- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Survey / Exploration of values in online activities
by Wolf Ludwig Feb. 9, 2009

Feb. 9, 2009

Dear all, we don’t want to paste you with ongoing surveys but Max Senges, our ALS colleague from CDUN (with Prof. Capurro, Dr. Nageborn), has started an exploratory survey on values on the Internet (as a first step to have some data to develop a research proposal). You are invited to support the project. I you want to contribute please go to http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/63 and fill out the survey. Thanks and regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

Agenda - ALAC call, January 13, any comments?
by Adam Peake Feb. 5, 2009

Feb. 5, 2009

Hi, Draft agenda for the next ALAC teleconference has been posted <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009> Current text of the agenda below. Does anyone have items they wish to add (or we can try to have added) to the agenda? Or comments on any item on the agenda? There is a section for any RALO report should we have anything to report. Please note one item we should be considering: * What are the most useful issues to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics (see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes) Is there anything we wish to raise? One issue Danny Younger requests action on is the composition of the new GNSO noncommercial stakeholder group. The GNSO NCUC has developed a proposal, I think the most current version attached (I will make sure and repost of not.) Is EU RALO satisfied with this NCUC proposal? Other RALOs seem not to be and the board has asked that interested parties ensure the interests of individual Internet users are represented. If we do not support the NCUC proposal, what do we suggest in its place, or what amendments should be made. As part of the GNSO reform there is also an effort underway by NA RALO on "new constituencies" that people might like to follow. Archives here <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/new-constituencies_atlarge-lists.i…> (I think the archive open.) I think Danny also makes good points about problems with registrars and rather than discussing as something that leads to a motion or a action immediately, I would like this as an issue for discussion when ALAC meets with the Board on Mexico. Does this sound reasonable? And does anyone have anything to add about Danny's concerns. See his comments about OnlineNic in particular. Thanks, Adam A G E N D A Standing Agenda Items 1. Adoption of the Agenda 1 min 2. Roll Call Apologies from Members (if any) - 1 min 3. Adoption of the 09 December 2008 Summary Minutes 4. Review of the 09 December 2008 Action Items - 8 mins 5. Review of current status of ALS applications (Google Docs account needed to access) - 5 mins 6. Reports 7. ExCom Activities 8. Liaison reports Note: There will be no discussion of liaison reports during the meeting; these links are by way of information only. Any Liaison who wishes a discussion to take place on an item related to their brief, or has an item for which a decision is required, is to use this wiki to edit the sections under Items for Decision, or Items for Discussion, as relevant. o IDN Report - at https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?liaison_monthly_report o Board Liaison Report - (please place a link to your report page here) o ccNSO Report - (please place a link to your report page here) o NCUC - (please place a link to your report page here) o SSAC - (please place a link to your report page here) o GNSO - (please place a link to your report page here) o dotMOBI Liaison Report 9. Working Group Reports: (Please insert below) 10. RALO Reports: (may be inserted below) 11. Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting 12. Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements (see Decision Items below) 13. Update on recent summit activities - Summit WG participants Items for Decision at This Meeting: * Proposal to move the monthly ALAC Meeting from the second Tuesday of the month at 1230 UTC to the 4th Tuesday. If accepted, please use the meeting planer to help find the most suitable time. * ALAC Statement on the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (see resource_page_for_alac_statement_on_new_gtld_guidebook ) * What are the most useful issues to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics (see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes) Items for Discussion Only * Draft ALAC comment on the PSC Any Other Business Reference Materials for Review What is the process for adding additional items to the Agenda? Thanks, Danny Younger contributed by Guest User on Dec 28 7:18am I suggest Danny, that you write here your items and all the ALAC members will be able to see them. Thanks. Sebastien Bachollet contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:03am Sebastien, please endeavor to get this item on the agenda. Thanks, Danny Younger Topic: Proposed Letter to the Board Dear members of the Board, An ICANN-accredited registrar, OnlineNic, has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of cybersquatting (violations of the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act); the court has awarded a $33.15 million judgment. OnlineNic currently has almost 1.2 million domain names under management and the registrant community must be protected from the inevitable impending demise of this registrar (who still faces additional lawsuits from Yahoo! and Microsoft). We are of the view that ICANN should send a strong message that (1) cybersquatting will never be tolerated and that (2) registrants will always be protected, by immediately invoking section 5.3.2.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and terminating OnlineNic¹s accreditation. We ask you to commence bulk transfer arrangements in order to shift all registrations away from OnlineNic to a more suitable registrar. contributed by Guest User on Dec 29 5:30pm Topic: Continued Violations of Consensus Policy by GoDaddy There is nothing more disgusting than watching ICANN doing nothing in the face of continued ongoing violations of Consensus Policy by a major registrar. On the Radio GoDaddy show CEO Bob Parsons and his General Counsel Christine Williams discuss their firm's deliberate violations of the Consensus Policy on Inter-Registrar Tranfers -- see http://bp.bobparsons.com/gdshop/bp/show.asp?ci=9963# (the 12-17 segment featuring Andrew Alleman of Domain Name Wire -- the discussion starts at 15 minutes and 30 seconds into the segment). Registrants expect the rules to be enforced (no matter who is breaking the rules). Will the ALAC ever speak out about this abuse and defend the registrant community? ...or will it continue to bury its head in the sand? contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 7:54am Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting: Transparency The bylaws state: "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." The BC never had a transparent publicly-archived list. The registries have never had a transparent list. We have seen the registrars move their discussions to a private non-transparent forum. The IPC no longer has a transparent discussion list. This situation does not exemplify operating "to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner"; instead it demonstrates a willingness on the part of ICANN constituencies to flagrantly disregard the bylaws. We expect ICANN to get its house in order. It would be appropriate to ask the Board to show its resolve not to re-certify any ICANN constituency that has failed to demonstrate a maximum effort to ensure transparency. Danny contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 8:32am Topic: URGENT -- ALAC action required "Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board." As of the ALAC's meeting date, the ALAC will have only 11 days to come up with a plan for a NCSG Charter, and this plan must be the result of collaboration with GNSO community members and constituency-in-formation representatives. When do you plan to get started? ...or will the ALAC just ignore yet another deadline? You know, for a group that promised to act as a "facilitator" on GNSO improvement matters, you sure haven't done much facilitation. Please let us know what you plan to do and by when so that the members of the NARALO's WG on New Constituencies may be kept informed. Danny contributed by Guest User on Dec 30 9:10am Topic: PSC comments To engender discussion, you may wish to review the GAC Comments on the PSC Report 2 November 2008 -- see http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report/show_file.jsp?sysId=C09702989&fileN… Danny contributed by Guest User on Jan 5 1:16pm (END)

