- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Update on comments from At-Large for consideration of objections to new gTLD applications due November 14 2012
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Nov. 21, 2012

Nov. 21, 2012

Dear All, The deadline for At-Large comments to be considered by the At-Large new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) gTLD RG for drafting a formal objection statement on limited public interest or community grounds for RALO's and ALAC's consideration was around November 14 2012. There was a request (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/2012-November/000185.html) to create a page for the .nyc application. This page was added to the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard (http://bit.ly/newgtld) at https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc, and we are awaiting the comment on this gTLD application to be added to this page. The public comment on the "Use of a Drawing for Prioritizing New gTLD Applications" ended on November 9 2012 which (among other things) called for the objection period to be extended to March 13 2013 instead of January 12 2013. A cursory review of the public comments received by ICANN at http://forum.icann.org/lists/drawing-prioritization/ indicate the majority of comments focused on the prioritization draw. I do note this comment on the objection deadline by Coalition for Online Accountability at http://forum.icann.org/lists/drawing-prioritization/pdffwvWBliZtI.pdf but also note ICANN's CEO Fadi Chehade comment in the ICANN Board session with the Registries Stakeholder Group Toronto meeting on Page 8 of the transcript http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/transcript-board-rysg-redli… "The date won't slip. It is March 13th. That's it. And how we picked it, we split the difference. People wanted it in June. People wanted it in January. It is the midpoint. Split the difference. It is that simple. Yes, not everyone is happy but this date works. And if we start messing with that date, it will mess all of our initial evaluations releases, guys. So this date is set. Let's live with it....." So it does seem likely that ICANN will soon confirm that the objection period would be extended to March 13 2013 if not later, especially given that the new gTLD Prioritization Draw has been announced (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/prioritization-draw) Once the objection deadline has been formally announced by ICANN, the gTLD RG will update the timetable for its activities and repeat the call for At-Large comments to be considered by the gTLD RG for drafting a formal objection statement on limited public interest or community grounds for RALO's and ALAC's consideration. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

GAC early warnings
by Sébastien Bachollet Nov. 21, 2012

Nov. 21, 2012

Hello All, The GAC early warnings are now public at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings Interesting to see that the: String Applicant Filing Government and Early Warning have been published. I was not expecting so much early warnings but that interesting. Good reading All the best Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

1 0

GNSO Council
by Roberto Gaetano Nov. 20, 2012

Nov. 20, 2012

Any comment to the recent GNSO Council vote about not granting temporary protection to IOC/RC? Am I the only one who thinks that the next Board meeting will be hot (and potentially embarrassing)? Just for the record, I believe that Volker's proposed (but not accepted) amendment could be the basis for a compromise solution - while at the same time I maintain the point that we should not open the door to different categories of future reservations other than those already included in the guidelines until a PDP produces a recommendation. Cheers, R. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20121115-en.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/chat-transcript-council-15nov12-en.pdf (interesting to understand the issue Jonathan is facing before deciding that the vote was valid)

6 8

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] Nominations for the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Registry (PIR)
by Joly MacFie Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

The Internet Society is currently accepting nominations for the Board of Directors of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) through December 4, 2012. PIR's business is to manage an international registry of .org domain names, and is currently in the process of preparing to manage an additional registry of .NGO and .ONG domain names, solely intended for NGOs around the world, as well as four additional IDNs for .org. The Internet Society invites candidates with a good understanding of and experience with the global NGO business and organization, or demonstrated experience with technological aspects of the Internet and more specifically the DNS, or Legal and regulatory knowledge and experience in the Internet industry or related industries. Both self-nominations and third-party nominations are encouraged. Additional details, including the nomination form, are available at: http://www.internetsociety.org/pir-call-nominations -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Fw: Apple owns the Page Turn!
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 18, 2012

Nov. 18, 2012

.....note the likely impact on e-readers this guy mention. Even more generic on the FOS environment. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/apple-now-owns-the-page-turn/?smid… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 2

Russia's [Apparent] Demands for WCIT - UN, Manage the Internet!
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 18, 2012

Nov. 18, 2012

...the Russians have showed their hands for WCIT..... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57551442-38/russia-demands-broad-un-role-… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Meeting to discuss TMCH Implementation as well as possible changed to the TM protections
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 17, 2012

