- At-Large - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council and public comments regarding new gTLDs
by Olof Nordling Sept. 12, 2007

Sept. 12, 2007

Dear all, Since questions have surfaced in this forum about how public comments were handled in conjunction with the Final Report of the PDP for New gTLDs, please find below the relevant part of the draft minutes of the Council's 6 September meeting on this topic, for your information. Very best regards Olof -------------- Olof Nordling, Mgr Policy Development Coordination ICANN, Brussels ------------------ 2.2 - review public comments http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/ Liz Williams reported that the Final Report Part A and B, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains posted for the public comments, included the edits posted by individual Council members among whom were mentioned Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes, incorporated all the small group discussions and the final committee meeting on 6 August 2007. The public comment forum ran from 10 to 30 August 2007 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm There were 81 comments in all and a synopsis of the comments was posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00082.html The issues fell into three categories. 1. The first category related to recommendations 6 and 20 with similar language about the way in which morality and public order issues and their lead objection process would be handled. 2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective application process available as quickly as possible. 3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others. The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be included in the Board report.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] IDN ccTLD
by Danny Younger Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

I need some help understanding where we are going with this proposal. It seems to me that most people on the planet want to communicate in their native language, and logically they would be looking for a language-based TLD -- for example, a Vietnamese language TLD or a Wolof language TLD -- let's call them L-tlds. Why then do we seem to be supporting proposals that seem to automatically confer IDN authority upon the ccTLD managers? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a competitive process wherein those that wish to bid to manage a language based TLD would have the opportunity to make their case to ICANN? Why do we need another set of territorial-based TLDs when language tends to go well beyond specific territories? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

4 6

Fwd: GNSO Council Liaison report
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Following is my report on recent GNSO activities. I specifically call your attention the Domain Tasting Request for Information. Contributions from both individuals and ALSs are welcome. The deadline is September 15, 2007. Alan >Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:09:17 -0400 >To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: GNSO Council Liaison report > >There have been three major issues before the GNSO this last month >which were addressed during the Sept. 6 Council meeting. The first >and the last were the result of policy development processes over >that last several years. > >1. Policy document on new Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLD) had been >finalized and was released for community comment on August 10th >(http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report) The >comment period ended on August 30th. There was a spirited >discussion, particularly related to recommendations: >- 6 (Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms >relating to morality and public order that are recognized under >international principles of law); >- 19 (Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in >registering domain names and may not discriminate among such >accredited registrars); and >- 20 (An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines >that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant >portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or >implicitly targeted). >Ultimately, the report was approved with some abstentions or no >votes (primarily from the NCUC). > >2. The GNSO General Assembly (GA) is an open mailing list. >Historically, the GA was a integral part of the former DNSO (before >it was split into the GNSO and the ccNSO). The current GA is a part >of the GNSO only in that the GNSO has responsibility for the mailing >list. It has been quite inactive but has recently been brought back >to life. A set of guidelines were created for mailing list >participation, and were submitted to the GNSO. The GNSO basically >supported the revived GA Activity with specific cautions. > >3. The last WHOIS working group had reported in, with little >actually concluded. There has been a lot of discussion regarding >what to do next, some of it just barely civil (or perhaps already >over the line of civility). Ultimately, a outcome was brokered which >all constituencies accepted. The motion makes no particular policy >recommendation to the ICANN Board, but does request a set of >specific actions culminating in a vote during the Los Angeles public >GNSO Council meeting. > >Details of the three actions can be found at >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/resolutions-gnso-06sep07.shtml. > >Work is proceeding on the Domain Tasting issue that the ALAC >initiated. A Request for Information was issued in August 10th, with >input due by September 15th >(http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-10aug07.htm) > >Alan > > > > > > > > > > > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/resolutions-gnso-06sep07.shtml

1 0

GNSO Council vote on new gTLDs
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Alan Greenberg ha scritto: > 1. Policy document on new Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLD) had been > finalized and was released for community comment on August 10th ( > http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report) The > comment period ended on August 30th. There was a spirited discussion, > particularly related to recommendations: Is it true (as I was told) that public comment was basically not considered, up to the point that the report that was briefly introduced by staff did not include the comments submitted in the last days, because staff did not find time to process them? Was there any serious consideration given to public comment during the discussion? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

