- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request for Responses
by Danny Younger Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Dear all, I have concerns with regard to the answer provided to question #7 (cited below): Q.7: Should a list of IDN ccTLD strings be mandated? A universal mandating should not be implemented at the initial stage. Users have the right to use IDNs rather than a duty to do so. Neither the automatically converting ISO 3166 into an IDN list solution is far from being realistic: this would impose some ccTLDs that have no demand for IDN use to implement them, which is obviously contradictory to the purpose of IDNs. Also, compiling a mandatory list would slow down the IDN development process. The crucial question at this stage is how the local community consensus can be reached in case IDN implementation is necessary. One solution to that is the proposal by APTLD, which states that it is important to allow each interested existing ccTLD to propose ONE string and provide six months for Internet community at Large including the affected Communities and Governments to voice possible objections and/or comments. If no serious reservations are aired then the string may go into the root. However, even though a list of IDN ccTLD can be complied through the one-string-one-ccTLD approach it cannot be a final solution, and if made mandatory, it will cause serious rivalry between different script users in one ccTLD territory. Issues related to that include: What makes one script may be chosen over others in a multiple-script ccTLD territory? Is this reflected in the local cultural or social policy/strategy? How those minority script users can protest against this and will they protest? My comment: Stability is my primary concern. From a stability perspective I see an ongoing value in an authoritative "mandated list", and yes, I also do understand the reticence to invoke the ISO processes (as these can easily take 3-5 years) owing to the fear the IDN gTLDs could be launched prior to the conclusion of the ISO effort (and people might indeed choose to opt for a gTLD in a local script). To resolve this worry, I would advise the development of a policy that prohibits the launch of IDN gTLDs until such time as the ISO effort is complete (so that competition may proceed thereafter on a level playing field). The issues raised in the latter portion of the current answer to question 7 are precisely why an ISO "mandated list" should be used (as the process resolves such issues before a list becomes authoritative). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

5 8

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Positions open for nominations 2007-2008
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 13, 2007

Oct. 13, 2007

Siavash Shahshahani wrote: > Here's a problem for those who think non-comm appointees are unnecessary: > There are more than a few countries where NGOs are looked upon with > suspicion by the local govt and potential ALSs are simply afraid to apply > to ICANN for accreditation. Should we disenfranchise citizens of those > countries? Note that the same risk may not necessarily apply to an > 'individual' selected by non-comm as long as the individual is well-known > and trusted in the country and is not in the business of organizing a > group which the govt deems potentially subversive. I agree that this is a problem, but its solution is beyond the scope of the NomComm, for a number of reasons: 1) It involves a deeper involvement in politics than may be desirable. 2) There is a finite limit to the number of NomComm ALAC reps; in a region where multiple instances of these obstacles occur, who is to judge which countries have voice and which do not? 3) The NomComm appears to have a built-in bias against the inexperienced, although I would add that this is reasonable given the actual mandate that the NomComm has regarding its choices for ALAC. 4) ALSs participate at the RALO level, and each region gets two selections to ALAC. It is unfair to the other ALSs if people get to immediately participate at a higher level (ALAC instead of RALO) only because they come from a country which impedes NGO development. I suggest that the answer is to achieve this empowerment through the RALOs rather than through the NomComm, where the issue has already been addressed in at least one region. NARALO explicitly developed its internal structure to allow and encourage participation by individuals who are not part of ALSs. Why did ALAC not provide guidance to all RALOs to address this issue? Doing so would encourage individual participation at the RALO level (in unlimited numbers) from every country with the problems described by Siavash. Please consider the process with the greater level of transparency, accountability, public participation and regional awareness. - Evan

3 4

New gTLDs Working Group Formation
by Jacqueline A. Morris Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