Nov. 17, 2012

Copy of a message sent to ALAC list =================================== As you are aware, a meeting was held in Brussels several weeks ago to discuss implementation issues for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). The meeting included representatives of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, but not At-Large. On Thursday and Friday of this week, a follow-on meeting was held in Los Angeles. In addition to a discussion of many of the technical issues related to the TMCH, a full day was spend discussing a list of issues that had been presented to ICANN by the GNSO Business and Intellectual Property Constituencies (http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/ncsg-to-icann-01nov12-en.pdf) This time At-Large was represented (unfortunately only remotely as no travel funding was provided). I had the honour of participating along with Evan. The first day on the BC/IPC issues was both interesting and productive. The intent was: 1. To fully understand what it was that the BC and IPC were asking for. The original document was not particularly clear, and in fact, the BC/IPC have spent the weeks following Toronto fleshing out their ideas. 2. To understand whether these issues were in fact just implementation (as the BC/IPC) believed, or Policy, which should be addressed by GNSO Policy processes. The issue has been much discussed within ICANN, but the difference has never been formally addressed before. Staff were charged with starting to develop a methodology for making such decisions in the future. Although the work is still preliminary, it was used to analyze the more controversial of the BC/IPC proposals, and the outcome matched that of the discussions within ALAC. They were all deemed to be Policy and thus required GNSO action to formally change the status quo (a relief to some at the table, and troubling to others). 3. To brainstorm the issues raised by the BC/IPC and see if any solutions could be found to address the issues that concerned them which at the same time might be acceptable to the other stakeholders. After a rather harrowing day (12 solid hours, followed by another 2 hours on Friday) the result was a strawman proposal. The proposal completely pleased none of the people involved, which some people say is a good measure of a reasonable compromise. Regardless, it is a good start for more traditional community-based discussions which now have to happen. ALAC's first position was that we would prefer to not have new policy changes in the new TLD program at this late date. However we also did look at the individual issues as discussed in a message I sent earlier this week. The resultant strawman proposal actually fits in moderately well with the positions that ALAC took. Of course, this is not yet a formal policy and there are many details to be developed. This is perhaps not surprising, as many of the ALAC positions to protect innocent Internet users coincide well with TM holders desire to prevent cyber-squatting and fraud, and the over-reaching that some attribute to TM holders (that is, wanting protections far an above those granted by the TM itself) were to some extent held in control. I have to note that this type of focus group is not an unknown way to try to bridge widely disparate positions, but it is a very uncommon one in ICANN, and one that some people have said violates the bottom up multi-stakeholder model of ICANN. It does bear some similarity to the STI group which many herald as one of the more effective ICANN policy efforts. It also re-opened issues that the community (well, part of the community including At-Large) had thought or hoped were closed issues. Whether it was an effective move or not history will tell. One of the measures that I have is how quickly we can convene a more formal ICANN process to refine and actually approve a policy coming out of this proposal. After Toronto, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had said that he considers the TMCH to be a critical issue and would personally oversee its implementation. True to his word, he personally ran the 14 hours of meetings. It was interesting! I will elaborate (as perhaps will Evan) more in the coming days on some of the high and low points of the meeting, but this will have to do for the moment. Today I was on the call for over 8 hours, and yesterday including a GNSO meeting starting at 6 am and one other WG, I totaled 15 hours of teleconferences. So it is perhaps time for a bit of rest and relaxation. You can find the initial description of outcomes of the meeting at http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/trademark-clearinghouse-update/. Alan

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 16 00:53:03 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7623 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7623 | Total

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

Total of 28 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 9 00:53:04 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 32.14% | 9 | 25.11% | 56220 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 17.86% | 5 | 12.92% | 28942 | johnl at iecc.com 3.57% | 1 | 19.66% | 44028 | tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn 7.14% | 2 | 6.59% | 14747 | joly at punkcast.com 3.57% | 1 | 4.63% | 10363 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.57% | 1 | 3.87% | 8675 | h.raiche at internode.on.net 3.57% | 1 | 3.66% | 8203 | karl at cavebear.com 3.57% | 1 | 3.49% | 7807 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.57% | 1 | 3.41% | 7639 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 3.57% | 1 | 3.02% | 6757 | icann-list at sorehands.com 3.57% | 1 | 3.00% | 6709 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 3.57% | 1 | 2.99% | 6693 | isolatedn at gmail.com 3.57% | 1 | 2.82% | 6311 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 3.57% | 1 | 2.54% | 5693 | dogwallah at gmail.com 3.57% | 1 | 2.30% | 5140 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 28 |100.00% | 223927 | Total

1 0

You could be sued...well, if you have enough value
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 9, 2012

Nov. 9, 2012

...by gum, SSL too? http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/11/patent-suits-target-google-intel-hu… ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1