3 3

Call for the Summit Faire and Poster session
by Wolf Ludwig Feb. 4, 2009

Feb. 4, 2009

Dear all, this is to announce a rather important programme segment of the Summit which is called: *Fair and Poster Session* and is scheduled for Saturday, 28 Februar 09, 19:30 - 21:30. More details on this session you will find in the document attached but let me highlight some essential point of it: YOU are the ones conductiong this session and making it to a success! It’s all about the variety of the ALS and RALO communities, to present yourself or the organisation you are representing in Mexico -- by means of flyers, brochures, booklets, posters (or whatsoever hand-outs) from your ALS and *in an inter-active way*. As the title says, it’s not a conventional meeting or a thematic session but a *Faire* where you can expose and demonstrate the work you are doing in your day-to-day ALS-life. There will be a short welcome and introduction and afterwards you can present your material, discuss with people from other parts of the world. It’s an informal get-together, get-to-know-each-other, exchange of views and experiences, making contacts and for networking etc. And it’s understood as an important element for the community building within and among RALOs at ICANN’s first user Summit (more details you will find attached). We therefore encourage you to bring along with you what you can carry (but be aware that no reimbursements for overloads of luggage – more than 20 kg – are foreseen ;-). What we need to know ASAP is whether you need any kind of sophisticated technical equipment for your presentations during the evening. Tables, pin-boards, beamers and standard equipment like this will be provided. Any *further technical requirements or equipment* must be announced to me until Wednesday 11 February (to be forwarded to and organised by the Summit event management). We are looking forward meeting you soon in Mexico! Best regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allemd http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe

1 0

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
by Annette Muehlberg Feb. 3, 2009

