- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

Dear all, I know that several of you are following the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) issues closely -- and you are right to do so since the outcome of the WCIT discussions will directly affect our communities. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) member states will meet in Dubai in December 2012 to update the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), last updated in the late eighties. The big difference with the eighties is that it is proposed that the regulations would include the Internet. The ALAC has a WIKI page of relevant links for all of you to learn about the WCIT issues. There are links to further information under several sub-headings: - Internet Governance - Domain Name - IPv6 - Other Please be so kind to inform staff if you know of a good resource to list on that WIKI page. Also, if anyone knows of a good short, easy to understand introduction to the subject of ITU, WCIT & ITRs, please be so kind to suggest it for inclusion on that page. It is really important that we have resources to help our local Internet users understand what is about to happen and why we all need to be concerned about this. The message attached below, forwarded from ISOC, points to at least a partial opening of the ITU's document database and I hereby ask staff to add the link to the WIKI. The Internet Society has asked its chapters around the world to find out way to liaise with government officials in their own country and thus bring the input of individual internet users to the discussion. I believe that the At-Large community, which has a wide footprint by also having a local presence in so many countries around the world, has an important part to play in informing their governments that we actually take part in ICANN's multi-stakeholder policy making model and that we support the current multi-stakeholder Internet Ecosystem as being one which promotes innovation and development better than any other top-down system. You will find a list of the government officials of ITU member states listed here: http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=ITUstates&_langu… Please be so kind to find out who your government officials and local organisation observers are and discuss locally within your organization what you could do at local level to engage a dialogue with your local officials and ministers for them to make sure they are aware of the issues and not make the mistake of supporting recommendations that will cripple their local economy by crippling the Internet's potential for innovation. Also -- please email suggestions as to what we, the At-Large Community of ICANN, could do to continue promoting the multi-stakeholder model that we are engaged in. Warmest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [Itu2012chapters] ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents Date : Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:29:17 -0400 De : Sally Wentworth <wentworth(a)isoc.org> Pour : itu2012chapters(a)elists.isoc.org Hello, Today, the ITU Council took up the issue of transparency of ITU WCIT documents and Member State proposals. Karen Mulberry has, again, offered a summary of the discussion and the decision below. In short, the Council?s final decision is to post only CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly available. The responsibility is really now with the Member States to have an open and participatory national process to allow for a full and transparent discussion about the WCIT. *============================* *ITU Council Decision on WCIT Open Access to ITR Documents* 11 July 2012 the ITU Council discussed a process regarding open and unrestricted access to WCIT and ITR proposals and documents. The Sec Gen presented a plan to make the CWG-WCIT document TD-64 openly accessible to the public to address the public request for access, openness and transparency. The SecGen also proposed that any CWG-WCIT proposals that are made openly accessible should be posted without any reference to their source contributor. There was also a proposal by Japan to make CWG-WCIT TD-62 (the compilation of proposals) openly accessible as this would assist in national consultations. However, there were other countries that wanted all ITR proposals to be withheld from the public and not accessible without a TIES password. In addition, it was noted that changes to the procedures to enable the publication of proposals to ITU conferences will need ITU Plenipotentiary Conference consideration in 2014 before any open process can be adopted. In the meantime, it is up to Member States to conduct open consultations to prepare for WCIT where the Member State can freely share its proposals and information. Secretary General Toure also presented a proposal for a public online consultation to be moderated by his office where all stakeholders would have the opportunity to submit proposals and comments on the ITRs. The Secretary General thought that this would allow the ITU to strengthen its credibility and reputation as well as the credibility of the WCIT process, which have both been victim to a series of inaccurate media reports. The SecGen also noted that proceeding with an open consultation will continue to foster an image of the ITU as an open, transparent and listening organization; and will provide a transparent platform for all stakeholders to engage, participate and air their views. Submissions to the ?Public Consultation? would be posted on the WCIT-12 web site and MAY be considered by Member States when preparing their proposals for the ITRs. After much discussion, the Council?s final decision is to post only CWG-WCIT TD-64 (the draft ITRs) for public access on the WCIT-12 website (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12) and that the ITU will have a publicly available space on this site for all stakeholders to post opinions and comments. There will be no consultation process as was originally proposed by the SecGen and no other WCIT documents will be made publicly available. Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth(a)isoc.org <mailto:wentworth@isoc.org> www.isoc.org

7 7

USOC knits itself an apology
by Evan Leibovitch July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012

Given all that ICANN has been through dealing with with name protection demands regarding the Olympic name, I thought you might find amusing a story of how the US Olympic Committee came across one group not ready to back down. http://london2012.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/u-s-o-c-knits-a-controversy/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/06/22/ravelry_olympics_usoc_ap… Perhaps the story offers some inspiration -- and even maybe some ammunition -- as we continue to address this issue. - Evan

1 0

Interesting article on new domain demand
by Evan Leibovitch July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012

