Dear Jef. : the idea, was exactly to share comments and positions in order to show the differents points of view. thank`s for your input Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar ________________________________ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:31:49 +0100 To: carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com; alac-internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: jefsey@jefsey.com Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Dear Carlos, Milton, and all, I do not want to be too blunt, but we have to be clear here not to hurt ourselves. The IDNccTLD issue has been ruled by the WSIS and GAC positions, which are no country (including the USA) has the capacity to interfere with the ccTLDs of other countries. So far ICANN has been delegated the IANA by the NTIA that it reports to. This is an issue, therefore, that is related to the JPA and Net Neutrality, which must includes ideologic and national interest neutrality. As far as ALAC is concerned, its mission should be the smooth interfacing of ICANN with IGF/WSIS enhanced cooperation through its ALSes, which are also active in the IGF and WSIS enhanced cooperation process. Its role here is to help run a technical test, not to contribute to a political issue over who runs a "monopoly" or ensures truly free "competition". "I do not require my telephone to be democratic, but I do require it to work". The world is a 144 country heterarchy that is documented by ISO 3166 and uses approximately 7,500 different languages that deserve equal respect. To go further would only lead to conflicts and would be detrimental to the @large and ICANN interests. The reasons for concern here are the reasons why all of this could lead to an Internet Fast Crack. - inequality in considering who can share in it, based upon ccNSO Membership or not, or relations with ICANN - inequality in languages and scripts treatments - disrespect of ccTLD Management empowerment - forced ICANN directions, procedures and practices at the top of the RFCs - disrepect of the ISO 3166 based multilingual paradigm - technically fixing the current IDNA insufficiency that is documented by IAB RFC 4690 - lack of correlation with ccTLDs already offering IDNs. - lack of anti-phishing solutions (this concerns every 3LD usage of Punycode, whatever the TLD) - lack of a WIPO decision concerning TM conflicts between the Unicode and Punicoded versions (babelnames) etc. At this stage the ALAC should mostly emphasize that the technical conditions for the deployment of a Fast Crack project are definitly met. the priority, therefore, is for: - ICANN to work with the ISO 3166/MA that it is a member of. It had to detail its needs (what it did - but we could also possibly discuss the ICANN request) and to wait for all the concerned parties (regalian domain, civil society, private sector, technical community, and international organizations) to agree. (This was delayed by some confusion that ICANN has clarified). - IETF to decide if they want to set-up a WG-IDNA to address the RFC 4690 identified problems or to endorse the Drafts produced by the idna-udate@alvestrand.no mailing list members. ALAC should also be ready for an alternative "Plan (IDN)B" if IETF does not deliver a stable "Plan (IDN)A": - to know how to address existing or possible alternative Multilingual Internet propositions (or local development by some countries). - to obtain a general review by ALAC, GNSO, ccTLDs, GAC, IGF, or WSIS of the Multilingual Internet options and of the technical choice rationale. One has to be fully aware that IDNA is an Internet technology resilience and innovation capacity test. If it fails this test, there will be different Internets developed in order to address the specific needs of an equivalent magnitude (RFID, nanoization, mobility, R&D, and secure control transfers, multilingualization, semantic functions, etc.). The current architecture that remains will mostly stay as the US web/media industry low grade global network along with ICANN as its trade organization. I have no objection to any of these scenarios or others. I have an objection to the indecision/confusion and the technical and operational issues being decided on ideologic grounds. jfc At 13:10 03/03/2008, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Colleagues: I send to you this e-mail received from Milton Mueller in relation with joint meeting in Delhi, and information refered below. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre. ----- Original Message ----- From: Milton L Mueller To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Robin, Norbert and all: Reading these notes, I think we need to be much clearer with ALAC on what our policy concerns are with respect to fast-track IDN ccTLDs. There are two main concerns: 1) different standards for ccNSO-created IDN TLDs and gNSO-created IDN TLDs. This creates a discriminatory policy environment which might favor one group over the other, or could be gamed by clever participants. 2) competition policy concerns about reinforcing national monopoly registries by giving them one or more new IDNs in advance of new entrants into the market. I did not see those concerns expressed in the ALAC meeting. Hope we can be clearer about this in the future. The first concern has pretty big name space management implications; Avri Doria has expressed a lot of concern about this and I am not sure what her thinking is about how things are going. the second issue is also very important, although those concerns were addressed somewhat by the estimate that country code IDNs might actually take longer to be assigned than generic IDNs. (Why that would be I don't know). Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [ mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:57 PM To: NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi (provided by Nick Aston Hart of ICANN) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_february_2008_nc Summary Minutes 12 February 2008 NC ALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting 12 February 2008 Summary Minutes NOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the Committee Present (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, C Langdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A Muehlberg Present (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross, Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D Farrar The Meeting was brought to order at 16:35 C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO and suggested that we could start with that issue. R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would be held on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility. A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, current registry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, with particular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemed to be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but there was not consensus on what to do about it. A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with the perspective that Domain Tasting was harmful. D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentioned policy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGP seems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid the bad effects. R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as do other constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. It is thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due to registrar and registry opposition. A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possible result that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purpose with no resolution. C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC's views on Domain Tasting with respect to trademark protection. R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP as a benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that the other aspects of the issue were much more important. D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period by registrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer before the customer could complete the registration. E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC's perspective was. R Gross said that she didn't believe that the NCUC disagreed with the perspective that the AGP should be eliminated. A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between the At-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting. C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this and asked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter. A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar's comment and that the NSI implementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day. A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked to answer. R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting. A Doria replied that she thinks probably not. R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting was far faster than on any previous issue. C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing to meet and discuss matters regularly. N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements. X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction. R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but there was some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control. N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of new registrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if there were an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries have more than one official language and therefore more than one script is possible. X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed. R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was a persuasive argument for IDN TLDs. X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was to move forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. She noted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLD managers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track. A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issue in advance - moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile and then it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must be taken into account before further IDN TLD implementations. C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating. The meeting was adjourned at 17:32 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar

________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN Deportes y enterate de las últimas novedades del mundo deportivo. MSN Deportes

_________________________________________________________________ Descargá ya gratis y viví la experiencia Windows Live. http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/latam/index.html _______________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx