September 2013 - lac-discuss-en

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - Welcome New ALAC Selectees!
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear All, The ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee has announced its selections for nine leadership positions. Congratulations to all! Welcome to the ALAC, Rafid, Beran and Leon (cc'd to this message)! Rafid, Beran and Leon have been added to the appropriate At-Large mailing lists, given their Confluence wiki credentials, and been sent information on At-Large and the ALAC to help them get up to speed to begin their new roles at the end of the 48th ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires. Please see the full announcement below: ** ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections 2 September 2013 The 2013 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN, listed below for each ICANN body, in alphabetical order by family name: ICANN Board of Directors Cherine Chalaby<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#cherine-chalaby>, Africa Bruno Lanvin<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#bruno-lanvin>, Europe Erika Mann<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#erika-mann>, Europe ALAC Rafid Fatani<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#rafid-fatani>, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands Beran Dondeh Gillen<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#beran-doneh-gillen>, Africa Leon Sanchez<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#leon-sanchez>, Latin America/Caribbean Islands GNSO Council Daniel Reed<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#daniel-reed> (Non-Contracted Party House) Thomas Rickert<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#thomas-rickert> (Contracted Party House) ccNSO Council Celia Lerman<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#celia-lerman> - Latin America/Caribbean Islands Those selected will take up their positions after the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting, which will take place during the ICANN Public meeting scheduled for November 17-21, 2013, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's leadership. The NomCom is mandated to ensure that overall ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria is that selectees are people of integrity, objectivity and sound judgment, can support decision-making within groups, can work effectively in English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and operation, are committed to its success, experienced in world affairs, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers in the global public trust. Balancing Confidentiality with Transparency Discussing the 2013 Nominating Committee results, Yrjö Länsipuro, the Chair of the 2013 NomCom, shared the following: I am very happy to report that the 2013 NomCom reached a unanimous decision about the entire slate of selectees at our meeting in Durban, South Africa, immediately after the 47th ICANN meeting in that city. There were 110 candidates, a record number reached only once before (2003). This number reflects a growing interest for ICANN leadership positions, and also the strong outreach efforts by the 2013 NomCom. I want to thank all candidates and encourage those whom we could not select this time, to keep up their interest in ICANN. The 2013 NomCom was committed to striking a new balance between the imperative for confidentiality and protecting the privacy of the candidates, with the need to ensure that the NomCom processes are up to ICANN standards of openness and transparency. Accordingly, while maintaining strict confidentiality of candidate specific information, we held NomCom meetings in Beijing and Durban that were open to all community members, both in person and online. We also issued monthly progress report cards of our work to all constituencies and stakeholder groups represented on the committee. Last but not least, I want to thank all NomCom members, and ICANN staff supporting the NomCom, for their commitment to a year of very hard work and carrying it through with persistence, in a cooperative, constructive and collegial spirit. Regional Breakdown As noted above, the 2013 NomCom received 110 Statements of Interest from candidates all over the world (27 female and 83 male), during its open nomination period from 7 November 2012 to 15 May 2013. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: * 12 from Africa * 29 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 33 from Europe * 18 from Latin America/Caribbean * 18 from North America For more information about the NomCom, please visit http://nomcom.icann.org/ *** The link to the announcement is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Thanks for bringing this forth, Alan. Yes to instigating the discussion in the community, ALAC included, as well; we can always just forward Alan's note to the regional lists. I can agree that the accepted definition of 'confusingly similar' narrows the understanding of how perception works. But all handwringing aside, the end result is likely negative impact on the end user. So, what do we do? I read Evan's intervention closely and quite frankly, cannot find fault with his analysis, including his take on the likely result of any ALAC statement. The good thing is as Evan says; users will find alternatives to mitigate the slight. So I will not bounce the rubble. But I would support a statement in abundant surety it is for 'political correctness' rather than any expectation of meaningful change of course. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program > Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being > confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject > to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at > http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/** > minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.…>. > Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George > Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the > decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they > did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board > member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision. > > A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual > similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the decision), > adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. > > The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ > **applicants/agb/guidebook-full-**04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>) > is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2. > > This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD >> string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and >> other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user >> confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of >> many similar strings. >> >> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar >> that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the >> strings is delegated into the root zone. >> >> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is >> intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see >> Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of >> similarity. >> > > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the belief > that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer terminology, > would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is certainly part of > human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue is whether two > strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and perception is a far more > complex (and less understood) issue. > > The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, or > had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you trusted, > will you later remember if it was really those sites or hilton.hotels or > sheraton.hotels? > > At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who registers > a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of them to > the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the Intellectual > Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those using these TLDs > would have to make double the investment in domain names (presuming this is > even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But the impact on users > would be minimal. > > But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in sync, > we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet user to > be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore I > believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". And one that > will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet users, the ones > that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other case I can recall > in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large. > > If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement > reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory > Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board. > > Alan > > ______________________________**_________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ > **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> >

