>> IDNs (we will make reference to the existing documentation)
 

We emphasize the pressing need from the user community for IDNs. We support a balanced and effective fast-track approach for implementation of IDNs ccTLD. We welcome the new PDP proposal from the ccNSO and reiterate our strong commitment to bring the users' voices to this policy-making process. Per the Board resolution at the San Juan meeting, we hereby present the status report on IDN ccTLDs issues.

 

Given that the IDN test is going on well and the technical standards are being revised and improved, we are keen to know whether there is a timeline for implementation of IDN gTLDs under the auspices of new gTLD process.

 

Finally, there will be an IDN workshop from the users' prospective, which is in coordination with the ICANN, at the IGF.

 

Hong

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/29/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com > wrote:

Thanks Beau,
Here's a start at my list:

> Brendler, Beau wrote:
>> FOR TUESDAY'S ICANN BOARD MEETING
>>
>> Please send to this list at your earliest convenience the position you believe ALAC should take on the following topics:
>>
>> gTLDS
-- I have long advocated introduction of new gTLDs with a thin process
for rapid approval of a large number of them, because I believe that
kind of vibrant marketplace allows for un-predetermined innovations that
benefit the Internet-using public. I do not support specific of the
recommendations in the GNSO report, namely the vetting for
vaguely-defined "infringement," "morality," or opportunities to object,
because I believe all of them are liable to be gamed and used as
hecklers' vetos.

>> WHOIS
-- Personally, I support privacy for domain name registrants, and
support the OPOC proposal or that to drop WHOIS requirements entirely as
they are not supported by consensus.  For an international organization,
it's particularly important that ICANN allow its non-US registrars and
registrants to comply with their data protection and privacy
obligations. Since ALAC represents many with differing viewpoints, I
think we should try to express as many of those as possible in their
advocates' terms.

>> IDNs (we will make reference to the existing documentation)
>> IPV4 and IPV6
>> Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs)
-- I still support the removal of the "no third-party beneficiary"
langugage to permit those actually affected by the contracts to defend
their rights.

>> domain tasting
>> geoTLDs

As liaison-elect, I will of course convey the views of the ALAC and its
community.

--Wendy

>>
>> Izumi and I will coordinate these so that we can give the board advice on each topic.
>>
>> It's OK if you don't have a particular opinion on a topic. Just send us the ones you believe ALAC should advocate for on behalf of users.
>>
>> We will send out a draft final document to you once we have a chance to coordinate them.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC-Internal mailing list
>> ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>> ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>> ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org
>> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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