May 2018 - lac-discuss-en - lists.icann.org

2018 LACRALO Nominations
by Tracy F. Hackshaw ＠ Google May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Hi everyone, I am extremely humbled and honoured by the confidence and trust shown in me by members of the At Large/LACRALO community. *Vanda - my amazing Music Night and IGF 2015 (João Pessoa) singing colleague* - thank you so very much for the multiple nominations - however, my current modality within ICANN (I've been functioning in a Community Improvement/Mentorship role since 2016), especially as it relates to ensuring that I remain focused on ensuring that ICANN's representation levels and quality among underserved groups are increased in an equitable and timely manner - has resulted in my difficult but long considered decision to focus *ONLY* on the original Nominating Committee seat nomination from Sergio Salinas Porto which I had previously accepted. Once again - thank you sincerely for the nomination *Sergio*. I commit to working extremely hard to do justice to your, and indeed, LACRALO's confidence in me to participate in the upcoming Nominating Committee. As such, with respect to my nominations, I would like to most respectfully: *ACCEPT* - ALAC delegate to the Nominating Committee *DECLINE* - ALAC Member (representing LACRALO) *DECLINE* - LACRALO Secretary Thank you all once again and I look forward to productive relationships. Best wishes, Tracy Hackshaw [image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…> Sender notified by Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…>

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Sobre dominio "o.com"
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Sobre dominio "o.com" Desde:Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> Thank you very much dear Maritza and happy weekend of the week! Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ Section 1571-1000 San José COSTA RICA On Fri, May 11, 2018, 07:36 Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <myaguero(a)msn.com> wrote: Dear, Thank you all for the contributions. Given the topic under discussion and that merits further analysis and comments, please ask the Staff to open a wiki so that, in this way, we can place the opinions and / or comments. With the confirmation of this request, we could proceed with the steps indicated by Carlos and other contributions of the community on this subject. Regards, Maritza On May 11 2018, at (s) 07:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> wrote: Thanks Alberto for bringing the subject to the table. Thanks Alejandro for giving us the right framework for a good discussion. I suggest that we make this list a discussion in Spanish initially, let's set a deadline with enough time for the secretary to make a summary of our proposal and be translated into English with the necessary information so that our LACRALO colleagues from other languages can have it in time. So I ask the LACRALO secretary to establish this calendar as soon as possible. I would also like to request confirmation that this mailing list and the opinions expressed in it remain in the record of this important topic (Record) and that if a translation is made, I will have the opportunity to edit it before publishing it. some translations cause me a lot of concern.Under these conditions, and given that Alejandro has given the framework for the discussion, I want to make my comments, limiting myself to two additional aspects to those that Alejandro has given me that seem crucial to me: 1. About the allocation process: I want to know where the funds for this auction are going to end up. If they end up in the bottom of the auctions of the last round, I have nothing against. Otherwise you have to ask about that topic as much as possible and look for a consensus opinion within ALAC! 2.On the background of new single-letter TLD (s): Background: As I participated in the development of the policy for new rounds of TLDs (Subsequent Rounds PDP), I recognize that the opportunity to offer new TLDs is beneficial for all. One of the most relevant results of the CCT Review for me, is that the expansion, more than an increase in the number of registrations, has opened the doors to the replacement of generic registrations towards more specific TLDs. Many new registrations in new TLDs have been made despite the fact that it was available in .com.The main risk of the new TLDs on the other hand, has been the strong tendency to restrict their use based on elements that have not been discussed at the community level, are not based on explicit policies developed within the GNSO and added in the contracts of the records bilaterally. It is more, we do not know yet how it is going to follow the fulfillment of them. As an example I only want to mention the exclusivity restrictions that have been granted to the owners of brands that are now TLDs, as well as the competition for adding public interest commitments (PICs) in many others, to achieve a better evaluation and their delegation. Therefore: it is my personal position as a member and candidate for a position of choice in this community, that any delegation of new TLDs must be subject to full transparency in the conditions under which they will be able to register domains under that TLD . In these last days a new term has emerged: the intention to use or "intended use".Regardless of whether this is the term that will include in the future all the restrictions or all the public interest commitments of each TLD, it is of vital importance for me to note that my preference is that each and every new TLD have the minimum possible restrictions and are open to any domain registration. This position is based on my deep conviction that the Internet should remain a fully open platform. In this way we must put especialatención to any type of restriction also in the TLDs. Two major groups of restrictions have already been distilled: on the one hand, the brands, with a degree of total exclusivity, as well as TLDs that designate highly regulated sectors. The economic logic of these restrictions is overwhelming. but that is not the reason why we must stop demanding absolute transparency in its application, since in the end they only help reinforce dominant market positions. On the other hand the exclusive rights geographical designations, such as the codes of two letters and the names of large cities.Not only for the regional exclusivity of the same, but also for the use other than the geographic one that has been given to some combinations of two letters, we must have special attention that these TLDs are not used to abuse market positions (prices!) This way my opinion on o.com is that if the winner of the auction is going to have a contract with ICANN that guarantees that it is a TLD totally open and free of restrictions, I agree. Otherwise, these contractual restrictions must first pass through the scrutiny of the WHOLE community.I reiterate that this position of a global openness metric also reflects my general position within the Subsequent Procedures PDP. If there are going to be restrictions, these must be very clearly founded. And to date I only know two areas that have that foundation (regardless of whether I agree with it), which are the exclusive use of the marks based on international law and the process of designation and use of geographical names for many reasons beyond that international law that includes the sovereignty of peoples, their cultures and traditions, the human right to free expression, etc. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On 2018-05-10 20:38, Alberto Soto wrote: Dear, ICANN has just requested an opinion on a domain: "... to release for registration a domain name with a single-character label, OR .COM, in the generic top-level domain .COM (gTLD)". I would like to have the opinion of LACRALO members regarding this issue in their relationship with end users. At some point as ALAC Member, I will have to comment on this.I hope to count on your collaboration so that it is not a personal opinion at its opportune moment. The link of the requirement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en Best regards Alberto Soto _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http: //www.lacralo. org [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/d28ddc456f.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Sobre dominio "o.com"
by Maritza Y. Aguero Minano May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Sobre dominio "o.com" Desde:"Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero(a)msn.com> Dear, Thank you all for the contributions. Given the topic under discussion and that merits further analysis and comments, please ask the Staff to open a wiki so that, in this way, we can place the opinions and / or comments. With the confirmation of this request, we could proceed with the steps indicated by Carlos and other contributions of the community on this subject. Regards, Maritza On May 11 2018, at (s) 07:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> wrote: Thanks Alberto for bringing the subject to the table. Thanks Alejandro for giving us the right framework for a good discussion. I suggest that we make this list a discussion in Spanish initially, let's set a deadline with enough time for the secretary to summarize our position and be translated into English as soon as possible so that our LACRALO colleagues in other languages can have it on time. So I ask the LACRALO secretary to establish this calendar as soon as possible.I also want to request confirmation that this mailing list and the opinions that are expressed in it are in the record of this important topic (Record) and that if a translation is made I have the opportunity to edit it before publishing it. some translations cause me a lot of concern. Under these conditions, and given that Alejandro has given the framework for the discussion, I want to make my comments, limiting myself to two additional aspects to those that Alejandro has given me that seem crucial to me: 1. About the allocation process: I want to know where the funds for this auction are going to end up.If they finish in the bottom of the auctions of the last round, I have nothing against. Otherwise you have to ask about that topic as soon as possible and look for a consensus opinion within ALAC! 2. On the background of the new single-letter TLD (s): Background: As I participated in the development of policy for new rounds of TLDs (Subsequent Rounds PDP), I recognize that the segmentation opportunity offered by new TLDs is of benefit to all.One of the most relevant results of the CCT Review for me is that the expansion, rather than an increase in the number of registrations, has opened the doors to the substitution of generic registrations for more specific TLDs. Many new registrations in new TLDs have been made despite the fact that it was available in .com. The main risk of the new TLDs on the other hand, has been the strong tendency to restrict their use based on elements that have not been discussed at the community level, are not based on explicit policies developed within the GNSO and added in the contracts of the registers bilaterally.What's more, we do not know yet how the compliance with them will be monitored. As an example I only want to mention the exclusivity restrictions that have been granted to the owners of brand s that are now TLDs, as well as the competence to add public interest commitments (PICs) in many others, to achieve a better evaluation and their delegation. Therefore: it is my personal position as a member and candidate for a position of choice in this community, that any delegation of new TLDs must be subject to full transparency in the conditions under which they will be able to register domains under that TLD .In recent days a new term has emerged: the intention to use or "intended use". Regardless of whether this is the term that will include in the future all the restrictions or all the public interest commitments of each TLD, it is of vital importance for me to note that my preference is that each and every new TLD have the minimum possible restrictions and are open to any domain registration. This position is based on my deep conviction that the Internet must remain a fully open platform. In this way we must pay special attention to any type of restriction also in the TLDs. Two major groups of restrictions have already been distilled: on the one hand, the brands, with a degree of total exclusivity, as well as TLDs that designate highly regulated sectors. The economic logic of these restrictions is overwhelming. but that is not the reason why we must stop demanding absolute transparency in its application, since in the end they only help reinforce dominant market positions. On the other hand the exclusive rights geographical designations, such as two-letter codes and the names of large cities.Not only for the regional exclusivity of the same, but also for the use other than the geographic that has been given to some combinations of two letters, we must take special care that these TLDs are not used to abuse market positions (prices!) This way my opinion on o.com is that if the winner of the auction is going to have a contract with ICANN that guarantees that it is a TLD totally open and free of restrictions, I agree. Otherwise, these contractual restrictions must first pass through the scrutiny of the WHOLE community.I reiterate that this position of a global metric of "openness" also reflects my general position within the Subsequent Procedures PDP. If there are going to be restrictions, these must be very clearly founded. And to date I only know two areas that have that foundation (regardless of whether I agree with it), which are the exclusive use of trademarks based on current international law and the process of designation and use of geographical names for many reasons beyond international law that includes the sovereignty of peoples, their cultures and traditions, the human right to free expression, etc. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On 2018-05-10 20:38, Alberto Soto wrote: Dear, ICANN has just requested an opinion on a domain: "... to release for registration a domain name with a single-character label, OR .COM, in the generic top-level domain .COM (gTLD)". I would like to have the opinion of LACRALO members regarding this issue in their relationship with end users. At some point as ALAC Member, I will have to comment on this.I hope to count on your collaboration so that it is not a personal opinion at its opportune moment. The link of the requirement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en Best regards Alberto Soto _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/33a347d680.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Sobre dominio "o.com"
by Carlos Raul Gutierrez May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Sobre dominio "o.com" Desde:Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se> Thanks Alberto for bringing the subject to the table. Thanks Alejandro for giving us the right framework for a good discussion. I suggest that we make this list a discussion in Spanish initially, let's set a deadline with enough time for the secretary to summarize our position and be translated into English as soon as possible so that our LACRALO colleagues in other languages can have it on time.So I ask the LACRALO secretary to establish this calendar as soon as possible. I also want to request confirmation that this mailing list and the opinions that are expressed in it are in the record of this important topic (Record) and that if a translation is made I have the opportunity to edit it before publishing it. some translations cause me a lot of concern. Under these conditions, and given that Alejandro has given the framework for the discussion, I want to make my comments, limiting myself to two additional aspects to those that Alejandro has given me that seem crucial to me: 1. About the allocation process: I want to know where the funds for this auction are going to end up. If they finish in the bottom of the auctions of the last round, I have nothing against. Otherwise you have to ask about that topic as soon as possible and look for a consensus opinion within ALAC! 2. On the background of the new single-letter TLD (s): Background: As I participated in the development of policy for new rounds of TLDs (Subsequent Rounds PDP), I recognize that the segmentation opportunity offered by new TLDs is of benefit to all.One of the most relevant results of the CCT Review for me is that the expansion, rather than an increase in the number of registrations, has opened the doors to the substitution of generic registrations for more specific TLDs. Many new registrations in new TLDs have been made despite the fact that it was available in .com. The main risk of the new TLDs on the other hand, has been the strong tendency to restrict their use based on elements that have not been discussed at the community level, are not based on explicit policies developed within the GNSO and added in the contracts of the registers bilaterally.What's more, we do not know yet how the compliance with them will be monitored. As an example I only want to mention the exclusivity restrictions that have been granted to the owners of brand s that are now TLDs, as well as the competence to add public interest commitments (PICs) in many others, to achieve a better evaluation and their delegation. Therefore: it is my personal position as a member and candidate for a position of choice in this community, that any delegation of new TLDs must be subject to full transparency in the conditions under which they will be able to register domains under that TLD . In recent days a new term has emerged: the intention to use or "intended use".Regardless of whether this is the term that will include in the future all the restrictions or all the public interest commitments of each TLD, it is of vital importance for me