With The Domain Space Only Growing By 17 Million A Year, Where Will All The Registrations For New gTLD’s Come From?<http://www.thedomains.com/2012/07/12/with-the-domain-space-only-growing-by-…> Finally, someone does the math and discovers(!) that the gTLD rush is simply too many TLDs chasing too few registrants. And that's not counting the likely effect of Google, which I'd bet will be eventually giving second-level domains away for free. The author, not wanting to totally turn off his audience, suggests that "new gTLD’s investments must be viewed as a long term investment" And then, likely, not even that. - Evan

4 3

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012

Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 13 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 1 | 38.32% | 12725 | ocl at gih.com 25.00% | 1 | 22.16% | 7359 | narten at us.ibm.com 25.00% | 1 | 20.33% | 6751 | joly at punkcast.com 25.00% | 1 | 19.18% | 6370 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 33205 | Total

1 0

Draft statement on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs.
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2012

July 11, 2012

A draft ALAC Comment on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs has been posted at https://community.icann.org/x/BgQQAg. As noted in the wiki, this comment is a departure from related ALAC statements. It's origin was Beau Brendler's comment during the Prague meeting that previous ALAC statement rejecting all special protection for Red Cross in particular did not factor in issues related to consumer fraud. It was drafted by me with the active involvement of Evan Leibovitch and Holly Raiche. Any ALAC statement must be posted no later than July 16, 2012.

1 0

WEBCAST live now: Kenya IGF
by Joly MacFie July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012

Another day, another webcast. This is a good one for content, moderate for quality, as it is just coming from a laptop webcam in the corner of the room. There is an ICANN oriented session coming up at 1100 UTC with GAC vice chair Alice Munyua ** Kenya IGF 2012 has just commenced. A live webcast from Nairobi is available on the Internet Society Chapters Webcasting Channel. This is an all day event covering a wide range of issues including WCIT & ITRs, Consumer organization, E-Government, ICANN matters, Intermediary Liability, and the future of the Internet. *What*: Kenya IGF 2012 *When*: Thursday July 6 2012 8.30am-4pm EAT | 0530-1300 UTC | 0130-0900 EDT *Where*: Jacaranda Hotel, Nairobi *Programme*: http://www.kictanet.or.ke/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012-Kenya-IGF-Program… *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Twitter*: #kenyaigf <https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23kenyaigf> Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=4095#respond> See all comments<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=4095#comments> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=4095 ___________________________________________ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 6 00:53:04 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.00% | 1 | 12.74% | 9814 | karl at cavebear.com 10.00% | 1 | 12.30% | 9481 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 12.09% | 9317 | jefsey at jefsey.com 10.00% | 1 | 11.56% | 8904 | ocl at gih.com 10.00% | 1 | 11.11% | 8561 | cdel at firsthand.net 10.00% | 1 | 9.94% | 7663 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 8.70% | 6703 | narten at us.ibm.com 10.00% | 1 | 7.33% | 5645 | jmamodio at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 7.28% | 5607 | johnl at iecc.com 10.00% | 1 | 6.95% | 5359 | avri at acm.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 10 |100.00% | 77054 | Total

1 0

China is going to divide the DNS
by Lutz Donnerhacke July 1, 2012

July 1, 2012

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy. This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators. Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal. There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs. On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces.

10 9

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 29, 2012

June 29, 2012

Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 29 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 91.19% | 80093 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 33.33% | 1 | 8.81% | 7738 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 87831 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] IRTP C
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

The following message was just sent to the ALAC list. At 25/06/2012 11:21 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I was asked to review the Initial Report of the Inter-Registrar >Transfer Policy Part C PDP WG, and recommend whether the ALAC should >comment on it, and if so, to draft a comment. > >The call for comments can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e… >and the Interim Report at English version of the report can be found >at >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf >(other languages at first link). > >The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is primarily focused on >the transfer of a registered domain name from one registrar to >another. However, at the time of Registrar Transfer, there is often >also a change of who the registrant is, yet the IRTP is silent on >any aspect of that. Since transfers of this sort are often >associated with domain hijacking, it should certainly be of concern >to At-Large and ALAC. > >The PDP is also looking at a number of other aspects of IRTP >including how Registrars are identified (currently some registries >use proprietary identifications). > >I strongly recommend that the ALAC comment on this report and my >draft comment follows. The initial comment period closes on July 5th. > >Alan > >===================================================== > >The ALAC supports the general direction that the IRTP C PDP WG is >heading. Specifically, the ALAC strongly supports all measures the >will reduce the possibility of domain hijacking while still >providing legitimate registrants the ability to change registrars. > >The ALAC similarly supports all efforts to formally define the >process by which the registrant of record can be changed, with >implicit safeguards to inhibit hijacking. The ALAC does not have >strong views as to whether this needs to be a separate consensus >policy of not, but the overall results and benefits to registrants >should not be diminished by this decision. > >The ALAC supports the requirement to have all gTLDs use the IANA >Registrar IDs (in addition to any proprietary ones if desired). > >Lastly, the report could benefit from a clearer overview describing >the change of registrar and registrant processes.

1 0