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On 4 September 2013 10:44, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com > wrote: > They would have to be bundled and allocated to the same entity, Alan. No > other way around it. > Not necessarily. As has been said, plurals and singulars could be added to the same contention set. That is, applications for ".hotels" and applications for ".hotel" would be grouped as if they were multiple applications for the same string. Any applicant that applied for both plural and singular -- probably defensively -- could apply for a refund for one should they choose. That doesn't mean that the winning applicant would get both. They'd get the one they applied for and the other(s) would be unallocated. Having singulars and plurals of a string in parallel delegation -- even from the same registry -- would still be a source of consumer confusion. - Evan > > Best, > > Rinalia > On Sep 4, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > wrote: > > > Thanks Rinalia. > > > > Regarding 1, yes, is the decision were revered, it would establish some > > new (or larger) contenction sets. > > > > On blocking a name so that it is only one of the TLDs (or alternatively > > bundling them together), a bit problematic if the two TLDs are operated > by > > different registries. > > > > Alan > > > > At 04/09/2013 12:53 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > I support doing something about this. > > > > 2 thoughts: > > 1. A positive result of intervention on this matter where singular and > > plural strings are deemed similarly confusing (and thus not allowed) will > > result in the strings implicated to be in contention. This will no doubt > > heat up the string contention and objection resolution process. No valued > > judgment in this, just stating an observation of what to expect. > > > > 2. There is a practice in IDN variant management that can theoretically > be > > applied to avoid applicants from having to "buy" two confusingly similar > > names (if the policy is not to allow singular and plural names). This is > > the practice/rule of allocating both names to an applicant and then > > blocking one of those names or allowing both names (perhaps for the price > > of one - need to check on whether they charge for the "variants" - I > > suspect not). And yes, the IP-interested folks might have something to > say > > about it depending on whether they are in favor of over-protection or > less. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > On Sep 4, 2013 12:29 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > wrote: > > That could be done. But first I wanted to find out if there was any > > interest within the ALAC. If there is little interest, I will do > something > > on my own, but with far less impact than if it is advice from the ALAC. > > > > Also note that this is an issue that is extremely time-sensitive, since > if > > the issue is to be re-opened, it will have to be done very quickly. > > > > Alan > > > > At 03/09/2013 11:58 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear Alan, > > > > Thank you for monitoring this space. I would suggest opening the > > discussions within the broader At Large to solicit views and feedback, > > preferably if the discussions could ensue on both the mailing list as > well > > as the wiki before a statement is drafted. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > > > wrote: > > > > > On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program > > Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being > > confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand > (subject > > to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.… . > Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George > > Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the > > decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, > they > > did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board > > member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision. > > > > > > A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on > > visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the > > decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. > > > > > > The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook ( > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf) > is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2. > > > > > >> This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD > > string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), > and > > other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent > user > > confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of > > many similar strings. > > >> > > >> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar > > that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the > > strings is delegated into the root zone. > > >> > > >> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is > > intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see > > Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of > > similarity. > > > > > > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the > > belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer > > terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is > > certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that. At > issue > > is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and > > perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue. > > > > > > The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, > > or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you > > trusted, will you later remember if it was really those sites or > > hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels? > > > > > > At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who > > registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both > of > > them to the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the > > Intellectual Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those > > using these TLDs would have to make double the investment in domain names > > (presuming this is even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But > > the impact on users would be minimal. > > > > > > But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in > > sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet > > user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and > > therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". > > And one that will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet > > users, the ones that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other > > case I can recall in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large. > > > > > > If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement > > reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory > > Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs To: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Thanks Rinalia. Regarding 1, yes, is the decision were revered, it would establish some new (or larger) contenction sets. On blocking a name so that it is only one of the TLDs (or alternatively bundling them together), a bit problematic if the two TLDs are operated by different registries. Alan At 04/09/2013 12:53 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: Dear Alan, > > I support doing something about this. > > 2 thoughts: > 1. A positive result of intervention on this matter where singular and > plural strings are deemed similarly confusing (and thus not allowed) will > result in the strings implicated to be in contention. This will no doubt > heat up the string contention and objection resolution process. No valued > judgment in this, just stating an observation of what to expect. > > 2. There is a practice in IDN variant management that can theoretically be > applied to avoid applicants from having to "buy" two confusingly similar > names (if the policy is not to allow singular and plural names). This is > the practice/rule of allocating both names to an applicant and then > blocking one of those names or allowing both names (perhaps for the price > of one - need to check on whether they charge for the "variants" - I > suspect not). And yes, the IP-interested folks might have something to say > about it depending on whether they are in favor of over-protection or less. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > On Sep 4, 2013 12:29 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@** > mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>>alan.greenberg(a)**mcgill.ca<alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>> > wrote: > That could be done. But first I wanted to find out if there was any > interest within the ALAC. If there is little interest, I will do something > on my own, but with far less impact than if it is advice from the ALAC. > > Also note that this is an issue that is extremely time-sensitive, since if > the issue is to be re-opened, it will have to be done very quickly. > > Alan > > At 03/09/2013 11:58 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Alan, > > Thank you for monitoring this space. I would suggest opening the > discussions within the broader At Large to solicit views and feedback, > preferably if the discussions could ensue on both the mailing list as well > as the wiki before a statement is drafted. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@** > mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>>alan.greenberg(a)**mcgill.ca<alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>> > wrote: > > > On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program > Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being > confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject > to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at < > http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/** > minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.…> > >http://www.icann.org/**en/groups/board/documents/** > minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.