to note that my preference is that each and every new TLD have the minimum possible restrictions and are open to any domain registration. This position is based on my deep conviction that the Internet must remain a fully open platform. In this way we must pay special attention to any type of restriction also in the TLDs. Two major groups of restrictions have already been distilled: on the one hand, the brands, with a degree of total exclusivity, as well as TLDs that designate highly regulated sectors. The economic logic of these restrictions is overwhelming. but that is not the reason why we must stop demanding absolute transparency in its application, since in the end they only help reinforce dominant market positions. On the other hand the exclusive rights geographical designations, such as two-letter codes and the names of large cities.Not only for the regional exclusivity of the same, but also for the use other than the geographic that has been given to some combinations of two letters, we must take special care that these TLDs are not used to abuse market positions (prices!) This way my opinion on o.com is that if the winner of the auction is going to have a contract with ICANN that guarantees that it is a TLD totally open and free of restrictions, I agree. Otherwise, these contractual restrictions must first pass through the scrutiny of the WHOLE community.I reiterate that this position of a global metric of "openness" also reflects my general position within the Subsequent Procedures PDP. If there are going to be restrictions, these must be very clearly founded. And to date I only know two areas that have that foundation (regardless of whether I agree with it), which are the exclusive use of trademarks based on current international law and the process of designation and use of geographical names for many reasons beyond international law that includes the sovereignty of peoples, their cultures and traditions, the human right to free expression, etc. --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez On 2018-05-10 20:38, Alberto Soto wrote: Dear, ICANN has just requested an opinion on a domain: "... to release for registration a domain name with a single-character label, OR .COM, in the generic top-level domain .COM (gTLD)". I would like to have the opinion of LACRALO members regarding this issue in their relationship with end users. At some point as ALAC Member, I will have to comment on this.I hope to count on your collaboration so that it is not a personal opinion at its opportune moment. The link of the requirement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en Best regards Alberto Soto _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/665e0b8fdb.html --]]

1 0

Meeting Invitation: LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Meet the Candidates" on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 23:00 UTC
by Yesim Nazlar May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Also find attached, WebEx instructions. Dear All, Further to the Doodle poll, LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Meet the Candidates" is scheduled on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 23:00 UTC for 60 mins. Spanish interpretation will be provided. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y6uhhq9q The agenda (to be updated) and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/9RoFBQ Conference ID: EN 1638 ES 1738 WebEx Details: Please join the meeting room here: 1. Click here<https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=ede6066dcc40d7a7ede3…> to join the online event. Or copy and paste the following link to a browser: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=ede6066dcc40d7a7ede3… 2. Click "Join Now". Event Password: ICANN Audio connection: It’s possible to connect via Webex VoIP, but audio quality cannot be guaranteed. We recommend you connect to the audio bridge with your telephone. To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. USA Toll: 1-240-454-0879 Global call-in numbers: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/globalcallin.php?serviceType=EC&ED=6622… Access code: 927 411 969 Please confirm your dial-out and preferred number to: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://225B5A24-E137-4143-AE46-5CD1C8067EB2/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://225B5A24-E137-4143-AE46-5CD1C8067EB2/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://225B5A24-E137-4143-AE46-5CD1C8067EB2/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://225B5A24-E137-4143-AE46-5CD1C8067EB2/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://225B5A24-E137-4143-AE46-5CD1C8067EB2/@ICANNAtLarge> [cid:image001.png@01D3E933.EDD54FA0] From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:09 PM To: "lac-discuss-en(a)icann.org" <lac-discuss-en(a)icann.org>, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com>, carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com>, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com>, "Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero(a)msn.com>, Sergio Salinas Porto <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar>, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>, Harold Arcos <harold.arcos(a)gmail.com>, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se>, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: NEW DOODLE: LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Get to know the candidates" Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Get to know the candidates" for next week. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/99g27ev7qmnd2cxu I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Friday, 11 May 2018. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Sobre dominio "o.com"