Dear At Large The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) has released a summary of the report on the Introduction of new top level domains for the At-Large community's consideration and use at the GNSO's New gTLD Workshop at the ICANN Los Angeles meeting on Monday, 29 October 2007. This document is meant to provide a concise and easy to read summary of the key elements of the Report, and is organized to correspond with the Workshop sessions. At-Large participants (such as the TTCS) are encouraged to consider the summary, and the Report, and submit questions in advance that they would like the Workshop panelists to address on the 29th. The At Large is creating a short term working group to discuss and generate comments for input into the process and transmission to the Board of ICANN. The Working Group will work via a mailing list, and interested persons can subscribe to this list at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-liaison_atlarge-lists.i cann.org The timeframe for the working group is short, with a deadline of October 25th. A suggested work plan drawn up by a member of the WG is below. You can see that the work will be intense, but it is very important. 1) Timeframe of ad-hoc WG: ends on Thursday 25 Oct. (2) Links to reference documents are provided (3) The 20 GNSO new gTLD recommendations are cited (4) WG members will each draft comments on whatever issues they might have with certain recommendations (5) Initial comments due by 22 October (6) First draft of Final Document (incorporating all comments) by 23 October (7) Final Document by 25 October (8) ALAC reviews WG effort in LA and provides Statement to accompany the Final Document for transmission to the ICANN board. I hope that you will participate as this is a very important issue, with serious ramifications for the future direction of the Internet, and vitally important to individual users. Below please find links to the relevant documents related to the Introduction of New Top Level Domains. We will also shortly be creating a wiki workspace for the working group, but in the meantime, you can find information on the GNSO Liaison wiki page at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?gnso_liaison. Additional documents: Recent public comments submitted by the community on the Introduction of new Top Level Domains http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/ The summary of the report on the Introduction of new Top Level Domains : http://ttcsweb.pbwiki.com/f/New+gtlds+workshop+document.pdf (PDF ; 191K) (Thanks to the TTCS, one of our Caribbean ALSes for hosting the pdf) The Actual Report on the Introduction of new Top Level Domains is available in two parts : Part A - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm Part B - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm (As soon as other languages are available, we'll post the links) Please participate! Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris ALAC Chair No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

Danny's original note suggested the gnso-liaison list, and I said I had no problem with that (it is currently not being used, and will require no setup time/process). You can subscribe at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-liaison_atlarge-lists.…. Alan At 12/10/2007 11:37 AM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >I think he and this group will be waiting for word on an open list >we can use...

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Requestfor Responses
by Guru＠ITfC Oct. 12, 2007

Oct. 12, 2007

As a citizen of a country that has more than 400 languages (with 20 languages spoken by more than 1 million people each, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India) written in 13 + distinct scripts, I fully agree with Vittorio. Delay in IDN TLDs is unfair to people for who english is not the first language, or an unknown language. Else internet gets viewed as a necessarily 'english' (roman script) resource and creates its own force for the digital divide. Regards, Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:26 AM To: Danny Younger Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Requestfor Responses Danny Younger ha scritto: > While everyone recognizes the need to move forward and expeditiously > with the implementation of IDNs, shouldn't we be considering the > implications of "unfair advantage" on the marketplace? I think there is a cultural disconnect here. The Chinese, the Arabs, the Russians and all the other peoples who are eager to start using IDN TLDs are not particularly interested in competition (in fact, some of these countries have economies which are still heavily nationalised, especially in the telco sector). Removing one disadvantage that stifles diffusion of the Internet in their countries - the inability to use in URLs their script only - is much more important to them than any possible distortion in market competition, and I would find it unfair for ICANN to reverse this priority order. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

1 0

acceptance of Vice chair nomination
by Vanda Scartezini UOL Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Dear all I really appreciate the confidence Cheryl and Izumi are having on me. I will do my best to deserve it. It was a pleasure to work with you all. So this is my statement accepting my indication to a Vice Chair position. Regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."

1 0

Agenda for next Board meeting
by Vittorio Bertola Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

All, The next Board meeting will happen by conference call on October 16. This is the agenda: * Approval of Board Minutes for 16 September 2007 Special Board Meeting * IANA Related Issues: o Redelegation of the .BM (Bermuda) Domain – for Board Action o Delegation of the .EH (Western Sahara) Domain – for informational discussion only. * Discussion of Registry Services Proposal from Telnic (.TEL) re: Public Display of WHOIS information * Update on Annual General Meeting Tasks * Financial Approvals and Finance Committee Recommendations o Advanced Approval of Consolidated Travel Expenditures exceeding Officer Authority o Approval of Sydney Office Lease o Approval of Foreign Exchange Contracts * Other Business As usual, any input is welcome (in particular, the Whois discussion is important to us). Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

