- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Change of Time to Monday Opening of Paris ICANN Meeting - starts half an hour early
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

On Monday, Min. Eric Besson will be joining us to speak at the Welcome Ceremony for the Paris ICANN Meeting - to accommodate his schedule, there is a change in the morning schedule - the President's Report will open the day at 8:30 am and the Welcome Ceremony is scheduled to start at 9:30am. In other words, the meeting will start one-half hour earlier than previously scheduled. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jun08-en.htm -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

ALAC Review / Comment Periods
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report. The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as in you said something to the review which you believe has been left out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC Review Committee, or anyone else. This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review. I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as translations will not be ready until only a few days before the present comment period is meant to end, and without translations many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal basis to everyone else. If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for those of you who are going to be in Paris). Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO entirely relevant, FWIW. I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent. On 18/06/2008 21:13, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: Hello fellow NARALOites, I have heard from a number of our RALO members on the issue of the draft report, but far from everyone and not even a majority. I believe this issue is important, because if accepted as-is the proposed changes will diminish the role of At-Large in ICANN goings-on at a time when this role requires enhancement. All the well-intentioned policy work we can do will be impeded or "consensus-ed" into the ground, with no real clout at the Board level. Those who have spoken on the issue that I have heard from have all been critical, but this is far from a widespread protest. I would like to know whether there is interest in having a NARALO position on the draft report before the Paris meeting. Having this would help guide your representatives there (myself, Darlene, Beau and Robert) on the inevitable discussions on the issue that will take place. Perhaps we may even be able to prod the global ALAC into action of its own. I have no problem writing a initial position to post for endorsement -- but it would reflect my own deep negative reaction which has already been described on this list. My time is very limited, however, and I would prefer not to start this if no interest exists in creating a regional position. If interest does exist, I can draft a brief statement (preferably working with others who would like to help) and see if, with any suggested modifications, it can be accepted by NARALO through consensus by Sunday morning. Is this reasonable? Is a statement desirable? I find it very unnerving that there has been ZERO reaction on the global ALAC list except for Izumi's brief comment. If ALAC is not interested in staking out a membership-based position then I think NARALO needs to step up. What does everyone else think? Feel free to reply privately, if that is appropriate for you, and I can incorporate your comments anonymously. Even if there is no consensus on a region-wide point of view, all input is helpful. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 5

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 20, 2008

June 20, 2008

Total of 40 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 20 00:53:04 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 37.50% | 15 | 10.23% | 156035 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 7.50% | 3 | 35.99% | 548749 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 2.50% | 1 | 34.80% | 530645 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 5.00% | 2 | 10.07% | 153491 | denise.michel at icann.org 7.50% | 3 | 1.85% | 28243 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 5.00% | 2 | 1.37% | 20907 | jefsey at jefsey.com 5.00% | 2 | 0.92% | 14081 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 2.50% | 1 | 0.53% | 8026 | iza at anr.org 2.50% | 1 | 0.49% | 7508 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.50% | 1 | 0.48% | 7346 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 2.50% | 1 | 0.42% | 6391 | shahshah at irnic.ir 2.50% | 1 | 0.39% | 5988 | joly at punkcast.com 2.50% | 1 | 0.39% | 5934 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.50% | 1 | 0.36% | 5547 | evan at telly.org 2.50% | 1 | 0.36% | 5490 | jefsey at free.fr 2.50% | 1 | 0.35% | 5272 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 2.50% | 1 | 0.33% | 5101 | lists at privaterra.info 2.50% | 1 | 0.33% | 5091 | lbleriot at gmail.com 2.50% | 1 | 0.32% | 4865 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 40 |100.00% | 1524710 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Review / Comment Periods
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

JFC and all, It is clear to me, and most of our members that ICANN still does not yet understand or doesn not wish to understand that an @large comprised of users of many sorts is. It is becomming clear that the same is true of the ALAC and seemingly several of the RALO's. What is becoming clear is that the ALAC and the RALO's are willing to do the ICANN staff and Bod's bidding even if that means limiting to a great degree active participation of users from whatever nationality they are from. JFC Morfin wrote: > At 10:56 19/06/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with > >respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report. > > > >The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly > >discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as > >in you said something to the review which you believe has been left > >out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC > >Review Committee, or anyone else. > > > >This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, > >as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not > >less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the > >report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This > >is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any > >next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public > >comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review. > > Dear Nick, > the document(s) we got are big documents which are not proposed in an > easy to work on way (not a mail, not a wiki). The first thing I used > to do with that kind of document is to port them to a workable format > (which usually means to go line by line from a PDF ASCII copy to a > Open Office text, then to a wiki format if I want to work on it with > other france@large experts or members, as we did for the IDN report I > gave the URL yesterday). > > We are half the way through with many other important things to do, > due to the revamp of our strategy after our non-accreditation and our > recent press-release with a fundamental france@large meeting on July > 2nd. We are extremely attentive to this document we have not yet > started discussing since we will discuss the ATLAX project on July > 2nd, and want to understand how it will stand in comparison to ALAC. > > >I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as > >translations will not be ready until only a few days before the > >present comment period is meant to end, and without translations > >many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal > >basis to everyone else. > > This is a key issue. Comment period should start when all the > material to be considered is available. I do not understand why you > do not mention EURALO, APRALO, NARALO in your comment. When only > considering the French Language, it is an administrative language in > these RALO. > > >If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in > >that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for > >those of you who are going to be in Paris). > > We certainly will individually as france@large had adopted that > position. I take the opportunity to underline that we have not > received your answer in French to our accreditation. This language > problem is a way to for ICANN to measure the difficulty of what we > call multilinguistics (the practical support of the linguistic > diversity) they obviously have not fully understood as the IDNC > propositions show it. > > >Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are > >made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO > >entirely relevant, FWIW. > >I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent. > > Nick, we take your comment as helpful. We have not even fully read > the main document and just perused the first one. What strikes me is > that it does not interest me. I mean by this that it considers the > interest of ALAC for ICANN, but not for @larges. Most of the ALAC > problem is that participants are "ICANN professionnals". I did not > even found a definition of what is an "@large" and an anlysis of its > different types and motivations. But I may be wrong as, frankly we > had no time to read the document. > > I just regret that ICANN must pay external consultant to explain it > about the @large they throw away seven years ago, and they seem to > want to enregiment into a strategic plan. > > jfc > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Policy Issue Briefs
by Denise Michel June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Posted on ICANN's website at <http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/> are *Policy Issue Briefs* <http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/> about some of the key activities the ICANN community is working on in Paris and beyond: Domain Name Monetization<http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/domain-name-monetization-jun08.pdf> Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)<http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/internationalized-domain-names-jun08.pdf> New gTLDs <http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/new-gtlds-jun08.pdf> WHOIS <http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/whois-jun08.pdf> *Policy Issue Briefs* <http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/> are basic introductions to important areas of Internet policy development that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up, consensus based, policymaking structure. They are designed and written by ICANN Policy Staff to accommodate newcomers to ICANN, as well as ICANN issue veterans who may desire basic information on an unfamiliar issue. Translated versions of all *Issue Briefs* will be available soon online. We would appreciate your suggestions of additional topics for future *Policy Issue Briefs<http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/>-- *please send them to *policy-staff(a)icann.org. *Comments on the substance of these *Issue Briefs* is also welcome and should be sent to the same email address. We encourage people to go beyond these brief introductions (if they are not involved in these issues) and learn more about the work of the ICANN community. To facilitate this, links to information on current Policy development activities are provided in the left side-bar of this webpage<http://www.icann.org/policy/briefs/>, and we have included in each *Issue Brief* URLs to additional information. We also invite you to receive regular updates on ICANN policy development activities via e-mail by subscribing to the monthly * **Policy Updates<http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/> * (previous *Updates* <http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/> can be found at <http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/>). To subscribe, simply visit the ICANN Subscription page <http://www.icann.org/newsletter/> at < http://icann.org/newsletter/>, enter your e-mail address, and then click on *ICANN Policy Update*. Thank you for your interest and participation in ICANN policy development. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org

1 0

Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee - Draft report published
by Robert Guerra June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

I just read news that the draft report on the ALAC review has been published. Would be good to get comments from the committee members, as well as the community at-large. My comments are on my twitter feed.. http://twitter.com/netfreedom regards Robert