by Alejandro Pisanty May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Sobre dominio "o.com" Desde:Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty(a)gmail.com> Alberto, A little history and principles should serve to set standards in this area. Probably fifteen years ago, a promoter of diverse issues in the GNSO world intensely promoted the release of one-letter names in the second level of .com, mainly y.com and o.com. The companies that had registered these names with the highest probability of success were respectively Yahoo! and Overstock; both have already passed their best moment.The pennies of Yoahoo! are better known, those from Overstock can be seen inhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenshoulberg/2018/05/10/overstock-com-has… (It should be remembered that it was an innovative and very emblematic company of new e-commerce business models): Although there is no firm documentary evidence in this regard, the impression that reappeared at that time was that the aforementioned promoter was influencing the PDPs with intense lobbying on multiple fronts, in search of a predicted reward ("contingency fee") in case of achieving the desired modification to ICANN policies. This type of undeclared conflicts of interest is well known; in our community it has been observed at times. In the documents that you transmit to us, Alberto, he realizes what has happened after these promotions, through PDPs of the GNSO, the studies of the SSAC that determine that there is no serious risk to the stability of the DNS by the assignment of domains of a single alphanumeric character, and those of the professionally skilled staff of ICANN that ask the authorities of the United States if there is any risk to economic competition (the authorities reply that they will not open an investigation in this regard). The conclusion of what you present to us is that it is permissible to assign o.com through an auction that Verisign would perform, a record in which this domain name would be stored. Our LACRALO community must ask if a resource as singularly scarce as a single letter of the alphabet should be assigned by this method. It would be advisable that the opinion expressed be widely discussed, and be consistent with the criteria with which it has managed and continues to manage access to names that are similar or related to geographical designations. The zeal shown with these can now be tested. I applaud that as a representative at the ALAC, I have opened this consultation and I invite the other representatives, and the still-current President and Secretary, as well as the candidates participating in the current election, to openly express themselves so that the community can, on the one hand , participate, and on the other hand, evaluate what capacities and attitudes candidates have before emerging substantive issues - much more interesting and instructive than the promises they can make about their future behavior. Best regards Alejandro Pisanty 2018-05-10 21:38 GMT-05: 00 Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> : Dear, ICANN has just requested an opinion on a domain: "... to release for registration a domain name with a single-character label, OR .COM, in the generic top-level domain .COM (gTLD)". I would like to have the opinion of LACRALO members regarding this issue in their relationship with end users. At some point as ALAC Member, I will have to comment on this. I hope to count on your collaboration so that it is not a personal opinion at its opportune moment. The link of the requirement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en Best regards Alberto Soto _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http: //www.lacralo. org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Faculty of Chemistry UNAM Av.Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 FROM MEXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog:http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http: // www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Join the UNAM group on LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http ://www.isoc.org. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3ed2897fab.html --]]

1 0

URGENT REMINDER / NEW DOODLE: LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Get to know the candidates"
by Yesim Nazlar May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Dear All, Kind reminder for those who haven’t completed the doodle, yet. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:09 PM To: "lac-discuss-en(a)icann.org" <lac-discuss-en(a)icann.org>, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com>, carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com>, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw(a)gmail.com>, "Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero(a)msn.com>, Sergio Salinas Porto <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar>, Alberto Soto <asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>, Harold Arcos <harold.arcos(a)gmail.com>, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul(a)gutierrez.se>, Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: NEW DOODLE: LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Get to know the candidates" Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the LACRALO Special Purpose Call on LACRALO Elections 2018: "Get to know the candidates" for next week. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/99g27ev7qmnd2cxu I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Friday, 11 May 2018. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 0

Hoy - Important Webinar Invitation | 2018 - Third Capacity Building Webinar | 9 May 2018 from 21:00-22:30 UTC