comments - going forward
by Robert Guerra Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Wendy likely knows those at the berkman centre and oxford internet institute. perhaps she can comment better on how suitable key academics there could be of use (or not to alac) personally, i think getting an academic involved is fine - but it does move away a bit from the focus of the at-large constituency whose goal it seems to be is the representation of users. If there's frustration among the user groups - like the ones from north america - and others, it is due to the fact that proposals related to consulting user and meeting with other ALS's are ignored before they are even formally proposed to ICANN. I think we - being the alac - need to get our house order and define our priorities and strategies . Why do i say that, well, let me ask a few questions that i'm often asked about alac.. - Do we have a 1, 2 or 5 year strategic plan that is set by users following a civil society/ngo bottom up consultation process... - Do we have a budget we can actually influence in any direct way - no. do we follow our own agenda instead of a staff driven one - Do we effectively communicate and share events, consultations and discussions that take place at a regional level - Do we interact effectively with other key icann stake-holders, such as RIR's - are we accomplishing the goals set out for ALAC in the ICANN bylaws ? well, I hope we can answer these questions and many more at the upcoming meeting.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

1 0

Avri Doria scheduled for Tuesday
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Dear Members: FYI, Glen has confirmed that Avri will be at the ALAC meeting on Tuesday at 1430 as requested. I am asked to provide the topics for the conversation in advance - I can see that being discussed on list now - Jacqueline, if you can let me know the final-ish list of topics in due course :) -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request for Responses]
by Siavash Shahshahani Oct. 11, 2007

Oct. 11, 2007

Hi Danny, Annette I'm in complete agreement with you on the fact that IDN gTLDs now have a jump. And it is exactly for this reason that I've been pushing for 'fast-track' both at APTLD and as ALAC's liaison to ccNSO. On the other hand I don't think GNSO or gTLD operators are to blame for this state of affairs. If the work for a regular IDN ccPDP started right now, it'll another 2 1/2 to 7 years before anything comes out(Cf. ccNSO estimate). Further, any comprehensive effort in this direction will undoubtedly rekindle old GAC-ccOperator disputes on delegation issues; that's why many cc operators in countries not affected by IDNs have been at best apathetic toward IDN cc's and policy work has been delayed. I think our best bet at this time is to: 1. Support a fast-track initiative for those territories that really want IDN cc's and are not subject to local community conflicts on the issue. 2. Work hard to make sure that the next round of ICANN gTLD selections (that may include IDNs) do not discriminate against small operators from less developed countries. It is important that this issue be emphasized at the Oct 29 meeting in LA. Regarding the standards body for territorial scripts, the problem is that no such body has yet been identified or universally recognized. I'm sure ISO will not adopt a list that may include minority languages out of 'official' favor by a member government. Siavash > Hello Siavash, > > ICANN can act based on what it considers to be > "reasonable cause". One example of reasonable cause > cited in the bylaws is "the promotion of effective > competition". > > Competition is not "effective" if one set of players > can obtain a market advantage by having their class of > TLDs launched before another set of players is ready. > > In the IDN world, do we really want to see an > advantage given to either IDN gTLDs or to the IDN > ccTLDs by having one of these groups launched before > the other? > > While everyone recognizes the need to move forward and > expeditiously with the implementation of IDNs, > shouldn't we be considering the implications of > "unfair advantage" on the marketplace? > > The current schedule for the release of new gTLDs > seems to be in advance of the scheduled release of new > ccTLDs (even if a fast-track IDN ccTLD approach is > adopted). Doesn't that concern you? > > Personally, I think that slowing down the > implementation of IDN gTLDs is indeed possible (if we > choose to respect the principle of competition based > on a level playing field). > > With regard to the issue of an ISO list, just as RFC > 1591 states: "The IANA is not in the business of > deciding what is and what is not a country", so too > should we be asserting: > > "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is > and what is not a country's set of territorial > scripts" -- this truly should be a matter for a > standards body to determine through its processes. I > remain of the view that ICANN, in its role as > technical manager of the DNS, should only act when > such a list is properly compiled. > > regards, > Danny > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir -----------------------------------------------

1 0