4 4

Fast Track - debat
by jefsey June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=FAST_TRACK_PROCESS_FOR_THE_INTRODUCTION_… A votre convenance et pour débat france@large la position présentée par le Staff sur Fast Track a été mise en ligne. For you convenience and france@large debate the Staff position on Fast Track has been put on-line. jfc

1 0

FYI: EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

All, An FYI: EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 6.12, 18 June 2008 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. EU Competition Commissioner backs open standards in eGovernment 2. France obtained ISPs support in blocking pedopornographic sites 3. UK MPs report: A Surveillance Society? 4. Italian blog closed by Police 5. OOXML standard on hold by ISO 6. British ISPs warn Internet downloaders on the risk of being prosecuted 7. Recommended Action 8. Agenda 9. About ============================================================ 1. EU Competition Commissioner backs open standards in eGovernment ============================================================ The EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, publicly supported the use of open source software in eGovernment, in a public speech at a seminar hosted by OpenForum Europe in Brussels on 10 June 2008. Kroes encouraged the public institutions to use open standards, underlining the positive example of Munich that have implemented open standards in their local eGovernment projects. She suggested a much more active role of the European Commission in promoting open standards in eGovernment applications, by adopting an internal policy not to buy proprietary software: "The Commission must do its part. It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology." The EU Commissioner's speech shows an indirect support to the Open Parliament petition initiated in March 2008 by OpenForum Europe, The European Software Market Association and the Free Software Foundation Europe asking the European Parliament to change its ICT system in order to allow the adoption of open standards. Also Kroes praised the benefits of open standards: "No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, through a government having made that choice first." She also encouraged the business customers to make a difference by promoting open standards: "I know a smart business decision when I see one. Choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed." Kroes mentioned a number of competition cases in ICT that are investigated by the Commission in relation with ICT standards, giving as examples Apple, the mobile phone company Qualcomm and chip maker Rambus. Also she clearly referred to Microsoft when she mentioned the problems with the well- known fines against the US software producer: "The Commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case." Some MEPs wanted to go further and asked the European Commission if Microsoft could not be banned from the European public procurements, since it has been fined by the Commission. Heide Rühle, internal market policy spokeswoman for the Greens in the European Parliament, explained that there were provisions of the public procurement EU Directive that allow the exclusion of applicants from public procurement procedures if "they have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgement which has the force of res judicata or they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify". But the European Commission rejected these arguments in its answer explaining that, according to the directiv, the exclusion was not obligatory. EC claimed that the fine did not count as an "criminal conviction of a criminal offence by a final judgement from a Court". Also the second provision should "require a case-by-case assessment which can only be done in the framework of an on-going procurement procedure." Kroes calls for open standards in eGovernment (10.06.2008) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/kroes-calls-open-standards-egovernme… EU's Kroes: open standards are smart business move (10.06.2008) http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL0935274720080610 European Commission won't exclude Microsoft from procurement procedures (13.06.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/European-Commission-won-t-exclude-Micros… Written Question: Microsoft - Implementation of Article 93 of the Financial Regulation (21.04.2008) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2008-… EDRi-gram: European Parliament criticized for not using open standards (12.03.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.5/ep-open-standards ============================================================ 5. OOXML standard on hold by ISO ============================================================ International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in Geneva have postponed the publication of the revised specification of Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) document format, following complaints filed by their member organizations representing these four countries: Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela. The planned standard ISO/IEC DIS 29500 cannot be published until the complaints are examined by ISO and IEC who will have to give responses and comments by the end of June 2008 The four national standardization organizations have shown concerns that no consensus has been reached on changes that must be made to the 6000-page specification, during the consultation period on the numerous comments submitted at the end of February. The complaints mainly address the fact that the concrete technical objections were not individually discussed. The concerns are summarized in an open letter of a member of the technical standardisation committee in India who stated that the standard had not been properly thought out and it was not even clear what standard would result from the proceedings. The adoption of the standard in the present state would not be an open process as it would be implemented only by Microsoft. Other protests have been filed to ISO by the Danish Open Source Business Association. They claim that "the procedures and the decision conflict with ISO's rules, and the process has caused considerable damage to the reputations of Danish Standards and ISO." The letter also explains why the case should be picked up by ISO: "The process has thus been formally annulled now for two months - since March 29, at which time the specifications should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The prerequisites for the fast-track procedure no longer exist, and, therefore, I expect that ISO recommence the case." The European Commission is also investigating the case. Competition Commissioner Kroes explained in a recent conference why the European Commission is interested in this topic: "If voting in the standard- setting context is influenced less by the technical merits of the technology but rather by side agreements, inducements, package deals, reciprocal agreements or commercial pressure, then these risk falling foul of the competition rules." In the meantime, The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), has invited interested parties to create a new technical committee for the "implementation, interoperability, and conformity" of the next version of the Open Document Format (ODF) which has already been certified by the ISO. Open source supporters draw the attention on a possible new alliance with Microsoft which announced its intention to support ODF and to join the technical OASIS committee in its works on the open standard. The management boards of ISO and IEC will decide, after having examined the complaints against Microsoft standard, whether the appeals should be further processed and if they decide so, the chairmen of the two boards will establish a conciliation panel that will try to resolve the appeals. ISO puts standard for Microsoft's OOXML document formats on hold (10.06.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/ISO-puts-standard-for-Microsoft-s-OOXML-… Four national standards bodies appeal against approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (6.06.2008) http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1136 Now an OOXML Protest from Denmark's OSL - Updated 3Xs: Official English Translation (31.05.2008) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080531134006167 OASIS opens discussion list for ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance (3.06.2008) http://opendocument.xml.org/news/oasis-opens-discussion-list-for-odf-implem… Microsoft will support Open Document Format (ODF) (22.05.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Microsoft-will-support-Open-Document-For… EDRi-gram: OOXML adopted as a new standard by ISO (9.04.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.7/ooxml-adopted-iso SNIP EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 28 members based or with offices in 17 different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation. http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing

1 0

Issue Update on the Fast Track process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs
by Denise Michel June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) is an expanded *Issue Update*on the Fast Track process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs. It has been prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions at the Paris ICANN meeting and beyond, and is being distributed to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and posted on ICANN's website. In addition to briefly summarizing recommendations in the IDNC Working Group's Draft Final Report and related issues under discussion, the *Issue Update *contains links to more IDN information, and a list of IDN-related activities scheduled in Paris. We hope you find it useful. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org -------------------------------------------- ICANN ISSUE UPDATE FAST TRACK PROCESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF IDN CCTLDS June 2008 * Prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions.* ICANN's IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is finalizing its report on feasible methods that would enable the timely and efficient ("fast track") introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, while a global, long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed by the ccNSO. On 13 June, 2008, the IDNC WG issued a Draft Final Report providing advice on issues that need to be considered in developing (1) a mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string, and (2) a mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. During the ICANN Paris meeting, the Report is expected to be finalised by the IDNC WG, discussed by several Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, and will be the focus of a public workshop. The Report also has been posted to encourage additional discussion at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm. Background As a result of the ICANN Board resolution approved at the Los Angels meeting, the IDNC WG was established according to its charter. The IDNC WG is comprised of Members of the GAC and the ccNSO (including their Chairs), two members each from the GNSO and the ALAC (and additional observers from the GNSO), one member from the SSAC, one representative of technical community, and two ICANN Staff members. Chairs of the IDNC WG are Mrs. Young Eum Lee, member of the ccNSO Council, and Ms. Manal Ismail, GAC Representative from Egypt. The purpose of the Fast Track process is to introduce a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a short time frame to meet near term demand. The scope of the IDNC WG was limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the outcomes of the ccNSO's IDN policy development process. In developing feasible methods, the IDNC WG was required to take into account and be guided by: the overarching requirements of stability and security; IDNA protocols and IDN guidelines; input of the technical community with respect to implementation of IDNs; and current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs. The working group published two previous draft reports for comment from the global community: a draft Initial Report to canvass the community on the topics that needed to be covered; and a draft Interim Report to canvass the community on a methodology. As indicated in the IDNC WG Initial and Interim Reports, the Fast Track requires two specific mechanisms: 1) A mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string; and 2) A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. Based on the input received, the working group developed a number of general guiding principles that, in conjunction with the overarching requirements, guide conditions for the methodology. The methodology describes (at a high level) the activities, roles, and responsibilities of the actors involved in the processes. The IDNC WG anticipates that this will need to be further detailed by ICANN Staff as a matter of implementation. Their Report notes that, in order to implement the recommended methodology, some of the current procedures and practices (for instance the practices relating to the maintenance of the repository and requirements for an IDN table), may need to be changed. The working group indicates, however, that identifying these procedures, or suggesting changes, is considered a matter of implementation. Draft Final Report Content The IDNC WG and other groups in the ICANN community are continuing their discussions of the Report during the ICANN meeting in Paris. Therefore, the recommendations set forth in the Draft Final Report are subject to change. Guiding principles developed by the IDNC WG, based on input received during the various comment periods, are summarized below: A. Ongoing Process – The Fast Track should be an ongoing process to enable a selected IDN ccTLD manager to enter when ready, but should end when a global IDN ccTLD policy has been adopted by the ICANN Board. B. Non pre-emption of overall policy – The Fast Track should not pre-empt final IDN ccTLD policy, so it must be a simple, clear and limited solution. C. Purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand – The Fast Track should only be available where there is a pressing demand in the territory (evidenced by readiness to meet the requirements). D. Fast Track only for non-Latin scripts – To avoid pre-empting the ccNSO's PDP, which will consider the possibility of IDN ccTLDs in Latin script, non-Latin script must be used in the Fast Track. E. The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious within the territory – "Non-contentious" is evidenced by the support/endorsement of the relevant stakeholders in the territory for the selected string as a meaningful representation of the name of the territory, and for the selected delegate. F. The Fast Track is experimental in nature – This should be taken into consideration when delegating names, but should not be interpreted to mean that delegation under the Fast Track will be temporary. G. Criteria determine the number of IDN ccTLDs under the Fast Track – The number of eligible IDN ccTLDs should be determined by criteria to select the IDN ccTLD string, and to designate the IDN ccTLD manager. The methodology recommended by the IDNC WG includes three stages: 1. Territory or country preparation of actions required to enter the Fast Track process; 2. Due diligence (evaluation) and submission of delegation request to ICANN; and 3. IANA Delegation Process. These stages are described in detail in the attached Draft Final Report and were devised to enable: • The relevant actors in the territory to self-assess and determine whether the delegation of an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track process is feasible; and • The relevant stakeholders to select a string for the IDN ccTLD and prepare for a delegation request. The Report proposes the following criteria to select a string for an IDN ccTLD: 1. To be eligible under the Fast Track a territory should be listed on the International Standard ISO 3166-1 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1: Country Codes. 2. Identify "official" language and script. An official language is considered to be one that has a legal status in the territory or that serves as a language of administration. The script should not be based on the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet -- a-z -- that are encoded in US-ASCII. 3. Select a string that meets meaningfulness and technical requirements. A string is considered meaningful if it is in the official language and: a. Is the name of the Territory; or b. A part of the name of the territory that denotes the territory in the language; or c. A short-form designation for the name of the territory, recognizably denoting it in the indicated language. Ongoing Discussions and Potential Implementation Issues Included below are some of the issues expected to be part of the discussions during the Paris meeting, within the IDNC WG as they finalize the Report, and at stakeholder group meetings and the public workshop. - Request should be non-contentious within the territory A minority group of IDNC WG members have suggested that Principle E should reflect that the selected string should not only be non-contentious within the territory, but also be non-contentious across territories. The majority of the IDNC WG indicated opposition to broadening the principle. The basis for their opposition included avoiding the implications and impact of an objection procedure under the Fast Track. - Objection Procedure Against including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members have suggested that introducing an objection procedure could impinge on the sovereignty of territories in determining the name of their territory, and would add an unnecessary complication to the process. Assuming that a selected string meets the specified criteria, an objection procedure would enable territories or other entities to co-determine or object to the name of a country, dependency, or other area of particular geopolitical interest. Support for including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members expressed the view that an objection procedure, or at least a formal public comment process, is necessary to enable ICANN and the ICANN Board to deal with objections to a selected string from the worldwide community. They have noted that, without a pre-defined process and criteria, the Board is left dealing with public comments on its own and potentially through ad-hoc processes. For transparency reasons, the IDNC WG did agree that the selected string, once vetted against technical and linguistic criteria, should be published on the ICANN website. - Legal Arrangement Between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Manager The IDNC WG has not made any recommendation on a legal arrangement, considering it outside their scope to advise the ICANN Board on this matter. It is deemed to be an implementation issue. Although the IDNC WG discussed including a statement in the Final Report on the issue of ensuring compliance to IDNA Protocol and IDN Guidelines, the views of the WG diverged on this topic. Some IDNC WG members questioned the need for a compulsory arrangement between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager. Other working group members – and