- At-Large - lists.icann.org

South Korean Constitutional Court declares Internet "Real Name Policy as Unconstitutional"
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

FYI Source: http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790… accessed 27/8/12 Internet "Real Name" Law Violates the Constitution, Of Course Posted on : 2012-08-24 13:54 - Zoom - <http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790…> - <http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790…> - l - <http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790…> - l - <http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_list.html?code=790101> - l - <http://me2day.net/posts/new?new_post[body]=%22Internet+%26quot%3BReal+Name%…> - l - <http://twtkr.com/index.php?status=Internet+%26quot%3BReal+Name%26quot%3B+La…> - l - <http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790…> - l - <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.khan.co.kr%2Fkhan…> The Constitutional Court has decided that the Internet "real name" policy is unconstitutional. The judges unanimously voted that clause 5 of article 44 in the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, which requires websites with more than an average of 100,000 visitors a day to verify the real name of the user when the person posts on the website, violated the Constitution. We welcome the court's decision to protect the freedom of speech by abolishing this anachronistic regulation. The court ruling was mainly supported by the fact that the real name policy infringes the users' right to free speech and to determine personal information, along with the operators' freedom of speech. The court pointed out, "If we are to restrict freedom of expression, public interests we would thereby acquire must be clear. On August 23 at the Constitutional Court, the judges are seated to announce their decision that the Internet real name policy is unconstitutional. From the left are the justices, Lee Jung-Mi, Song Doo-Hwan, Lee Dong-Heub, Kim Jong-Dae, Lee Kang-Kuk, Min Hyeong-Ki, Mok Young-Jun, Park Han-Chul. Yonhap news We have yet to see a sharp decline in illegal postings, and with users fleeing to overseas websites, the policy has caused reverse discrimination between domestic and overseas businesses. Taking these factors into consideration, it is difficult to say that we have contributed to public interest." Apparently, the court has agreed with most of the arguments made by the civic society in their efforts to abolish the real name system. The real name policy was introduced in 2007 to prevent harmful consequences of vicious comments made anonymously. Originally, it was targeted to websites with more than 300,000 visitors a day, but in 2009 the number was lowered to 100,000 visitors, forcing most major websites to follow the policy. However, people criticized the system, questioning its effectiveness and claiming that it only obstructed free speech. As a series of large scale hacking incidents occurred at sites run by Auction, SK Communications, and KT, people pointed out that the policy only encouraged leaks in personal information. Since the candlelight rallies, the Lee Myung-bak government has constantly tried to put a gag on the Internet by reinforcing the real name system and by arresting the Internet columnist known as Minerva. They claimed that they were preventing libel, but underneath their claims is an anti-democratic mind that is trying to muzzle unfavorable press coverage. Why else would *The New York Times* point out, "Online anonymity is essential for political dissidents... and for corporate whistle-blowers," criticizing Korea's real name policy last year? Hiding behind online anonymity and spreading false rumors or slandering someone with abusive words is clearly an act of violence. However, the court's decision has confirmed that implementing a real name policy to control these actions is like burning the house down to roast the pig. Some are concerned that this decision may have side effects, such as the defamation of celebrities online. However, these wrongdoings can be punished by tracing the Internet address of the user. The increase in freedom of speech may bring some discomfort for the time being, but still it is something we should bear. As the Constitutional Court pointed out, "The freedom of expression is an important constitutional value, which is the basis of democracy." -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Govt to take Control of Your Home Router in Crisis?
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

Now, here's an idea whose time is yet to come! http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/would-you-give-the-government-re… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Developments in Data Privacy - Australia
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