…>. > Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George > Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the > decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they > did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board > member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision. > > > > > A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on > visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the > decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. > > > > The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook (<http://newgtlds.icann.org/ > **en/applicants/agb/guidebook-**full-04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf> > >http://**newgtlds.icann.org/en/**applicants/agb/guidebook-full-** > 04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>) > is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2. > > > > >> This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD > string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and > other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user > confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of > many similar strings. > >> > >> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar > that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the > strings is delegated into the root zone. > >> > >> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is > intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see > Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of > similarity. > > > > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the > belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer > terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is > certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue > is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and > perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue. > > > > The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, > or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you > trusted, will you later remember if it was really those sites or > hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels? > > > > At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who > registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of > them to the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the > Intellectual Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those > using these TLDs would have to make double the investment in domain names > (presuming this is even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But > the impact on users would be minimal. > > > > But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in > sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet > user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and > therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". > And one that will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet > users, the ones that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other > case I can recall in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large. > > > > If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement > reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory > Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board. > > > > Alan > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.**icann.org <ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.**icann.org <ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > > > At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>** > http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > > ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/** > display/atlarge/At-Large+**Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> > >http**s://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+** > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > ALAC mailing list > <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.**icann.org <ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.**icann.org <ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>** > http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/** > display/atlarge/At-Large+**Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> > >http**s://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+** > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…> > ______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+** Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear Alan, I support doing something about this. 2 thoughts: 1. A positive result of intervention on this matter where singular and plural strings are deemed similarly confusing (and thus not allowed) will result in the strings implicated to be in contention. This will no doubt heat up the string contention and objection resolution process. No valued judgment in this, just stating an observation of what to expect. 2. There is a practice in IDN variant management that can theoretically be applied to avoid applicants from having to "buy" two confusingly similar names (if the policy is not to allow singular and plural names). This is the practice/rule of allocating both names to an applicant and then blocking one of those names or allowing both names (perhaps for the price of one - need to check on whether they charge for the "variants" - I suspect not). And yes, the IP-interested folks might have something to say about it depending on whether they are in favor of over-protection or less. Best regards, Rinalia On Sep 4, 2013 12:29 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > That could be done. But first I wanted to find out if there was any > interest within the ALAC. If there is little interest, I will do something > on my own, but with far less impact than if it is advice from the ALAC. > > Also note that this is an issue that is extremely time-sensitive, since if > the issue is to be re-opened, it will have to be done very quickly. > > Alan > > At 03/09/2013 11:58 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear Alan, >> >> Thank you for monitoring this space. I would suggest opening the >> discussions within the broader At Large to solicit views and feedback, >> preferably if the discussions could ensue on both the mailing list as well >> as the wiki before a statement is drafted. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> wrote: >> >> > On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program >> Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being >> confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject >> to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at >> http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/** >> minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d< http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.… >. >> Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George >> Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the >> decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they >> did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board >> member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision. >> > >> > A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on >> visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the >> decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. >> > >> > The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook ( >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/**applicants/agb/guidebook-full-** >> 04jun12-en.pdf< http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>) >> is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2. >> > >> >> This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD >> string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and >> other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user >> confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of >> many similar strings. >> >> >> >> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar >> that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the >> strings is delegated into the root zone. >> >> >> >> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is >> intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see >> Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of >> similarity. >> > >> > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the >> belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer >> terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is >> certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue >> is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and >> perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue. >> > >> > The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, >> or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you >> trusted, will you later remember if it was really those sites or >> hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels? >> > >> > At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who >> registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of >> them to the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the >> Intellectual Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those >> using these TLDs would have to make double the investment in domain names >> (presuming this is even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But >> the impact on users would be minimal. >> > >> > But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in >> sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet >> user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and >> therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". >> And one that will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet >> users, the ones that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other >> case I can recall in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large. >> > >> > If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement >> reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory >> Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board. >> > >> > Alan >> > >> > ______________________________**_________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac< https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> >> > >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/** >> display/atlarge/At-Large+**Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)< https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac< https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ > **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)< https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Here's an issue where a broader discussion might be useful to decision. Alan has done a great job laying out the issues....and a case for an ALAC statement. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM Subject: [ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/** minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.…>. Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision. A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/** applicants/agb/guidebook-full-**04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>) is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2. This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD > string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and > other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user > confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of > many similar strings. > > Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar that > they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings > is delegated into the root zone. > > The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is > intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see > Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of > similarity. > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue. The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you trusted, will you later remember if it was really those sites or hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels? At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of them to the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the Intellectual Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those using these TLDs would have to make double the investment in domain names (presuming this is even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But the impact on users would be minimal. But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". And one that will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet users, the ones that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other case I can recall in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large. If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board. Alan ______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+** Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>

