- At-Large - lists.icann.org

The matter of 'Closed Generic Strings"...
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Minutes from the meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board. Recall these are voting Board members who are not conflicted inre new gTLD program. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13-en.… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

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

Feb. 1, 2013

Total of 12 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 1 00:53:03 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 2 | 18.16% | 18407 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 16.67% | 2 | 17.14% | 17369 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 16.67% | 2 | 14.63% | 14834 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 12.25% | 12418 | dogwallah at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 11.39% | 11548 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 7.85% | 7952 | narten at us.ibm.com 8.33% | 1 | 6.82% | 6910 | devtee at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 5.92% | 5997 | johnl at iecc.com 8.33% | 1 | 5.85% | 5928 | karl at cavebear.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 12 |100.00% | 101363 | Total

1 0

Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the New gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) kindly requests the opinions from the At-Large community on the comments received on the following new gTLD applications: .amazon ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG ) .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG ) .nyc ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG ) .health ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.health_OG ) To date, there are not enough comments by the At-Large community on these applications to determine whether there is substantial opposition as described in Section 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook. This section describes 4 tests for the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that: * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. See https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg for more details about the criteria for objection grounds. You can post your opinions on the wiki pages linked to earlier or by visiting the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld before the next gTLD RG conference call on February 1 2013 Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 27, 2013

Jan. 27, 2013

Dear Jean Jacques, I wrote an opinion piece on the new US Cyber Security Bills see: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_b… I agree with your proposal and support it. Best Regards, Sala On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:41 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > *Dear Salanieta,* > * > * > *thank you for bringing this to our attention. It will be worth following. > * > * > * > *This draft bill comes on the heels of SOPA and other proposed > legislation which, under the guise of protecting citizens, businesses and > states, would allow public authority to curtail civic and individual > rights, without adequate protection for the Internet user, under the > convenient assumption that what is good for a sovereign state is of > necessity good for its citizens.* > * > * > *It is in this context, and in the face of this growing threat, that I > proposed, during an ALAC monthly meeting, that we take up the subject of > existing and foreseeable infringements on civic and individual rights, such > as the expanding practice of DPI without proper parliamentary oversight > (and this is done not only in states governed by a single political party > without representative democracy).* > * > * > *Best regards,* > *Jean-Jacques.* > > 2013/1/26 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators >> John >> D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and >> Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate >> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne >> Feinstein, >> Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a >> Press Release, see: >> >> http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… >> >> To see the Bill, visit: >> >> http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… >> >> This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical >> information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US >> Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration >> which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of >> the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State >> of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State >> and it has its challenges. >> >> This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

4 3

Fwd: Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 26, 2013

Jan. 26, 2013

This new PDP will be looking at several issues that have the potential to impact all gTLD registrants. For those not familiar with the term FOA, it means Forms of Authorization - standardized forms for registrars to request and confirm transfers. I would appreciate if people who join this WG also let me know so that I can brief them on additional issues. Alan >http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jan13-en.htm >Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process >(PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D > >In Brief >The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) >Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working >Group that will address issues related to the >transfer of domain names between registrars. >After investigating and considering specific >issues (detailed below), the Working Group is >expected to recommend how to handle these >issues, which could include proposals for >changes to the existing ><http://archive.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm>Inter-Registrar >Transfer Policy (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). > > >What This Group Will Do >The initial tasks of the group will be to >consider the following six questions[1] and make >relevant recommendations to the GNSO Council: > > >a) Whether reporting requirements for >registries and dispute providers should be >â¨developed, in order to make precedent and >trend information available to the â¨community >and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; > >b) Whether additional provisions should be >included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute >Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes >when multiple transfers have â¨occurred; > >c) Whether dispute options for registrants >should be developed and implemented asâ¨part of >the policy (registrants currently depend on >registrars to initiate a dispute on â¨their behalf); > >d) Whether requirements or best practices >should be put into place for registrars to make >information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; > >e) Whether existing penalties for policy >violations are sufficient or if additional >provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; > >f) Whether the universal adoption and >implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs. >How This Group Will Work >ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open >processes. The meetings of this WG will be >recorded, and the recordings will be available >to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP >Part D WG will be archived publicly. Working >Group members are expected to submit Statements >of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate >using a public workspace. The Working Group is >expected to follow the ><../../Library/Caches/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/Outlook%20Temp/gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.htm>GNSO >Working Group Guidelines. > >How to Join >The Council invites interested parties to >provide names of expected participants who can >then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO >Council may also invite stakeholders and experts >to join. Participants in the Working Group that >addressed IRTP Part C are especially encouraged >to apply. Community members who wish to be >invited to join the group should contact the ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group>GNSO >secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This >WG is already forming; please apply promptly. >Background >The ><http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers/policy-01jun12.htm>InterâRegistrar >Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy >adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward >procedure for domain name holders to transfer >domain names between registrars. An overall >review of this policy identified areas that >require clarification or improvement. At its >meeting on 17 January 2013, the Generic Names >Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a >resolution chartering a Policy Development >Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the >topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies >(IRTP) Part D. Because the initial review >identified a wide range of issues related to >transferring domain names, the issues have been >categorized into subsets. This Working Group >will tackle the issues referred to as "Part D". > >Glen de Saint GÃ©ry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > >[1] See the final ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf>Issue >Report on the IRTP Part D for further details on each of these issues.