Feb. 3, 2009

i am fine with it too. ;-) annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > Gesendet: 30.01.09 12:35:09 > An: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide > > I am fine with your proposed changes. Obviously your English drafting is > better than mine ;-) -Patrick > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:10:50 +0100, William Drake > <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > Thanks for clarifying the intention, the new first sentence seems apt > > (assuming this is in fact a strong majority view in Euralo, not many > > responses yet so I don't know). I wonder though if maybe it might > > also be good to tweak a bit more, perhaps like, > > > > "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD process > > until additional studies are performed. We are particularly concerned > > about > > any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country > > code, > > and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. At the > > same time, > > we believe that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address the > > public interest concerns > > raised by ALAC and others. We very much hope that these can be fully > > addressed > > without slowing down dramatically the ongoing process." > > > > Reasons: > > > > *We believe that is stronger than we understand, which sounds like a > > concession to an unfortunate condition > > > > *Saying that ICANN needs respond to the concerns raised in the > > numerous comments submitted is pretty broad, and not all the comments > > are consistent with ALAC's concerns. For present purposes, wouldn't > > it be better to specify that we are asking that it's the public > > interest concerns of ALAC and others be addressed? (since I have one > > foot here and one in NCUC, which has written a pretty thorough > > critique of the process, I'd have rather said NCUC than "others," but > > someone here wouldn't prefer that...?) > > > > *Saying "we are convinced" it can be done seems a leap of faith, I'd > > rather express a hope. And "fully addressed" seems stronger than > > "dealt with." One could "deal with" concerns by briefly mentioning > > and dismissing them. > > > > Just copy editing suggestions, I'll roll with whichever version has > > strong support in the group. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > > >> > >> Bill and all, > >> > >> Yes, it may seem contradictory to suggest lot of changes and at the > >> same > >> time express concern about possible delays. > >> Actually, I think the European concern is more directed towards some > >> North > >> American calls to drop the process entirely or suspend it until a > >> series of > >> long studies are performed on the relevance to the market of the > >> whole new > >> gTLD process. > >> > >> I suggest an amendment to the text that would read: > >> > >> "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD > >> process > >> until additional studies are performed. We are particularly > >> concerned about > >> any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country > >> code, > >> and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. We > >> understand that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address concerns > >> raised in the numerous comments that were submitted. However, we are > >> convinced they can be dealt with without slowing down dramatically the > >> ongoing process." > >> > >> To reply to Annette: I had a discussion with some NARALO members, > >> and they > >> disagree about the "no further delay" paragraph. Hence, I expect the > >> common > >> ALAC statement to be silent about that. > >> > >> The full Euralo statement is here: > >> > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_additional_statement_regarding… > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:34:47 +0100, William Drake > >> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Thanks to Patrick, Adam and others for pushing this forward. > >>> Appending regional comments to the ALAC statement seems like a good > >>> idea. I wonder though about the key sentence, "EURALO does not > >>> support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process." I'm not > >>> clear on how this conclusion fits with the laundry list of concerns > >>> raised in both the EURALO and ALAC texts. Together, they say we want > >>> ICANN to rethink registry/registrar separations; amend the guide's > >>> requirements regarding the use of registrars; have a different > >>> approval process for geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, > >>> not-for-profit gTLDs; change the one-size-fits all fee structure; > >>> improve compliance processes; build in public interest oriented > >>> mechanisms; get rid of MAPO objections; drop ICC arbitration; change > >>> the number of applications contemplated in the first round; and > >>> develop a comprehensive resourcing plan for the new gTLD program. > >>> How > >>> could addressing all these concerns not involve delays in the > >>> process? Can we really have it both ways? Would we be happy if the > >>> board cited the "no delays" headline conclusion as support for moving > >>> forward, but then didn't address fully the concerns raised? Is > >>> that a > >>> far-fetched scenario? > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > Senior Associate > > Centre for International Governance > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > > *********************************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > --

2 1

EURALO position on DNSSEC for ENISA
by lutz＠thur.de Feb. 1, 2009

Feb. 1, 2009

On the workshop "Improving the resilience of DNS" I did use the chance to present as very short position of EURALO, because Patrick and Sébastien were unable to attend. My statement was essentially the same as Patrik Fältström's presentation. I only refered to the technically ignorant end user position and stressed a plain, simple and working communication for all issues with a single entity, usually the last reseller in the chain. If Patrick or Sébastien had prepared some slides, I'll be happy to submit them to the working group. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/sta/h_ws09a_03.html