the GNSO Council – have stated that the IDN ccTLD registries should be required to follow the ICANN IDN guidelines in the same way as gTLD registries, and ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the IDN ccTLD operator that includes appropriate technical, operational and financial requirements. Such an arrangement was viewed to ensure a smooth transition of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD to the ccNSO PDP IDN process once it is established. In addition, some working group members have insisted that a mechanism will be required to ensure the security and stability of the DNS (including compliance with IDNA protocol and IDN guidelines), which is an overarching requirement for Fast Track. - Financial Contribution The IDNC WG has not considered financial contributions (either an application fee or an annual contribution) in its discussions. It was considered to be out of scope, and more appropriately addressed as an implementation issue. However, this issue was raised at several public meetings. Based on these discussions, some members of the IDNC WG expressed a view that any financial contribution should be given on a voluntary basis, as is currently the case for (ASCII) ccTLDs, while other members (and the GNSO Council) publicly expressed that they expect a reasonable financial contribution from IDN ccTLDs as part of a legal arrangement with ICANN. - Timing Issues Initiation of the Fast Track will enable introduction of IDN ccTLDs and new (IDN) gTLDs at about the same time. ICANN Staff is coordinating efforts so that work between the two processes can take advantage of each other and aim at a similar launch date. However, should one process be delayed for unexpected reasons it is not considered a viable solution to delay the other process (this view has been reinforced by the GNSO Council). ICANN Stakeholders It is anticipated that the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO Council, GNSO Constituencies (Registrars, Registries, Business, IP, ISP, and NCUC), ALAC, and others will develop formal opinions during or soon after the Paris ICANN meeting. Implementation Work In addressing the feasibility of implementing the IDNC WG recommendations, it is expected that ICANN Staff will need to explore: • A request for information process (RFI) on expected use of the Fast Track; • Issues surrounding the establishment of the Technical Committee; • Issues surrounding the establishment of the Language Expert Advisory Panel; • Development of a process to receive submissions of a selected string; • Issues surrounding evidence of support by relevant stakeholders in territory for selected IDN ccTLD string; • Coordination between ICANN, the Technical Committee, and LEAP; and • Conducting review, and potential update, of IANA practices relating to the maintenance of the repository and requirements for an IDN table. Reference Documents & Events • 5 October 2007 the ccNSO letter to ccTLD managers including survey to assess the interest and readiness for introduction of IDN ccTLDs. • 5 December 2007, results of ccNSO survey, showing 86% of the respondents had an interest in a fast track approach. • 2 November 2007, ICANN Board chartered IDNC WG and invited SOs, ACs to appoint members. • 14 December 2007, IDNC WG established with members from the GAC, ccNSO GNSO, ALAC, SSAC, Technical Community and ICANN Staff. • 2008 - IDNC WG conducted numerous teleconference meetings, face-to-face meetings in New Delhi and Geneva, and numerous public workshops and discussions in conjunction with other regional meetings, such as in New Delhi and Dubai. • 1 February 2008, IDNC WG posted "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" for public comment. • 11 February 2008, Draft Initial Report was discussed at ICANN New Delhi meting. • 4 April 2008, IDNC WG posted Interim Report for public comment. • April, May 2008, Interim Report discussed at the ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE, the RIPE meeting in Berlin, and the APTLD meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. • 13 June 2008, IDNC WG posted Draft Final Report for public comment. • 21 June 2008, IDNC WG meeting at Paris ICANN meeting, along with public workshop. The GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, and ALAC have the Final Report on their agenda for discussion in Paris.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Article on anonymous domains and spam
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Derek and all, Old news really. We have been doing tracking of these despots for 7 years now. I did notice that the comments sent in were from several of our members. ICANN's responsibility is terribly lacking and has been for years now. One thing that struck me though was the comment made by John Levine. Rather wimpish. Definately not leadership calaber. -----Original Message----- >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Article on anonymous domains and spam > >Hi All > >The following article appeared in the Washington Post: > >http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/06/anonymous_domain_sales_a… > >Regards > >Derek > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0