1 0

LAST CALL FOR AWARDS FRIDA 2013 Grants
by sylvia＠internautabrasil.org Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: LAST CALL FOR AWARDS FRIDA 2013 Grants From: sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org / * END OF SEPTEMBER 30, ** / CLOSE SEPTEMBER 30. / Encerramento 30 SETEMBRO * [Português abaixo] [Inglés below] * GRANTS FRIDA 2013 * FRIDA Program provides financial support to projects in the form of "Small grants". The amount allocated to these projects may not exceed U.S. $ 15,000 and must be executed within a period of twelve months. * Research selected must meet at least one of the following topics: * * Efforts to improve, expand and promote the development of standards for Internet. * Consequences political, economic and social anti-piracy laws. * Implementation of strategies for the development of a structure Internet, human capacities and abilities reliable and efficient. * Acceleration of access and social benefits of the Internet in communities vulnerable and underserved. * SEE THE RULES OF APPLICATION: * <http://programafrida.net/grants> http://programafrida.net/grants -------------------------------------------------- ----------------- * 2013 FRIDA GRANTS * The FRIDA Program Provides financial support for projects in the form of "small grants. "The amount Awarded to These projects will be up to U.S. $ 15,000, the maximum term for Their completion will be twelve months. * The researches That will be selected must address one of the Following topics: * * Efforts to Enhance, expand, and Promote Internet standards development * Political, economic, and social effects of anti-piracy bills * Implementing strategies for reliable and Effective Internet infrastructure, human capacity and skills development * Accelerate access and the societal benefits of the Internet in vulnerable and underserved communities. * SEE THE APPLICATION PROCESS STAGES TERMS AND RULES: * <http://programafrida.net/grants> http://programafrida.net/grants -------------------------------------------------- ----------------- * Grants FRIDA 2013 * Or ofers apoio FRIDA Program projetos financeiro to sob to MODES of "small grants ". Or amount designated for Podera não projetos esses exceed U.S. $ 15,000 and deverão be executed from prazo not exceeding 12 months. * As investigations selecionadas ** deverão give seguintes alguma try Questões: * * Esforços by melhorar, expand and promote or desenvolvimento of Padrões for Internet. * Consequences political, economic and sociais antipirataria das leis. * Implementação of strategies for o Desenvolvimento da uma estrutura Internet confiáveis \u200b\u200bhuman capabilities and skills and efficient. * Aceleração do sociais gives accessibility and Internet nas net profit communities vulneráveis \u200b\u200band pouco addressed. * Acesse A PROCESS OF POSTULAÇÃO: * <http://programafrida.net/grants> http://programafrida.net/grants ___________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein <mailto:sylvia@internautabrasil.org> sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org Secretary LACRALO-ICANN / 2012-2014 - <http://atlarge.icann.org/> http://atlarge.icann.org Secretary FLUI 2009-2015 sylvia_leite = Skype Descrição: Assinatura_Sylvia_Internautabrasil -------------------------------------------------- --- [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2f9d0b5b23.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by carlos dionisio aguirre Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