by Maritza Y. Aguero Minano May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject: Hoy - Important Webinar Invitation | 2018 - Third Capacity Building Webinar | 9 May 2018 from 21:00-22:30 UTC Desde:"Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero(a)msn.com> Dear members of the Community, Today this important webinar is going to be done that is related to the topic of the new gTLDs. Regards, Maritza From: lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 05:18 amTo: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] TODAY / Aujourd'hui / Today - Important Webinar Invitation | 2018 - Third Capacity Building Webinar | 9 May 2018 from 21: 00-22: 30 UTC Spanish after the English version Version francaise in bas du mail ********************* Dear All, On behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa, Chair of the Capacity Building Working Group, we would like to invite you to join the third webinar of the new At-Large Capacity Building Program 2018 on the Topic of "New gTLD Application: Fees, Community, Support, etc. (WT1 & WT3)" The objective of this webinar is to update the At-Large Community regarding the work of the respective Work Tracks to better understand their findings and be able to comment on the interim report. The trainers will be Robin Gross and Christa Taylor. The webinar is scheduled on Wednesday, 9 May 2018 from 21: 00-22: 30 UTC (90 minutes). For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ybkzu52d The draft agenda and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/cRQFBQ French and Spanish interpretation will be provided. ADIGO Conference ID s: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 ADIGO Toll Free numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann New Web conference tool: Webex- participant Please join the meeting room here: 1. Click here to join the online event. Or copy and paste the following link to a browser: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e818b442deea4bed0ce1… 2. Click "Join Now". WebEx Audio connection: It s possible to connect via WebEx VoIP, but audio quality can not be guaranteed. We recommend you connect to the audio bridge with your telephone. To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. USA Toll: 1-240-454-0879 Global call-in numbers: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/globalcallin.php?serviceType 㷬 & ED 㵦 2531082 & tollFreeβ Access code: 928 171 542 If you require a dial-out, please contact At-Large Staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number. Thank you. Kind regards, ***************** Dear All, On behalf of Tijani Ben Jemaa, Chair of the Capacity Building working group, we would like to invite you to the third webinar of the new At-Large Capacity Building Program 2018 with the theme of: "New gTLD application: fees, community, support, etc. (WT1 and WT3)" | "New gTLD Application: Fees, Community, Support, etc. (WT1 & WT3)" The objective of this webinar is to update the At-Large community on the work of the respective work tracks in order to better understand their findings and be able to comment on the interim report. The training facilitators will be: Robin Gross and Christa Taylor. The webinar is scheduled for Wednesday, May 9 at 9: 00-22: 30 UTC (90 minutes). For inquiries of other times: https://tinyurl.com/ybkzu52d The details of the agenda are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/cRQFBQ Interpretations in French and Spanish will be offered during the call. Conference ID s: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 New web conferencing tool: Webex Please join the meeting room here: Click here to join the event online. Or copy and paste the following link to a browser: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e818b442deea4bed0ce1… Click on "Join now". WebEx audio connection: It is possible to connect through WebEx VoIP, but audio quality can not be guaranteed.We recommend that you connect to the audio bridge with telephone. To receive a callback, provide your phone number when you join the event. If you would like a call from 銭 IGO, please ask the At-Large Staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preference number. Thank you very much, Best regards, ***************** Cher Tous, Au nom de Tijani Ben Jemaa, President of the Work Group of Renforcement of Capacities At-Large, nous aimerions vous inviter participer au troisième webinaire de cette nouvelle series At-Large Capacity Building Program 2018 sur sujet: ऺ pplication de nouveaux gTLD: frais, communauté, support, etc (WT1 & WT3) | "New gTLD Application: Fees, Community, Support, etc. (WT1 & WT3)" L objectif de ce webinaire est de mettre jour la communauté At-Large concerning the travail des pistes de travail respectives afin de mieux comprendre leurs conclusions et de pouvoir commenter le rapport intermédiare. Les présentateurs seront Robin Gross and Christa Taylor. Le webinaire est programé le mercredi 9 mai 2018 de 21:00 22:30 UTC (90 minutes). Pour d autres horaires: https://tinyurl.com/ybkzu52d L ordre du jour et les details de l appel sont available : https://community.icann.org/x/cRQFBQ ADIGO Codes conference: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Numérons d appel ADIGO: http://www.adigo.com/icann Nouvel Outil ( the place d प dobe Connect): WebEx Merci de vous joindre the meeting room ici: 1. Cliquez ici pour vous joindre l événement en ligne Or copiez et collez le lien suivant dans un navigateur: https://mytrials.webex.com/mytrials/onstage/g.php?MTID=e818b442deea4bed0ce1… 2. Cliquez sur "Join Now". Connexion Audio WebEx: C It is possible to connect via WebEx VoIP, more the qualité de l audio n This is guarantee.Nous vous recommendsons de vous connecter au pont audio avec votre téléphone. Pour recevoir an appel, indicate votre number of téléphone lorsque vous joignez l evenement If you vous avez besoin that l opératrice ADIGO vous appelle, merci de nous (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org) confirmer votre numéro d appel couple retour d e-mail. Merci. Cordialement, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann[facebook.com]atlarge[facebook.com] Twitter: @ [twitter.com] ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com] [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5b019e5275.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 09 May 2018