Australia has revised their data privacy law... " *The changes allow police to force telcos to retain data on persons of interest for a set period while a warrant is sough**t*. " The last bit of the quotation is my emphasis. This law fulfills treaty obligations to the EU and is in line with the EU Data Retention Directive 2006. See the story here and back into the Act itself from there. Read the comments as well. http://mobile.itnews.com.au/Article.aspx?CIID=312771&type=News Of course, not everybody is happy with this development, comparing the requirements unfavourably against the EU Data Retention Directive of 2006, around which the treaty obligations are centred. If you're not familiar with that directive, read the full advisory of EU Data Retention Directive of 2006 here and pay close attention to Articles 2 -6, inclusive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:00… I'm still trying to find more data and information that'd come via implementation of Articles 10 and 14; Statistics and Evaluation. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- SSAC Report on Dotless Domains
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

FYI. Important implications herein for users, especially with respect to use of applications, browsers more than any other, as well as how your device is configured for access to the Internet. - 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-24aug12-en.htm ------------------------------ SSAC Report on Dotless Domains 24 August 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 24 August 2012 * Categories/Tags:* - Top-level Domains - Security / Stability *Purpose (Brief):* This purpose of this public comment period is to bring to your attention of the SSAC's report on dotless domain<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf>and to solicit your input on ICANN's implementation of the recommendations in this report. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac053-dotless-domains-24aug12-…

1 0

Republican Platform Language to include "Internet Freedom"
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 26, 2012

Aug. 26, 2012

Um, well, it is rational mind that would choose not to underestimate the American polity. FWIW, most analysts believe that if the content follows the line of so-called 'Rand-Paul' political framework, it would mean more ISP control and the dominance of their take on 'net neutrality'. http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/24/exclusive-gop-platform-includes-internet-… - 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 Aug. 24, 2012

Aug. 24, 2012

Total of 17 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 24 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 29.41% | 5 | 50.34% | 110878 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 11.76% | 2 | 9.48% | 20884 | fsylla at gmail.com 11.76% | 2 | 6.06% | 13348 | evan at telly.org 5.88% | 1 | 10.42% | 22954 | jefsey at jefsey.com 5.88% | 1 | 5.06% | 11155 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.88% | 1 | 3.84% | 8454 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 5.88% | 1 | 3.25% | 7168 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.88% | 1 | 3.20% | 7045 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org 5.88% | 1 | 2.96% | 6527 | dralialmeshal at gmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.96% | 6517 | devtee at gmail.com 5.88% | 1 | 2.42% | 5335 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 17 |100.00% | 220265 | Total

1 0

Eid Mubarak! Well Wishes!
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Dear All, As the day draws to a close here in Fiji, I would like to take the time to wish all Muslims within At Large who are concluding their month-long Ramadan fast, a Happy Eid Mubarak! Warm well wishes to you and your loved ones. I would also like to congratulate Afghanishtan as they get ready to celebrate their 93rd Independence celebrations and all Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you also celebrate your National day soon. As I wish you all well, I am reminded of countries that have yet to be reached and it is my hope that we will see new ALS come into At Large in countries yet to be reached. Warm Regards from Fiji, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 3

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Summary of Trademark Clearing House Meeting [Remote Streaming]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