2 1

Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
by Patrick Vande Walle Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

Dear colleagues, Please find below and as an attachment, a draft Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide Regarding the process: the public comments period is over. However, the ALAC is able to make comments directly to the board. The Euralo comments could be an appendix to the overall ALAC statement. I have also included a draft ALAC statement. While the ALAC text may still change a bit in wording, I expect the main ideas to remain. Hence, I drafted the Euralo text to mention only the things that do not appear in the ALAC statement. Please comment to the list, Patrick Euralo additional Statement regarding the First Draft of the Applicant Guidebook and Associated Document The European At-Large Regional Organization supports the general ALAC statement below. Additionally, we nevertheless wish to insist on several aspects. The EURALO does not support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process, we are particularly concerned about any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country code and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. We also note that the process is conducted largely in English, and the complex and lengthy documentation that must be understood before making an application introduces a strong bias toward English speaking applicants. International competition will not be enhanced through processes that disadvantage the non-English speaking world. Further, a rigid registry/registrar separation really does not fit into the reality of smaller applicants, especially non-profit. In these cases, the burden of having to cope with ICANN-accredited registrars might simply kill the registry, while registrars might have little interest in reselling or promoting the TLD. Also, for TLDs aimed at specific geographically-defined communities, especially if the TLD is an IDN, there might be a serious scarcity of ICANN-accredited registrars offering services in that part of the globe, or there might even be none. We suggest that registries should be forced to use registrars only when their size goes beyond certain thresholds (e.g. 50k-100k domains). The Euralo is also asking to have a different approval process for the geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, not-for-profit gTLD's. They should have the opportunity to enter their proposals with a low entry fee, which should be proportional to the intended size of the TLD (registry would pay extra fees once they grow and move from one size group to the following one). ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the First Draft of the Applicant Guidebook and Associated Documents - V1. Firstly, the ALAC wishes to make clear that the At-Large community as a whole is not of one view with respect to many elements of the New gTLD programme. There are a number of members of our community who are sceptical of the need for new gTLDs at all – conversely, there are others who believe that new TLDs are a great thing and that the existing process has gone on much too long and should be expedited; between these views are various intermediary views. However, with respect to the specifics in the Applicant Guidebook and associated documents, the community does have a number of strong views that are generally shared. They are as follows: Firstly, with respect to the fee for a new TLD application, and the yearly fee for retaining the delegation, we find that the rationale is at best tenuous (for example, why is it that ICANN needs to recoup costs expensed in previous years for the new gTLD programme if it really doesn’t wish to profit from the new TLD process?). More fundamentally, the one-size-fits all fee structure skews the entire programme in favour of developed world, for-profit TLDs and constitutes a major barrier to entry for community-based TLDs and developing world applications. This is not acceptable. The fee structure should encourage new types of TLDs and not just those wishing to try and create the “next .com”. Secondly, while ICANN’s compliance processes are improving slowly, they are far from robust for the existing handful of TLDs; they are certainly inadequate for the hundreds of new TLDs that the applicant guidebook estimates will result from the first application round. We do not see that the new TLD process has learnt any lessons from past problems with respect to ongoing TLD operations – this must be remedied in a way that the ICANN community as a whole finds persuasive and comprehensive. Thirdly, we do not find evidence that ICANN understands that new TLDs should be of benefit not just to the operator, but also to the public at large. The objective of ICANN is not simply to grow an ever-larger market for domain names – it is to provide a venue for administration of a global critical resource for the benefit of the global public. This concept is almost entirely absent from the current process. Where are the mechanisms to help ensure that unscrupulous or criminal elements cannot almost effortlessly continue the abuses of the TLD space in new TLDs that they have been doing in existing TLDs – abuses that are a continuing and growing concern worldwide? Fourthly, the ALAC has made very clear our strong objections to so-called “morality and public order” objections being any part of the new TLD process. ICANN is not an appropriate body to have any view on such matters, whether directly or indirectly. We find that the incomplete elements related to this are entirely insufficient and we call upon ICANN to make public all details related to its investigations to date with respect to this objection. It is very clear that what is in the guidebook is only a tiny part of what ICANN actually knows. Additionally, we find the idea that the International Chamber of Commerce would act as arbiter of these objections absurd. Until the entire process related to this objection is made clear, it is entirely inappropriate and irresponsible to be choosing a dispute resolution provider to handle them. ALAC also believes that allowing a first TLD round to have hundreds of applications is completely irresponsible. This is a major new area of work for ICANN; the first round should be reserved for those applicants who can demonstrate that they have been working on their applications for a considerable time (of which there are quite a few). After that round is completed, the process can then be fine-tuned to implement the lessons learned so that subsequent rounds can allow many more applicants to be handled expeditiously and transparently. Finally, we have seen no evidence whatever that ICANN has a plan to handle the massive amount of new work that this programme will create. Considering the problem that the organisation has executing on its existing responsibilities, we believe that a comprehensive resourcing plan for the New GTLD programme must be a part of the consultation process on the application processes themselves. In closing, we wish to make clear that as an Advisory Committee to the Board, we expect not only to receive confirmation that the Board has received this Advisory, but to see evidence that the board has actually discussed the advice we have provided and a written response to make clear the Board’s thinking on this issue. Indeed we believe that this is how advice from all Advisory Committees should be treated. We thank you in advance for your thoughts on this communication and we are at your service if you have any questions regarding it.