by lilian ivette de luque bruges May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] [[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]] Subject:Re: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 09 May 2018 Desde:lilian ivette de luque bruges <lilidebru(a)hotmail.com> P {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;} Thank you Adrian very interesting and valuable information and important contribution to this list. Best regard, Lilian Ivette De Luque Bruges From: lac-discuss-es <lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Adrian Carballo <ainfodata(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 12:36 pmTo: LACRALO Spanish Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [Gnso-newg-wt5] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 - 09 May 2018 Dear colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. I participated in the call of the WT5 about geographical names in the new round of gTLDs where there was an active discussion continuing with a long list of contributions in the email list of the same group. In this sense, I would like to highlight some topics that I think are very important for our region and invite other colleagues from our RALO to actively participate: - a TLD is a unique identifier, in this sense if the name of a city, region or subregion is requested as a TLD, there should be considerations regarding its impact on both end users and the community relevant to the city or geographical name. - The proposal of some members of the GAC of a previous contact between the applicant and the community, perhaps materialized in a letter of consent by the relevant authority, seems to be a good solution. In this way both parties would be informed avoiding surprises that later result in conflicts (some of which still persist and have not been resolved since 2012). Given that some of the conflicts of the first round directly impacted our region (Amazon, Patagonia), I believe it is of value to get involved in the debate and propose creative solutions to the rules that protect geographic names and cities that are important for our community. . Forwarding I attach the notes of today's call and I remain attentive in case there is any query on this topic. Best regards, Adrián Carballo Include me Foundation 2018-05-09 11:18 GMT-04: 00 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> : Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today (09 May). These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display / NGSPP / 2018-02-07 + New + gTLD + Subsequent + Procedures + PDP + Work + Track + 5. See also the attached slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Notes / Action Items: Action Items: WT5 member should continue the discussion on the list. Notes: 1. Review Agenda / Update SOIs: No SOI Updates 2. Continue Discussion on City Names (Non-Capitol City Names): Slide 4: Reviewing the Email List Discussion: There has been significant volume on the mailing list with strong advocacy for different positions with respect to the treatment of city names and geographic names more broadly. Key area of disagreement - who has rights in determining which applications with a connection to city name can go forward? From one perspective, any rights granted through the application process should be based on international law. If no international law exists granting special rights to governments or other parties, no corresponding rights should exist through mechanisms in New gTLD Program.From another perspective, national law, public policy, history, and public interest considerations provide a basis for granting rights to governments through mechanisms in the New gTLD Program. There are also different perspectives on the scope and applicability of the trademark law in this discussion relative to and in the context of other laws. The co-leaders acknowledge these different views but debate about these p ositions will not be the focus of the call today. Slide 5: Objectives and Interests: During the Geographic Names Session at ICANN59, facilitators identified key interests for different groups. Are these still accurate?[ERROR: Sentence too long to translate (1022> 1000 bytes)] Examples of proposals made by Work Track members so far: Require government support / non-objection only when used in the geographic context (current AGB) Require government support / non-objection even when intended use is not related to geography Create a list of cities greater than a certain size and reserve those cities for use by the people of that city (variant: require consent non / objection for top x cities in a country, by population) Handle all third-party concerns with an application using objections processes. Objections processes must refer to international law, domestic law, ISO standards or other objective measures.Create incentives to bring all parties to the table when the use is non-geographic, for example agreements to allow the use of second-level strings (or the reservation of second level strings) where there is an association with the government / local community How can we expand on these proposals? Use elements of them in combination? Other ideas? Discussion: - Concerning the question of whether the key interests for different groups are still accurate. Probably too narrow with respect to the Brand applicants. - Avoid confusion for the end users. - Good start, but seems to be missing key components - non-commercial users' concerns: ever expanding government control over the Internet and freedom of expression rights. - Framework for 2012 round was a good compromise, although there could be improvements. Need to look forward and consider how this framework worked. - Does not seem to be a general agreement on the principle that if an applicant desires to use a string that has geographic significance (if on a list or not) in a manner that corresponds to the geographic significance, then they need a letter of non-objection or consent Need to think outside the box for solutions. - Need to define what government means. - Letter of non-objection lets the applicant get in touch with the relevant public authorities. - It