- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 8 00:53:05 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 3 | 93.33% | 389056 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 3.24% | 13491 | avri at acm.org 16.67% | 1 | 1.74% | 7236 | narten at us.ibm.com 16.67% | 1 | 1.69% | 7058 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 416841 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Dear All, I have been in meetings whole day and it's been a really hectic week. I am attaching my thoughts on the matter which I have pasted on the wiki. They are also on the wiki. My comments on the Statement to point to the relevant portions of the Affirmation of Commitment in relation to ICANN's obligations and what it should consider. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > Evan has kindly pointed out that in my last sentence before my > signature, it should have been "... ADDED in the last sentence." > > Alan (trying to extract his foot from his mouth, and hoping to teach > his fingers how to select the correct keys) > > At 28/02/2013 01:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been > >suggested. They are shown on the wiki at > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: > >==== > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed > >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- > >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated > >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some > >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics > >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not > >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be > >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for > >lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > >would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might > >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > >be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the > >public interest. > >==== > >The changes were: > >- "unlimited" added in the first sentence. > >- "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of > >paragraph 2. > >- "as long as it can be established that they serve the public > >interest" assed in the last sentence. > > > >Alan > > > >At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to > > >create a new version. > > > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing > > >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > > earlier versions. > > > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >================================= > > > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the > > >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard > > >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models > > >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An > > >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at > > >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is > > >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. > > >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread > > >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a > > >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to > > >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should > > >not be excluded. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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… > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

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

Feb. 28, 2013

Total of 8 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 1 00:53:05 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.50% | 1 | 71.89% | 453743 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 12.50% | 1 | 20.30% | 128105 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 12.50% | 1 | 1.80% | 11336 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 12.50% | 1 | 1.69% | 10689 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 12.50% | 1 | 1.31% | 8238 | narten at us.ibm.com 12.50% | 1 | 1.11% | 7020 | elisabeth.porteneuve at latmos.ipsl.fr 12.50% | 1 | 0.97% | 6113 | karlenef at gmail.com 12.50% | 1 | 0.93% | 5894 | dogwallah at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 8 |100.00% | 631138 | Total

1 0

CEO Fadi's visit to Tokyo
by Izumi AIZU Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear AtLarge community, As an not-so-active member of AtLarge, I like to share the following info/question. About a week ago, I heard that ICANN CEO Fadi is coming to Tokyo shortly from a former member of NomCom and current member of gNSO Council. They did not have any information about the specifics and not contacted for any possible meeting in Tokyo with him. On Thursday last week, I got a call from one of the registrars and applicants for new gTLDs, asking to join the lunch with him, as a private lunch. I accepted the invitation, but told them I like to have a different open meeting and will write to such request to ICANN. On Friday, I sent an email to Fadi and some other officers of ICANN that it would be much better to add an open meeting with all stakeholders in the ICANN community in Japan, but so far no reply came in [yet hopefully]. I got email from Internet Association of Japan that they had not been contacted. The government in charge said they will have a meeting. No AtLarge, as far as I know, are contacted. ISP association is not contacted. When the former CEO Rod came to Tokyo, similar thing happened. He only contacted selected few organizations and made no public meeting at all. Are these convention same elsewhere? Is there not much attempt to "outreach" in recent ICANN world (as before)? Am I too naiive and optimistic ? izumi

5 6

Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:39:02 -0500 >Subject: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation >Teleconference on Monday, > March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes > >Dear Councilors, > >I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from >your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and >the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open >consultation with the community. > > >**** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement >Modifications***** > >The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant >Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide >consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC. > >On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants >spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new >introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute >material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final >New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a >brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments >(PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry >agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed >the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a >host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes >document. >(<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…) > > >The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final >Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it >should be withdrawn in its entirety and the previously agreed-to >version in the Applicant Guidebook should be used. We oppose certain >proposed amendments, and believe that other provisions need further >thought and refinement. We are equally concerned about the timeline >ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of these >proposals, and the mechanism by which ICANN proposes to adopt and >implement the changes. > >The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve sufficient >time and consideration to ensure that new gTLDs are offered in a >secure and stable manner and are successful in fostering innovation >via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders >in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. > >The RySG's full public comments are available here: >(<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html) > >ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends >on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20, >2013. In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this >short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide >consultation to discuss the proposed agreement modifications. The >meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We >cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN >Board and the ICANN staff to attend this consultation. > >Please open the attachment to find the Adobe connect link and >teleconference details. > >Best regards, > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