3 6

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
by Annette Muehlberg Jan. 27, 2009

Jan. 27, 2009

Hi Patrick, I am not sure about the end of the fifth paragraph: >We suggest that registries should be forced > to use registrars only when their size goes beyond certain thresholds > (e.g. 50k-100k domains). Apart from that, I think this is a good EURALO statement and expresses our will as discussed. I am wondering if not at least the start - no further delay (!) to the new gTLD process - should be possible to enter the ALAC statement as well. It would certainly be in continuity of all previous ALAC statements. best greetings annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > Gesendet: 25.01.09 17:48:26 > An: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide > Dear colleagues, > > Please find below and as an attachment, a draft Euralo statement on the > gTLD Applicant's guide > > Regarding the process: the public comments period is over. However, the > ALAC is able to make comments directly to the board. The Euralo comments > could be an appendix to the overall ALAC statement. > > I have also included a draft ALAC statement. While the ALAC text may > still change a bit in wording, I expect the main ideas to remain. Hence, > I drafted the Euralo text to mention only the things that do not appear > in the ALAC statement. > > Please comment to the list, > > Patrick > > > > Euralo additional Statement regarding the First Draft of the Applicant > Guidebook and Associated Document > > The European At-Large Regional Organization supports the general ALAC > statement below. Additionally, we nevertheless wish to insist on several > aspects. > > The EURALO does not support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD > process, we are particularly concerned about any delay to the > introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country code and strongly > oppose any further barriers to their introduction. > > We also note that the process is conducted largely in English, and the > complex and lengthy documentation that must be understood before making > an application introduces a strong bias toward English speaking > applicants. International competition will not be enhanced through > processes that disadvantage the non-English speaking world. > > Further, a rigid registry/registrar separation really does not fit into > the reality of smaller applicants, especially non-profit. In these > cases, the burden of having to cope with ICANN-accredited registrars > might simply kill the registry, while registrars might have little > interest in reselling or promoting the TLD. > > Also, for TLDs aimed at specific geographically-defined communities, > especially if the TLD is an IDN, there might be a serious scarcity of > ICANN-accredited registrars offering services in that part of the globe, > or there might even be none. We suggest that registries should be forced > to use registrars only when their size goes beyond certain thresholds > (e.g. 50k-100k domains). > > The Euralo is also asking to have a different approval process for the > geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, not-for-profit gTLD's. > They should have the opportunity to enter their proposals with a low > entry fee, which should be proportional to the intended size of the TLD > (registry would pay extra fees once they grow and move from one size > group to the following one). > > > ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the First Draft of the Applicant > Guidebook and Associated Documents - V1. > > Firstly, the ALAC wishes to make clear that the At-Large community as a > whole is not of one view with respect to many elements of the New gTLD > programme. > There are a number of members of our community who are sceptical of the > need for new gTLDs at all â conversely, there are others who believe > that new TLDs are a great thing and that the existing process has gone > on much too long and should be expedited; between these views are > various intermediary views. > > However, with respect to the specifics in the Applicant Guidebook and > associated documents, the community does have a number of strong views > that are generally shared. They are as follows: > > Firstly, with respect to the fee for a new TLD application, and the > yearly fee for retaining the delegation, we find that the rationale is > at best tenuous (for example, why is it that ICANN needs to recoup costs > expensed in previous years for the new gTLD programme if it really > doesnât wish to profit from the new TLD process?). More fundamentally, > the one-size-fits all fee structure skews the entire programme in favour > of developed world, for-profit TLDs and constitutes a major barrier to > entry for community-based TLDs and developing world applications. This > is not acceptable. The fee structure should encourage new types of TLDs > and not just those wishing to try and create the ânext .comâ. > > Secondly, while ICANNâs compliance processes are improving slowly, they > are far from robust for the existing handful of TLDs; they are certainly > inadequate for the hundreds of new TLDs that the applicant guidebook > estimates will result from the first application round. We do not see > that the new TLD process has learnt any lessons from past problems with > respect to ongoing TLD operations â this must be remedied in a way that > the ICANN community as a whole finds persuasive and comprehensive. > > Thirdly, we do not find evidence that ICANN understands that new TLDs > should be of benefit not just to the operator, but also to the public at > large. The objective of ICANN is not simply to grow an ever-larger > market for domain names â it is to provide a venue for administration of > a global critical resource for the benefit of the global public. This > concept is almost entirely absent from the current process. Where are > the mechanisms to help ensure that unscrupulous or criminal elements > cannot almost effortlessly continue the abuses of the TLD space in new > TLDs that they have been doing in existing TLDs â abuses that are a > continuing and growing concern worldwide? > > Fourthly, the ALAC has made very clear our strong objections to > so-called âmorality and public orderâ objections being any part of the > new TLD process. ICANN is not an appropriate body to have any view on > such matters, whether directly or indirectly. We find that the > incomplete elements related to this are entirely insufficient and we > call upon ICANN to make public all details related to its investigations > to date with respect to this objection. It is very clear that what is in > the guidebook is only a tiny part of what ICANN actually knows. > Additionally, we find the idea that the International Chamber of > Commerce would act as arbiter of these objections absurd. Until the > entire process related to this objection is made clear, it is entirely > inappropriate and irresponsible to be choosing a dispute resolution > provider to handle them. > > ALAC also believes that allowing a first TLD round to have hundreds of > applications is completely irresponsible. This is a major new area of > work for ICANN; the first round should be reserved for those applicants > who can demonstrate that they have been working on their applications > for a considerable time (of which there are quite a few). After that > round is completed, the process can then be fine-tuned to implement the > lessons learned so that subsequent rounds can allow many more applicants > to be handled expeditiously and transparently. > > Finally, we have seen no evidence whatever that ICANN has a plan to > handle the massive amount of new work that this programme will create. > Considering the problem that the organisation has executing on its > existing responsibilities, we believe that a comprehensive resourcing > plan for the New GTLD programme must be a part of the consultation > process on the application processes themselves. > > In closing, we wish to make clear that as an Advisory Committee to the > Board, we expect not only to receive confirmation that the Board has > received this Advisory, but to see evidence that the board has actually > discussed the advice we have provided and a written response to make > clear the Boardâs thinking on this issue. Indeed we believe that this is > how advice from all Advisory Committees should be treated. > > We thank you in advance for your thoughts on this communication and we > are at your service if you have any questions regarding it. > > > > > <hr> > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > --

6 6

Publication from ENISA - study "Resilience Features of IPv6, DNSSEC and MPLS and Deployment Scenarios"
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

To whom it might concern. All the best Please notice the publication of the study Resilience Features of IPv6, DNSSEC and MPLS and Deployment Scenarios. In this study an overview of the characteristics of the selected technologies is given, their public eCommunication networks resilience enhancing features are analysed and other properties that one has to be aware of in order to make a decision about their deployment are outlined. Furthermore, a number of deployment scenarios for the technologies are presented. <http://www.enisa.europa.eu/sta/files/resilience_features.pdf> http://www.enisa.europa.eu/sta/files/resilience_features.pdf Best Regards, Panagiotis SARAGIOTIS SN Expert European Network & Information Security Agency (ENISA) Sébastien Bachollet Président Isoc France <mailto:sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr> sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr <http://www.egeni.org/> www.egeni.org <http://www.isoc.fr/> www.isoc.fr

1 0

Reminder: Next EURALO Call on Tuesday, 20 January at 16:00 UTC
by Heidi Ullrich Jan. 22, 2009

Jan. 22, 2009

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next EURALO teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, 20 January at 16:00 UTC. Please find a draft agenda and additional details at: https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?20_january_2009 If you require dial-outs, please let us know at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 8

Commentaires à propos du cahier des charges pour les nouveaux TLD
by Patrick Vande Walle Jan. 21, 2009

Jan. 21, 2009

This was my blog post. Please comments to the list ASAP. Patrick Commentaires envoyés à l’ICANN concernant les nouveaux noms de domaines Comme de nombreux autres intervenants, je m’interroge au sujet du coût lié tant à la soumission qu’à l’exploitation d’un TLD attribué dans le cadre de cet exercice. De fait, les coûts figurant actuellement dans le cahier des charges induisent le choix politique de gTLD vendant les noms de domaine en nombre. Il n’y a pas de place dans le processus actuel pour des gTLD visant une communauté limitée. Il semble difficilement imaginable qu’un registre vendant moins de 200.000 noms de domaine par an puisse survivre, compte tenu de la concurrence sur les prix entre TLD. Par ailleurs, il peut s’écouler plus d’un an entre la soumission du dossier et le lancement de l’exploitation commerciale du TLD. Cela implique une lourde charge financière, qui suppose que les soumissionnaires disposent d’une solide trésorerie. Ce n’est pas le cas des start-ups. Cela pose donc une barrière à l’entrée qui favorise les acteurs historiques, qui ne devront pas supporter de tels coûts, puisqu’ils disposent déjà de tout le nécessaire: personnel, infrastructure et revenus réguliers Ailleurs dans le document, il est demandé de présenter dans le dossier de candidature les comptes annuels d’exercices précédents. Cela implique à nouveau que des start-ups, ou des sociétés non-encore légalement formées ne pourront pas soumissionner. Notons également que la nécessité de présenter dans le dossier de candidature l’infrastructure technique qui sera utilisée. La conséquence est que le soumissionnaire devra choisir, dès le départ un gestionnaire technique (backend registry services provider). Du point de vue commercial, il serait pourtant avantageux que la mise en concurrence des prestataires techniques puissent se faire après la première ou la deuxième phase du processus d’acceptation du dossier par l’ICANN. Cela offrirait une position de négociation plus avantageuse au soumissionnaire. Dans le contexte économique et financier actuel, il est plus que probable que de nouveaux entrepreneurs ne seront pas en mesure de concurrencer les opérateurs établis et donc d’offrir de véritables alternatives si l’ICANN ne révise pas fondamentalement à la baisse tant le droit de soumission que la contribution annuelle. A ce titre, je soutiens la proposition citée dans les commentaires de dotCities ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00086.htm ) et ajoutant que cela peut s’appliquer à de nombreux cas de TLD visant des communautés limitées en nombre. Il convient également d’éclaircir et de chiffrer le montant du remboursement possible si le soumissionnaire décide de retirer son dossier. Il est important pour tous les candidats qu’ils soient en mesure de présenter un plan financier clair à leurs bailleurs de fonds. Dans ce domaine, le cahier des charges doit être limpide, y compris, et surtout pour les différentes phases d’évaluation que l’ICANN fera sous-traiter auprès de consultants externes, que les candidats devront rémunérer directement. Concernant la problématique de la “moralité et de l’ordre public”, il est nécessaire d’insister sur le fait qu’en cette matière l’ICANN doit strictement se limiter à la chaine de caractères constituant le TLD. Toute présomption concernant les domaines de second niveau qui pourraient être enregistrés sous ce TLD, ou sur le contenu de sites web utilisant ce TLD, seraient clairement en dehors du mandat de l’ICANN.

5 5