Dear Wolf, Yes the points you and Rudi raised are critical when we will be reviewing Version 2 although there is nothing to prevent us from analysing Version 1 as it currently stands. The cost factor of course we can assess once the proposed design is in place etc so we can see what is reasonable and what's not. It will be good to see the basis of what is used for cost modelling without a doubt. Cheers, Sala On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>wrote: > Dear Sala and all, > > thanks for the interesting points you raised. And we touched this issue > during our monthly call tonight. A highly relevant question is - what Rudi > mentioned below - "Who pays for the services that are of benefit to the > Trademark owners ?" Is it - at the end of the chain - the end user again > who has to refund all the related investments? This should be a key > question for our community. > > Kind regards, > Wolf > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:28: > >Dear All, > > > >In any regulatory model where infrastructure is being set up, in this case > >a specific type of information infrastructure, there are serious costs > >associated with it, whether they are CAPEX or OPEX costs. For those > putting > >in the investment, there is an expected return on investment whether this > >is over a period of time or not. The complexity in what is being set up > >lies in the fact that a data bank does not exist yet, in other worlds when > >the queries are pumped into the system than they will form a baseline > where > >others can eventually draw or issue new searches etc. It is another thing > >to make it interoperable where these queries can be run across multiple > >registries. There are many other factors and variables to consider, for > >instance, updating caches or lists and when that is going to be done. > > > >They are at the moment brainstorming on the general architecture that it > >should take from a technical operational standpoint to something that is > >workable and efficient and that can be used. As you can imagine they have > >to do this carefully because of the obligations that come with it. My view > >is that we wait for them to work on their Version 2 which will be > >significantly different from Version 1 as there were many things discussed > >in the meeting as it was more like a directly affected stakeholder > >consultation if you wish. Yes, we are stakeholders too and there is > nothing > >to stop us from joining the mailing list or reading the wiki etc but at > >this stage, I would say we wait and analyse the Version 2 which will be > >posted for comments and where other constituencies and advisory committees > >will be asked for their perspective. > > > >Of course this is not to stop us from working on a few things now. > > > >Kind Regards, > >Sala > > > >On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be > >wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost Model > >> (version 1 June 2012) I was surprised reading the following paragraph : > >> > >> > Services to Registries > >> > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that registries > will > >> pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. Further details are still > >> being worked out; however, initial estimates based on currently > available > >> information indicate that a set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due > >> per TLD registry. The set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark > Claims > >> processes as established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration > and > >> testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > >> participation in other programs or ancillary services. > >> > >> Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that are > of > >> benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph is > mentioned : > >> > >> > Services to Rightsholders > >> > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) authentication > >> as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. The first establishes > >> that rights information meets the criteria for Clearinghouse inclusion > and > >> the second establishes that a Clearinghouse record meets the standard > for > >> Sunrise eligibility as described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of > >> the trademark. A bundled fee is expected where these services are > performed > >> together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an > individual > >> price if such is requested subsequent to the original submission of > rights > >> data for authentication. > >> > The bundled fee or price for these initial services (authentication > and > >> validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 per submission. Annual > >> renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are expected at a percentage of > the > >> initial price. The low fee requires that submissions be inexpensive and > >> straightforward to process. Complex circumstances and additional > services > >> will add to the cost. > >> > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required (such > as > >> a re-submission due to errors in the original submission or an appeal to > >> the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, non-electronic > submissions > >> might be available at a higher rate in order to cover handling costs. > >> > >> > >> As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee to > get > >> their name been protected while the majority of the cost is covered by > the > >> registry, which in the end means the registrant will pay for it !! > >> > >> What's ALAC's position in this ? > >> > >> > >> Rudi Vansnick > >> > >> > >> Op 21-aug-2012, om 17:56 heeft Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro het > volgende > >> geschreven: > >> > >> > Dear All, > >> > > >> > There was a 2 day meeting which concluded today on Trademark Clearing > >> Hose > >> > Draft Implementation Model that was tabled in Prague. There was much > >> > discussion stemming from the 2 day meeting that was productive. The > >> > recordings are available and hopefully will be posted on > >> > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark- > >> > > >> > For now here is my take on what occurred. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > P.O. Box 17862 > >> > Suva > >> > Fiji > >> > > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > <Trademark Clearing House Draft Implementation > >> Model.docx>_______________________________________________ > >> > At-Large mailing list > >> > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >> > > >> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> At-Large mailing list > >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >> > >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >P.O. Box 17862 > >Suva > >Fiji > > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT > >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >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… > > > > EuroDIG Secretariat > http://www.eurodig.org/ > mobile +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > > EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation > http://euralo.org > > Profile on LinkedIn > http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

2 1

7 Aug letter from Senate Judiciary Committee
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Dear all, please be so kind to find a link to a recent letter from Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, to ICANN's interim CEO & President, Akram Atallah. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%2… Kind regards, Olivier