1 0

WSIS +10 closing ceremony speech
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear All, Kindly find the WSIS +10 Closing Speech below: *Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change<#13d200ba367e0146_sdfootnote1sym> * * * *at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review * * * *held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013* Dear fellow-citizens of the world; On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the World Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of the digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing long standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders were also concerned that the digital divide at international and national levels could lead to shaping a new class of those who have access to ICTs and those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of the WSIS plus 10 review, we have the responsibility to go back to this concern. The Internet – as the future social paradigm – is already yet another axis shaping exclusion and power. The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers. It notes – with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all. This is the moment of reckoning – for all of us – to ask if we stand at the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global and national governance and policy architectures of the new techno-social paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the good life that seemed plausible in 2003. - The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is a serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal growth and its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to the inequality in work - wages, working conditions and social cohesion - and its microeconomic implications. - Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN says that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a large labour informality affecting mainly the young and women. Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Guatemala have all seen an increase in inequality in the past decade. - The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity – the consuming middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the livelihoods crisis for the majority. All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This is the principal question that the WSIS review process must answer. If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in the past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the power of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave new hope to social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in mainstream spaces have more or less seen the political elite make way for a new class of economic elite – information society democracy remains as exclusionary as its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little place for women and others in the margins, and oblivious of new forms of violence and misogyny in the open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors of the virtual world. Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society have to come to terms with and interrogate the roots of these crises – the unfavourable conditions that seem to have jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet. The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold – it is economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has – at an unstoppable speed – usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament in real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of colossal corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010...” Centralization is the name of the game – the most powerful weapon in neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data, today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars combine to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market place atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in a logic that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling to see the realpolitik. The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would precipitate a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens its horizons, we see the individuals, communities and nations, fragmented by increasing self interest. The seamless geographies of the connected world are images of the Internet's economic paradigm – where membership for marginalised individuals, social groups and nations is a simple binary - assimilation or decimation. The talk of diversity and multiligualism notwithstanding, there is much less we can aspire today out of the promise of the networks society for collaboration and horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We need to pause and ask – are our normative frameworks – infoethics and info-civic imaginaries – adequate to ensure that every person, the last woman, can be a global citizen in the interconnected global world. What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states that make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of freedoms and the rule of law The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 , Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development, Beijing in 1996 for women – pursued problems confronting humanity with the resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed to the broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. There are some lessons here for civil society in the information society space. Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant of the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review (Post 2015 Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These overlapping inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals of the WSIS declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review that can offer analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews. The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review the state of democracy – and I qualify, the state of global democracy. Here – we have two tasks 1. Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other UN reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and climate change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity, and violence against women. 1. The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can make the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy issues pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and national. Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet should be a principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process. We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been greater in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the brazen pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For civil society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the network age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the core issues that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS plus 10 review process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in multistakeholderism be reduced to shadowboxing – where emerging hierarchies are denied and those that wield power escape with no accountability. Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here. <http://Www.ITforChange.net/> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

R: [EURO-Discuss] REMINDER: Call for Membership of New ICANN Meeting Strategy Working Group - DEADLINE: 3 March
by Roberto Gaetano Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

IMHO, the importance of this WG should not be underestimated. The location and type of the ICANN physical meetings and the modality for remote participation are crucial for ALAC and our outreach capability. Based on my experience, there will be a strong push from some SO/AC to reduce the number of meetings and/or to locate them in hubs. This will have a negative impact on the participation of the local community, unless it is counterbalanced by specific local meetings. R. <CC to other RALO lists omitted> > -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: euro-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Inviato: martedì 26 febbraio 2013 07:26 > A: ICANN At-Large Staff > Cc: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; euro-discuss@atlarge- > lists.icann.org; afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac-announce@atlarge- > lists.icann.org; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss@atlarge- > lists.icann.org > Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] REMINDER: Call for Membership of New ICANN > Meeting Strategy Working Group - DEADLINE: 3 March > > Dear all, > > as you have noticed from the reminder below, we ask that all candidates > from our community copy At-Large Staff in their application. This is asked in > order for the application to be stored on an At-Large WIKI space for the ALAC > to review. > Staff will create this WIKI space shortly. > > After the closing of the application process (Hurry! This is only in a few days' > time), the Board will consult the ALAC in order to receive endorsement on > candidates. The ALAC will send its preferences. The process by which this > short-list will be established will be discussed on the ALAC call in a few hours. > Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > On 26/02/2013 00:49, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > As announced > > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement- > 11feb13-en.ht > > m> on 11 February, ICANN has committed to identifying ICANN Meeting > > locations two years in advance. After consideration that adoption of a > > prior Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal was not timely, the > > Public Participation Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a > > working group to address the meeting location strategy which was > > presented to the ICANN Board for approval in February 2013. > > > > > > > > In line with the Board resolution > > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions- > 02feb13-en > > .htm#2.a> adopted on February the 2nd 2013, ICANN is creating a new > > Meeting Strategy Working Group > > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg> (MSWG) > and > > now invites interested individuals to apply for Volunteer Member > > positions -- in representation of a Supporting Organization or > > Advisory Committee -- to serve on the Meeting Strategy Working Group. > > > > > > > > The mandate and Mission of Meeting Strategy Working Group as defined > > in the MSWG Charter is as follows: to discuss and propose strategy for > > the structure, purpose and locations for ICANN Public Meetings and > > conferences, starting in 2015. > > > > > > > > *Deadline* > > > > *Candidatures will be accepted until _Sunday, 3 March 2013 -- 23:59 > > UTC_.* > > > > > > > > *How to Apply* > > > > How to Apply for the Position of Volunteer Member for the MSWG > > > > Interested individuals are invited to provide the following: > > > > * A resume (maximum three pages); > > * A letter of motivation; > > * A Declaration of Interests (the template may be found at: > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/coi- > declaration-affirmation-14feb13-en.pdf > > [PDF, 34 KB]) > > * The Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee he/she wishes to > > represent; > > * Any additional information the Support Organization or Advisory > > Committee may require to reach its decision on endorsement. > > Candidatures will be forwarded to the Supporting Organization (SO) > > or Advisory Committee (AC) identified by the applicant, for > > endorsement. SO/AC endorsement will be factored into the selection > > process; > > > > > > > > *Candidatures should be emailed to mswgcandidatures(a)icann.org > > <mailto:mswgcandidatures@icann.org> (please cc to > > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>)* > > > > * * > > > > The list of all candidates will be published on the ICANN website. > > > > * * > > > > *More information* > > > > * Call for Applicants > > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/call-for- > volunteers-11feb13-en.htm> > > * Charter > > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/charter> > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > > Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen > > > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC > > > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

