Whereas, on 25 June 2013, the NGPC adopted resolutions to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement to respond to certain elements of the GAC's safeguard advice in the Beijing Communiqué http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13… ; Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community from the various public comment forums, and has determined that the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 includes significant improvements in response to the concerns raised by the community; and Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program. Resolved (2013.07.02.NG09), the NGPC approves the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1; Resolved (2013.07.02.NG10), the President and CEO is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and to move forward with implementation of the New gTLD Program. e. ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants - Discussion of letter No resolution taken. -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5&6 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: +90.212.381.8727 Fax: +90.212.381.8731 Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 ****

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 28, 2013

June 28, 2013

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 28 00:53:03 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 60.00% | 3 | 55.09% | 18274 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 23.92% | 7936 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 20.00% | 1 | 20.99% | 6963 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 33173 | Total

1 0

A New WHOIS Model
by Carlton Samuels June 26, 2013

June 26, 2013

Here's Domain Incite's views on the EWG's output. Very encouraging, so far... http://domainincite.com/13507-whois-headed-for-the-scrap-heap-in-paradigm-s… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Board Committee Agendas
by Carlton Samuels June 22, 2013

June 22, 2013

.....the ALAC Statement on TMCH/IDN is on the agenda..... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= = ====================================================== *Agenda for new gTLD Program Committee meeting on 25 June 2013* From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-25jun13-en.h… Agenda | New gTLD Program Committee 25 June 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes of 4 June 2013 Main Agenda: * Safeguards Applicable to all New gTLDs * Category 2 Safeguard Advice re Exclusive Registry Access * Singular & Plural Versions of the Same String as a TLD * IGO Protection * ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants * AOB *Agenda for Board Governance Committee meeting on 25 June 2013* From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-bgc-25jun13-en.htm *Reconsideration Request 13-3 -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ICANN Regional Headquarters - Istanbul Mobile: 202.341.3611 ****

2 1

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Thick Whois Initial Report - GNSO Policy Development Process
by Carlton Samuels June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

FYI. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21jun13-en.htm ------------------------------ Thick Whois Initial Report – GNSO Policy Development Process 21 June 2013 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 21 June 2013 * Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Thick Whois Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries has published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>[PDF, 1.21 MB] for public comment. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.…

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 21 00:53:04 EDT 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 2 | 29.06% | 14273 | joly at punkcast.com 16.67% | 1 | 24.54% | 12055 | vanda at uol.com.br 16.67% | 1 | 19.14% | 9402 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 15.77% | 7748 | narten at us.ibm.com 16.67% | 1 | 11.49% | 5646 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 49124 | Total

1 0

WEBCAST THURS: CITI The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai
by Joly MacFie June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

I hope I don't have to explain what the Dubai in this event's title refers to but, just in case, you can read up here<http://www.internetsociety.org/wcit>. As always CITI is able to bring in the most prestigious and prominent of speakers. They are known for their "State of Telecom" events, this could very well have been dubbed "State of Internet". Don't miss. ** joly posted: "On Thursday June 20 2013 the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet? at Columbus Business School NYC. Keynote speakers include Larry Strickling and Dr." [image: CITI] <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/citi.gif>On Thursday June 20 2013 the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information<https://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi>(CITI) will host The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet? <http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/thefutureoftheinternet> at Columbus Business School NYC. Keynote speakers include Larry Strickling and Dr. Hamadoun Tourè. The event will be webcast live via the Internet Society Chapters Livestream Channel. No registration needed for the webcast. No live captions. *What*: The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet?<http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/thefutureoftheinternet> *Where*: Uris Hall, Columbia Business School NYC<http://www7.gsb.columbia.edu/about/directions> *When*: Thursday June 20 2013 9am-5pm EDT | 1300-2100UTC *Program*: http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/thefutureoftheinternet *Register*: http://citifederatedinternet.eventbrite.com *Webcast*: http://livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Hashtag*: #citiafterdubai<https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=%23citiafterdubai>| #governance <https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=%23governance> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5715#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5715#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5715 - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Trip to Caucasus - Chapter 2 - Azerbaijan
by Roberto Gaetano June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