2 1

Board liaison report
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

The Board met by teleconference on August 14. Reports from that meeting have been already provided in other threads, anyway: - The Board selected Paris as location for the second meeting in 2008 (the other application was from Belgrade). - The Board agreed with moving the ICANN office in a bigger space some floors above the present location. - The Board selected Iron Mountain as partner provider of escrow services. As per our discussions, I stressed the need to comply with the various privacy and data protection legislations, which will be made easier by having selected a global company which is a leader in the field. - The Board renewed the .name contract. - .dm (Dominica) was redelegated (a straightforward one). - The Board approved the insertion of the eleven test IDN TLDs into the root. - The Board approved a response to the Ombudsman related to the Ynternet.org case. The response goes largely in the direction of our comments, and I informed the Board that we were soon to revote on Ynternet.org's application. - The Board appointed Vint Cerf as ICANN speaker at the Rio IGF. Moreover, discussions on the Board list in the past weeks were mostly focused on: - Whether a specific code of ethical conduct should be established for Board members and/or ICANN employees and/or SO/AC officers and members. - Whether ICANN should have a role in reclaiming the unused legacy IPv4 space (and whether it should be reclaimed at all, rather than letting its present holders sell it at the foreseeable black market) and in other IPv6-migration-related issues. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Liaison 2007/2008 - Results of the Voting
by Vint Cerf Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Liaison service is not bound to the annual general meeting I think. V ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> To: Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>; Vint Cerf; At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Sep 10 20:54:49 2007 Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Liaison 2007/2008 - Results of the Voting Point of order-- doesn't Vittorio serve until the conclusion of the annual meeting? And Wendy would be seated directly following that? Vittorio, I thought your board reports were most informative and I personally thank you for writing them in such a complete manner, and also for your tireless work on behalf of At-Large. JP Ex-ALAC NA

1 0

Report of the Staff, August 2007
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Dear All: Attached please find the Report of the Staff for August 2007. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

Multilingual Survey: ICANN Public Information: Is it what you need?
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

One of ICANN's most important jobs is to provide information on its processes. To that end, we have a series of publications, systems and websites to elicit input and comment from the Internet community. But is it enough? Are we providing sufficient information? Is it in the right format or on the right topics? Are you using the various means of interacting with ICANN? If not, why not? What can we do to improve? We have set up a quick and easy six-question online survey to find out from you what you want. It will take less than five minutes, but we will use it to help decide the future course of providing information about ICANN and its processes. So please do take a few minutes out from your day to complete the survey. We will be very grateful for all help received. The survey is in English, Spanish, French, and Brazilian Portuguese and available below: https://www.bigpulse.com/916i -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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 Liaison 2007/2008 - Results of the Voting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Dear All: I have the honour to provide the results of the voting for the At- Large Advisory Committee's Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN below. Poll Results Poll menu: ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board, 2007/2008 Report date: Mon 10 Sep 2007 08:46 UTC Election of the ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN As at: Fri 31 Aug 2007 12:00 UTC Number of voters: 13 Quota: 6.500 Winners ranked by order of victory Showing accumulated votes in each round after distribution of preferences and 1st, 2nd, 3rd preference votes etc Rank Winners and losers Candidate Rnd1 Rnd2 Pref1 % Pref2 % 1 won in round 1 Wendy SELTZER 8.000 8 61.54 5 38.46 2 lost in round 1 Vittorio BERTOLA 5.000 5 38.46 8 61.54 These results can be independently verified at the following URL: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2eb8zU2Tn59a46hUsnuq -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

10 9

ICANN Summit Progress Report
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 10, 2007

Sept. 10, 2007

Hi all, Evan and I just has a conference call with Nick regarding the Summit plans so far. It's of course critical that we come up with a plan that meets the expectations of the community, as well as ICANN itself as it will be funding all the costs. As it turns out from our discussion, our goals for the Summit are remarkably similar. >From the point of view of ICANN (as expressed by Nick), the At-Large Community ultimately exists to provide the general public's point of view on relevant issues. For the Summit to be considered as a worthwhile achievement of that goal - not to mention provide value for its substantial expense -- it must actually produce policy analysis and recommendations to the rest of the ICANN community. Certainly educational and social components are vital. However, for the Summit to succeed a significant amount of education and discussion on issues must take place in advance, within the RALOs and ALSs, with final debate taking place and formal consensus recommendations being delivered at the Summit. The event's success will be judged - within ICANN itself - by its ability to provide useful recommendations and analysis regarding issues of importance, reflecting the diverse but common needs of the At-Large community. Summit delegates, in order to be funded, will be expected to have already raised relevant issues within their constituencies. We received commitments from Nick that sufficient background information will be provided in many languages, to allow such debate to start well in advance. We started with the attached ICANN Ensemble document. Nick liked many of the ideas shown there but was concerned the plan did not sufficiently commit the Summit to produce concrete policy documents. Here is what we need to do: 1. Decide which (and how many) policies we would like to work on. Obviously we don't have time to work on ALL of ICANN's policies at once. So, we need to choose between 3 to 5 of the current issues and work on them. This can be achieved by an on-line poll. (While it will be possible to start debate on long-term issues to be turned into policy at a later date, it is important to choose a number of issues on which At-Large can have an impact within the coming year.) 2. Create actual realistic milestones. We need to have dates and things accomplished by those dates to prove to ICANN that we are actually working on this stuff. When they see this, they will be much more likely to fund this venture. This will also be our opportunity to get a commitment out of them. They won't commit unless they see work getting done. 3. Only those that put the effort into doing the policy work will have the opportunity to go. ICANN will not fund those that just want travel or to socialize. Period. ICANN will, more than likely, be funding the Secretariats and Chairs to go to the LA meeting to discuss this further. They may also fund one or two others but that is it. The group will schedule at least one conference call during the LA meeting to involve anyone else who wants to participate but will not be there.

1 0