2 1

Putin orders Secret Services to fight freedom of speech on Internet
by Karlene Francis Feb. 23, 2013

Feb. 23, 2013

Dear Colleagues, Internet Control in Russia go to http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-929678 *"The Russian FSB (former KGB) must "step up their efforts in fighting "terrorism" and "extremism" in cyber space", Russian president Putin said Thursday at t a meeting of the KGB. Putin ordered his Secret Services to battle dissident ("extremist") groups both in real life and in cyber space.* *"The direct link between "extremists" and "terrorist" groups is obvious. That is why we need to act as resolutely as possible to neutralize different types of extremist structures," he said.* *Putin also called for effective measures to counter attempts by "radicals" to use the internet for their purposes.* *"When neutralizing any kind of extremist structures with well-planned special operations, we should act as resolutely as possible, and block attempts by radicals to use information technologies, internet resources and social networks for their propaganda. Nobody has a right to speak on behalf of the entire country, especially those groups and structures that rely on foreign funding for their existence," Putin said.* Sincerely, Karlene Francis

1 0

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

Feb. 21, 2013

Total of 55 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 22 00:53:04 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 32.73% | 18 | 39.42% | 265988 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 12.73% | 7 | 10.21% | 68906 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.45% | 3 | 3.29% | 22196 | iza at anr.org 3.64% | 2 | 3.89% | 26219 | yaovito at yahoo.fr 3.64% | 2 | 3.58% | 24180 | devtee at gmail.com 3.64% | 2 | 3.30% | 22269 | sebastien at bachollet.com 3.64% | 2 | 2.45% | 16534 | ocl at gih.com 3.64% | 2 | 2.02% | 13643 | avri at acm.org 1.82% | 1 | 3.01% | 20330 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 2.84% | 19163 | eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 2.82% | 19058 | info at hoferichter.eu 1.82% | 1 | 2.75% | 18587 | omar at kaminski.adv.br 1.82% | 1 | 2.69% | 18162 | hilyard at oyster.net.ck 1.82% | 1 | 2.61% | 17639 | isolatedn at gmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 2.57% | 17361 | ali.almeshal at bis.org.bh 1.82% | 1 | 2.16% | 14576 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 1.44% | 9723 | tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn 1.82% | 1 | 1.41% | 9493 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 1.34% | 9023 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 1.82% | 1 | 1.18% | 7991 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 1.17% | 7886 | tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn 1.82% | 1 | 1.09% | 7324 | neil at cauce.org 1.82% | 1 | 1.04% | 6995 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.82% | 1 | 0.89% | 5998 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 1.82% | 1 | 0.82% | 5523 | evan at telly.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 55 |100.00% | 674767 | Total

1 0

Fwd: ICANN Appoints First URS Provider
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 21, 2013

Feb. 21, 2013

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Appoints First URS Provider To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-20feb13-en.htm ------------------------------ ICANN Appoints First URS Provider 20 February 2013 The National Arbitration Forum <http://www.adrforum.com/> (FORUM) has secured the first appointment by ICANN to administer the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). FORUM submitted an outstanding proposal demonstrating how it would meet all requirements presented in the RFI<http://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/urs-24sep12-en.pdf>[PDF, 112 KB] and detailing its implementation approach. The company has a proven track record boasting resolution of over 19,000 claims in 12+ years of administering UDRP cases. Additionally, FORUM has already developed, and is currently operating a TLD-specific rapid relief system. ICANN would like to thank everyone who responded to the RFI. FORUM will be one of multiple providers appointed to administer URS services. The process will be similar to that of appointing UDRP providers in which consideration is given to achieving competitive provisioning and geographical spread of providers. URS is a rights protection mechanism for new gTLDs that facilitates rapid suspension of domain names in clear-cut cases of trademark infringement. It is intended to complement the existing Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) by offering a lower-cost, faster path to resolution. Learn more about Uniform Rapid Suspension<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs>

1 0