2 2

Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2012

Aug. 22, 2012

Rudi also posted a message to the ALAC GTLD WG and I replied with a bit of the history. Alan >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:22:48 -0400 >To: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, gTLD WG > <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: Staff At Large <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Trademark Clearinghouse procedures > >This has been discussed since the start of the TMCH concept. > >The IRT said that the cost to TM holders should be "reasonable" but I >believe it was silent on whether ICANN or Registries should contribute. > >The STI report said the "cost should be born by users" but was silent >on who the users were, but the implication is both TM holders and >Registries. The rationale was that if the TMCH did not exist, the >registry would have to build a comparable system itself (although the >registry could then absorb part of the cost or put it all on TM >holders). The report was explicit that ICANN should not fund the CH >nor should the CH provide funds to ICANN. The Registry SG and NCSG >issues a minority opinion that TM should fund the entire cost. > >The final AG said "Costs should be completely borne by the parties >utilizing the services. Trademark holders will pay to register the >Clearinghouse, and registries will pay for Trademark Claims and >Sunrise services. Registrars and others who avail themselves of >Clearinghouse services will pay the Clearinghouse directly." > >Alan > >At 22/08/2012 09:18 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >Yesterday, I've participated remotely to the TMCH 2-days meetings in > >Brussels. A very interesting meeting with many discussions > >illustrating the TMCH solution is not yet in a consensus level. > >However, the provider is selected and should start delivering > >solutions. From the meeting I understood nothing has yet being > >worked out and the community was asked for input / approval of > >processes to implement. > > > >When reading through the Trademark Clearinghouse: Preliminary Cost > >Model (version 1 June 2012) (see attached PDF) I was surprised > >reading the following paragraph : > > > > > Services to Registries > > > Initial implementation and fee discussions indicate that > > registries will pay for access to the Clearinghouse database. > > Further details are still being worked out; however, initial > > estimates based on currently available information indicate that a > > set-up fee of USD 7,000 - 10,000 will be due per TLD registry. The > > set-up fee would cover Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes as > > established by ICANN, as well as assistance in integration and > > testing. Additional fees will be due in other circumstances such as > > participation in other programs or ancillary services. > > > >Does this mean the registries do have to pay for the services that > >are of benefit to the Trademark owners ? In the previous paragraph > >is mentioned : > > > > > Services to Rightsholders > > > The primary services offered to rights holders are: (1) > > authentication as a trademark and (2) validation of proof-of-use. > > The first establishes that rights information meets the criteria > > for Clearinghouse inclusion and the second establishes that a > > Clearinghouse record meets the standard for Sunrise eligibility as > > described by ICANN, i.e., demonstration of use of the trademark. A > > bundled fee is expected where these services are performed > > together. Proof of use validation would also be available at an > > individual price if such is requested subsequent to the original > > submission of rights data for authentication. > > > The bundled fee or price for these initial services > > (authentication and validation) is expected to be less than USD 150 > > per submission. Annual renewal fees for Clearinghouse records are > > expected at a percentage of the initial price. The low fee requires > > that submissions be inexpensive and straightforward to process. > > Complex circumstances and additional services will add to the cost. > > > There may be additional charges if further scrutiny is required > > (such as a re-submission due to errors in the original submission > > or an appeal to the initial Clearinghouse determination). Also, > > non-electronic submissions might be available at a higher rate in > > order to cover handling costs. > > > > > >As such I understand the Trademark owners just pay a very small fee > >to get their name been protected while the majority of the cost is > >covered by the registry, which in the end means the registrant will > >pay for it !! > > > >At the other side, the registry (applicant) already invested > >185.000$ at least and should now add to this amount at least 7000 $. > >Was this foreseen in the Guidebook ? As far as I could see yet, it > >wasn't. Does this mean that applicants could eventually be able to > >withdraw with full reimbursement of their investment ? > > > >Just some thoughts and reflections after yesterday's meetings ... > > > >What's ALAC's position in this ? > > > >Rudi Vansnick > > > >_______________________________________________ > >GTLD-WG mailing list > >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > >Working Group direct URL: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > >_______________________________________________ >GTLD-WG mailing list >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > >Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

1 0