is very important to keep in mind the context or proposed use of a new gTLD. If the gTLD is proposed to be used or a context unrelated to a geographic name or a term of geographic significance then file for a gTLD. But if it is completely unrelated - such as Berlin for Shoes - then it is no longer a geographic term or one of geographic significance. A proposed term for a gTLD that may be identical to a geographic term may not have a geographic significance. - Think about creative ways to get everyone to the table early, if not the letter of non-objection. - Are there ways to bring everyone to the table without a veto right - such as a true consultation? - Also how to avoid this becoming a tip to an entity that was not planning to apply for the name, but now might? - Need a solution that is not narrow, but will be flexible for the future. >From the chat: - from Robin Gross to All Participants: I would add to the list the concern for freedom of expression rights relative to other laws. - from Robin Gross to All Participants: There is also the perspective of consumers who care about expanding power over the Internet are mainly concerned about free expression. They do not fit neatly into any of the three interests listed. - from Ali Kassim to All Participants: Should a Multi-Stakeholder Model be something that is embeded into these applications? Or it already a factor in these applications. Because of the fact that applications and maintaining of registries is not a cheap exercise could we consider this model? - from Alexander Schubert to All Participants: We also have community / constituent groups in the city - and they want to create the city gTLD! So neither a registry operator nor a city Government - but a stakeholder group in the city! Which is the IDEAL case as they can FUND and MARKET the gTLD much better than anybody else! --- - from Ashley Heineman to All Participants: Just to be clear, these are views of * some * governments. Not all governments have these concerns. from Ashley Heineman to All Participants: Also - not all governments are wanting to maintain consent / non-objection authority on important strings. - from Taylor Bentley to All Participants: +1 Ashley, the possibility for a government to support, and view an expansion as a positive contribution to national identity and economic activity (via tourism, local branding, etc.) - from Nick Wenban-Smith to All Participants: I think the point about freedom of expression is a good one to add to the record. Of course eleven a particular term is registered as a gTLD by a private body for it's exclusive use then it will be blocked in perpetuity for use by any communities to which it might relate. Difficult balancing required! - from jeff neuman to All Participants: @Jorge - for terms not in the AGB, and that there is agreement that a letter of non-objection is needed - from Katrin Ohlmer to All Participants: Also, end users might be confused if some geo names are "real" geoTLDs and some are not; eg .berlin is a GeoTLD where they are able to participate in, and .munic is a BrandTLD where only the Munic LLC Company can register domain names. - from jeff neuman to All Participants: +1 to @Jorge on how great participation has been on the list - from Ann-Cathrin Marcussen to All Participants: Support to Jorge from me. - from Justine Chew to All Participants: agree with the jorge. I found the conversations in the lists useful. I am now somewhat persuaded with on the need for non-objection letters. - from Robin Gross to All Participants: Important to remember that people have a legal right to use a word that refers to a geographic term. We can comment on and say things about geo terms. We just do not have the right to misrepresent our connection to that term. - from jeff neuman to All Participants: Can we establish if there is a general agreement on the principle that if an applicant desires to use a string that has geographic significance (if on a list or not) , then they need a letter of non-objection or consent. - from Susan Payne to All Participants: I do not think there is any agreement on the notion of letter of non-objection as proposed by Jorge. But in any event, I question how could this be in any event be practical - what about multiple different towns / cities of the same name? which gets priority?what about some village / town / city in a county that you are not aware of - how do you even know about it, let alone get non-objection? what about names that have multiple meanings - why does Bar (the place) get some priority / veto over use of that term to identify a drinking establishment? - from Robin Gross to All Participants: Yes, we should not be able to use such terms in a way that is misleading or that causes consumer confusion. But a blanket requirement of always requiring such a letter goes too far. Thanks - from Robin Gross to All Participants: But I would also agree with Susan that the letter is not agreed to as a concept (ever was).It was just imposed on the community after the fact. - from Robin Gross to All Participants: Jeff, to your good question about how to determine confusion, I think it is similar to how the legal concept of fair use is determined - by weighing a series of factors and always circumstance dependent. So panelists could look at the specific facts of the situation and weigh the competing legitimate interests. But a bright line rule would fail to capture it adequately. Like fair use in copyright. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [[--Original text (es) Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04 http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f8444089c2.html --]]

1 0

Krebs on Security - Security Tradeoffs Occasioned by GDPR
by Carlton Samuels May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

An interesting read you might find useful. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/04/security-trade-offs-in-the-new-eu-priva… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1