Hi all. Following up my previous report on Armenia, I would like to continue with Azerbaijan. People who went to Baku for the IGF might have collected different information: please feel free to point out where our observations differ. I had a good meeting with Faik Farmanov, from the AZ ccTLD. I contacted also Yashar Hajiyev (ALAC), but our respective schedules did not fit and we could have only short telephone chats. The main points that came out from the discussion were (to the best of my recollection): . The government is investing heavily in the infrastructure, for instance there is a project to improve the connection in all provinces and areas with fiber optics cable . Azerbaijan feels part of Europe, it is a member of the Council of Europe, last year it hosted the Eurofestival, in 2015 will host the 1st European Olympic Games. At present, .AZ is neither a member of CENTR nor of APNIC. . There is a lot of coordination and communication about internet matters between Azerbaijan and other countries. Because of history and language, coordination is easier with other CIS (Community of Independent States, i.e. former USSR Republics) countries and Eastern European countries. However, there is no resistance to collaboration with any country. . Technically, the .AZ operator is ready to implement IDNs, but this is not felt to be a priority, also because there are only few characters in the Azeri alphabet that are not part of the standard ASCII set [my personal observation is that this situation is similar to German or French speaking countries] . At the time of the IGF last December an ICANN delegation including Fadi has met with the President of Azerbaijan, so contacts have been held at the highest level . Azerbaijan is eager to participate to the funding of international internet projects, provided that the coordination will be done in Azerbaijan. Examples of potential domains are Cybersecurity and legal issues related to the internet. Because of history, the legal systems in the CIS countries are similar, and the similar need for training and creation of UDRP entities exists in all of them. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have found fair to good internet connectivity. I have experienced a difference between cities and countryside, which confirms the feedback I had about the priority that the government gives to connectivity for rural areas. Also mobile phones seem to have excellent market penetration. However, my personal experience is that the costs are not very low - although this might well be a consequence of the fact that as a newcomer I could not get the best deals. The country is relatively rich, due primarily to the income from the oil. There is a huge effort in improving the infrastructure, for instance new highways are being built or existing ones are being enlarged. There is also an extensive amount of construction work going on, in Baku but also elsewhere in the country. For instance, I have met Italian architects working in Azerbaijan talking about huge construction projects. All this to say that the progress of the country is visible, and although the progress in building the internet infrastructure is not immediately visible, all indicators would show a rapid development. However, I believe that there is still a lot to do. For instance, once in a mountain village I have been told that there was no internet in the whole village because the cable was broken. In another case, in a small to medium size city, the electricity went out following a heavy storm (causing of course WiFi equipment and modems to fail). One person, not one of my internet contacts, told me: "We need more time, but we are going to fix this". The general feeling I have is that the "digital native" generation has not matured yet. The cultural change that will bring people to think in term of "always online" has not happened yet, at least not fully. On the other hand, I was impressed by the interpersonal communication level that took place, in spite of the language barrier, with people I had never met before. I am wondering whether this human personal relationship that takes place in the physical world is not going to be an obstacle that can slow down the transition to virtual communication. Best regards, Roberto