Congrats to León & Celia both excelent representatives of our region ! Carlos Dionisio Aguirre ADIAR Vice Presidente Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:10:02 To: <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [lac-discuss-en] ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm Dev Anand _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en

1 0

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm Dev Anand

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Iso-8859-1? Q? ICANN_News_Alert_-_Webinar = 3A_Pro? == Iso-8859-1? Q? Yecto_de_Participaci = F3n_Digital? =
by dacostabastidas＠dtech.ec Sept. 1, 2013

Sept. 1, 2013

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =? Iso-8859-1? Q? ICANN_News_Alert_-_Webinar = 3A_Pro? == Iso-8859-1? Q? Yecto_de_Participaci = F3n_Digital? = From: dacostabastidas(a)dtech.ec Dear Carlton Please confirm if habrtraduccin into Spanish (I do not see link to ask the staff) as a specialized Als Tics with STANDARDS open we are very interested in proposing alternative practices from our organization, however, the scope technician and technological needs precision and assertiveness. Atte Diego Acosta Bastidas Community and free software association Ecuador ALS The August 31, 2013 11:36 <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Webinar: Proyecto de Participación Digital > Desde: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Queridos todos: > Este seminario puede ser importante para aquellos de ustedes que creen > que cuando se > trata de hacer contribuciones eficaces para el desarrollo de políticas de > ICANN > proceso, es mucho más útil para participar en el grupo más grande que no. > > > Que ICANN sabe lo que puede ser útil para que su articulación completa en > pie de igualdad con otras personas de todo el mundo. > > > -Carlton > > > ============================== > Carlton Un Samuels > Móvil: 876-818-1799 > * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * > ============================= > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > De: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > Date: Thu, Aug 29 de 2013 a las 18:43 > Asunto: ICANN News Alert - Webinar: Proyecto de Participación Digital > A: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com > > > > > ** > [Image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> Alerta de noticias > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29aug13-en.htm > ------------------------------ > Webinar: Proyecto de Participación Digital > > > 29 de agosto 2013 > Detalles Webinar > > > * Fecha: * Miércoles, 04 de septiembre 2013 > * Hora: * 14:00 15:00 UTC > * Adobe Connect: * http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ocs/ > * Adigo información teléfono: * > > > - EE.UU. Número de acceso: 213 233 3193 > - EE.UU. número de acceso gratuito: 800 550 6865 > > > * Código de la Conferencia *: 40-60-14-86 > * Los números de teléfono Adigo Internacionales: * > http://adigo.com/icann/ > > > ICANN se dedica a un desarrollo estratégico y el proceso de incubación de > la nueva > herramientas de participación y servicios digitales que se traducirá en > una > reconceptualización de ICANN.org <http://www.icann.org/> .El objetivo de > la > la estrategia es impulsar la participación comunitaria a través de un > continuo de posibilidades > participación que van desde el interés general, la comunicación de cara > al público > eso ocurre en ICANN.org <http://www.icann.org/> , A un compromiso más > profundo > experiencias que permitan a los nuevos y existentes miembros de la > comunidad para discutir y > educarse a sí mismos en una amplia variedad de temas de gobierno, a las > experiencias > en el que miembros de la comunidad a aprender más acerca de cómo trabajar > actividad de grupo. > > > Por favor, únase a nosotros para un seminario web en * Miércoles, 04 de > septiembre 2013 a las 14:00 > 15:00 UTC * en el que vamos a actualizar a la comunidad sobre el proyecto > antecedentes y el estado. La reunión se produce en una sala de Adobe > Connect > con una presentación de diapositivas. Los participantes tendrán la > oportunidad de ofrecer > comentarios y hacer preguntas. Durante el transcurso del seminario, las > preguntas pueden > presentarse utilizando la función de chat de Adobe Connect. Si no puede > unirse a > la sesión en vivo, se realizó la grabación de la sesión disponibles > poco después de la reunión. > _______________________________________________ > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a39ab06d22.html --]]

1 0