2 2

US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

Dear All, The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… To see the Bill, visit: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. Kind Regards, -- 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 Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 25 00:53:05 EST 2013 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 7.34% | 8 | 41.93% | 541072 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 25.69% | 28 | 16.16% | 208484 | karl at cavebear.com 15.60% | 17 | 8.33% | 107494 | johnl at iecc.com 9.17% | 10 | 5.91% | 76275 | evan at telly.org 8.26% | 9 | 5.82% | 75143 | h.raiche at internode.on.net 8.26% | 9 | 5.63% | 72594 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 3.67% | 4 | 2.53% | 32684 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 3.67% | 4 | 2.13% | 27530 | icann-list at sorehands.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.70% | 21953 | joly at punkcast.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.58% | 20372 | ocl at gih.com 1.83% | 2 | 1.16% | 15018 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.83% | 2 | 0.91% | 11791 | neil at cauce.org 1.83% | 2 | 0.91% | 11780 | avri at acm.org 0.92% | 1 | 1.32% | 17012 | derek at aa419.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.75% | 9716 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.92% | 1 | 0.59% | 7660 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.55% | 7107 | pt at dothiv.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.54% | 7027 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6755 | jaap at nlnetlabs.nl 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6689 | pranesh at cis-india.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.49% | 6272 | dogwallah at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 109 |100.00% | 1290428 | Total

1 0

ATRT2
by Avri Doria Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

Hi, Currently ALAC is in the process of picking its candidates for the ATRT2. I am wondering, to what extent is the vetting public on the At-Large list. A sub-committee has done what appears to be a good job in vetting several candidates for consideration and the ALAC appears ready to vote. To what extent has the At-Large, whose view these candidates need to represent, be given a voice in the matter. How much do those who us who are responsible for ALS support of ICANN know about what is going on? In this case have even the RALOs been involved in this critical choice? Will they be? For those who don't know, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) are a critical components of ICANN credibility as a multistakeholder organization. Is there any At-Large accountability and transparency transparency in ALACs preparations for ATRT2? Have I missed the discussion on this list? Or on the RALO lists? avri

1 0

Same discussion over again? The recurring WhoIs issue
by Roberto Gaetano Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

I think that over the years I have heard the same discussions, with the same argumentation, many times. I had therefore planned not to reply. However, since I have already broken this plan with my previous message, I might as well provide my full version (which is not much different from the conclusions of the WG). First of all, I do not enter in the gun registry issue, because this is a local issue, and must be fully on the authority of the local laws. Different countries (maybe even different States in the US) have different legislation, and there is no need for a globally uniform approach. But for the Internet, as global resource, things are different, and therefore more complicated. My approach can be summarized in the following points: . WhoIs data *must* be complete and accurate. There's no point in even having a WhoIs if we cannot rely on its content . The entity that accepts the registration (generally it will be the Registrar or the resellers that act anyway under the authority of the Registrar) are responsible for completeness and accuracy of data. Of course, this is an additional burden on Registrars, but if it is enforced in the whole system it will not cause competitive advantage by some. . ICANN must have the authority (and the means) of enforcing the completeness and correctness of the data. This does not mean that a Registrar will be sanctioned if an entry is incorrect, it means that procedures have to be defined to deal with these cases. We have to understand that data can be complete and accurate at the creation, but might become inaccurate in time. . WhoIs information will be of two types: public and restricted. We can even think of using the experience of social networks to define what is public and what not, for instance we can allow a nickname to be public and the real name being hidden, if the result of the PDP is going in this direction. . Information on organization and individuals are not necessarily the same. In particular, the public and private part might differ. Of course, in some jurisdiction it is OK to have a completely fake organization, but this is a problem that we cannot solve as it impacts local legislation. I assume that those "fake" organizations will be clustered among a small subset of Registrars, and since the Registrar is known... . LEAs have full access to Registrant's data. ICANN maintains a list of the organizations that have full access (it can be slightly wider than LEAs themselves, it will include probably ICANN itself, the Registries, the RIR, and others. GAC will have access to the list and has the authority to determine whether an organization operating in the country they represent is authorized or not. International LEAs, like Europol and Interpol, are a limited number anyway. . Local organizations like vigilantes can get the right to access data if they are recognized and authorized by a LEA. The LEA is fully responsible for the actions of the entities to whom they have delegated authority, as well of keeping complete and accurate data of them. ICANN, in particular the compliance department, has full access to the complete data of these organizations that act under LEAs' authority. These data are otherwise restricted (unless the organization itself wants to make them, or part thereof, public). . A private citizen will have access only to the public part of the WhoIs data. To access the restricted part, he/she must do so via a LEA or authorized vigilante (I am using this term for lack of a better term). I am working under the assumption that there will be organizazions, like SpamHaus, who will be accessible by private citizen to perform requests in their behalf and that will be more responsive than the official LEAs. Of course, there are problems. For instance, privacy is not fully guaranteed. We have the potential case of refugees from a regime whose data can be detected by a LEA operating under that very regime. However, I believe that we cannot solve this problem because it would never be acceptable that a LEA, by its very nature, cannot access the WhoIs data. We have to think about other means to exert the right of free speech in a way that does not necessarily implies the registration of a domain name. I am sure that in the world there exist already so many cases of fighters for freedom who have obtained substantial results without registering domain names. I know I am not making friends here, but I have the right to free speech as well. The consequence is that I have to be ready to accept flames. Cheers, Roberto

3 3

France Proposes Internet Tax - Old War Resurfacing
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2013

Jan. 23, 2013

Dear All, You would have read in the New York Times about France proposing Internet Tax - I have blogged about this here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130121_france_proposes_internet_tax_an_old_… Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

6 10