1 0

Trip to the Caucasus
by Roberto Gaetano June 17, 2013

June 17, 2013

Hi all. I took the chance of a non-ICANN-related trip to Caucasus to contact the internet people, and specifically the At-Large structures, in the region. I was not on any official ICANN mission, but believe that it is worth anyway to write a short report of my contacts and personal considerations. I am addressing this to different mailing lists with separate messages, to avoid cross-posting. I had a very interesting meeting in Armenia, hosted by ISOC AM, with the Armenian ALSes. The main points that came out from the discussion were (to the best of my recollection): . The fact that the development of the internet in Armenia is consistently more advanced than in some neighboring countries (for instance, there are 3 ALSes) depends on a mix of elements, including the presence in Armenia of highly skilled ITC professionals as well as the vision that has identified since the early days the potential of the internet. This experience will be very difficult to replicate in other countries, at least in the short term. . Thanks to the early vision, Armenia has developed the "multi-stakeholder" concept also in the management of the internet at the national level. The ccTLD operator, the ISPs, the At-Large structures, commercial organizations, the government, are tightly collaborating, and there is also the initiative of a permanent IGF forum in Armenia. This has allowed to have very advanced positions in international fora, where all stakeholders are contributing, and we do not have the situation that can be seen in other countries, where the government is imposing its view. . Looking at the map of the world, and the location of the ALSes, it appears clearly that there is a wide area, namely the former Soviet Union states in central Asia, where there is no ALAC presence. This is felt to be tightly correlated with the fact that the position that these countries bring in the international debate are only depending on government opinions. In order to promote ICANN's multi-stakeholder approach, ALAC should make an outreach effort to these countries with the objective of gaining members. The general opinion is that this will be a difficult objective to achieve, but nevertheless it is strategically important. . The current location of Armenia in APRALO is creating serious problems. It should be noted that the Armenian ccTLD operator is a member of CENTR (the European ccTLD operators organization), ISPs are getting their addresses from RIPE (the European Regional addressing organization), but the Armenian ALSes are forced to be associated to APRALO. Considering the point above, i.e. the Armenian multi-stakeholder model that brings together different interests to cooperate at the national level, we have the strange situation that national domain names and IP addresses depend from Europe, while At-Large structures depend from a different region. Moreover, there are at the At-Large level cooperation projects ongoing that are coordinated by the European Union, and the location of Armenia in the AP ICANN region does make little sense, if any. For instance, if EURALO develops itself as the partner of the European Union for such European projects, it would be extremely impractical to have participating ALSes being in a different region. Further considerations have been the location of Armenia in Europe in a number of different international organizations. . Armenia, being part of the former Soviet Union, has kept a network of contacts at the technical level with other operators that are part of the Community of Independent States (CIS). One example is also the Regional Commonwealth in the field of communications (RCC - http://www.en.rcc.org.ru/index.php) This network is also important in the discussions related to internet governance and for the decisions in the ITU. . One question was raised, about what can ALAC do for the users. This is a key issue, because it is hard to motivate individuals and organizations to join ALAC if the only thing that they get is the opportunity to participate in policy development. Budget should be earmarked for initiatives that are useful for the internet users, like training. To this, I would like to add some personal considerations on the development of ICT, and specifically Internet, in Armenia. I have travelled extensively, in cities and in rural areas, and have been staying only once overnight in a place without internet connection, and only once in a place that had internet connection but not WiFi. Please note that I have never stayed in fancy hotels, but rather in hostels or guesthouses, always in inexpensive places. This gave me the feeling of the ubiquity of the internet in Armenia. Besides internet, I witnessed the diffusion of mobile communications. It seems to me that everybody has a mobile phone. I have seen not only bus drivers talking on their mobiles (a plague that I see very often in my country), but also shepherds in the countryside with mobile phones. Considering that the next frontier of the internet is mobile devices, this is promising. Unfortunately, I failed to ask confirmation at the meeting with ALSes, but my impression is that Armenia took advantage of the progress in technology in the years of their independence, and moved straight to new technologies, when telcos in Europe and US (for sure this was the situation in Italy 20 years ago) were resisting change in order to protect and further exploit their investments in previous technologies. Another simple example of how the internet is affecting common behavior is the police. This is the only country where I have seen police cars displaying instead of the simple "Police" word in the local language the url of the police web site: www.police.am. It might be the case in other countries as well, but I have noticed it here for the first time. Best regards, Roberto

2 1