February 2013 - lac-discuss-es

Re: Nuevo programa de gTLD resoluci�n del Comit� sobre "cerradas" cuerdas gen�ricos
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Nuevo programa de gTLD resolución del Comité sobre "cerradas" cuerdas genéricos De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com + + +1 A la totalidad del lote, las razones y el análisis en conjunto. Su forma más que un 'cerrado' cadena y sus implicaciones. Porque a menos que y hasta que uno está dispuesto a repudiar toda la empresa ICANN, que es decir que arrasar hasta los cimientos, es una ofensa a la razón para esperar objeción a una cadena genérica - Me gusta la definición de Christopher de eso! - ponerse de pie. El barco ha navegado. ICANN existencia entera descansa sobre la monetización de común cadenas. ¿Por qué, porque han significado imputado, y, por extensión, acretan valor. Evan dice bien, una cadena, una palabra común, se hace bien mueble. Alquimia, por así decirlo! Así que mientras que puede ser filosóficamente opuesto a la idea de que el público y la propiedad comunal es expropiada para el beneficio privado, desconfío de tomar la Don Quijote papel aquí. Si no puede demostrar daño o fuera de la ley en una palabra común en el 2 º nivel. Y si no se puede iniciar la sesión en la restitución y la reparación integral del agravio no puedo en razón a ver esta abrazado en el nivel superior. Dado que no conocemos los modelos de negocio que han de ser adoptadas por estos los llamados registros cerrados cuerda, estoy en desventaja en la determinación de daño, si los hay. Y suponiendo que se pudiera encontrar alguna, yo probablemente consideraría los contexto de los obstáculos que enfrentan decir un amante del gato normal la compra de un dominio en el Registro de gato. y que deseen utilizarlo para la mayor gloria de algunos puss altivos. Todo hombre tiene derecho a su veneno. Diablos, que sÃ³lo podrÃa es una manifestaciÃ³n de uno de ellos amantes de gato fetiches como el antiguo Egipcios! Dime rÃ¡pido, Â¿por quÃ© esa intenciÃ³n se desmintiÃ³ o desposeÃdos? Vamos a tener la conversaciÃ³n. Pero seamos claros. Sepa por las presentes que a menos que estemos dispuestos a aceptar viento abajo de la empresa ICANN, que se dedican puramente un ejercicio de sofisma. Palabra. -Carlton ============================== Carlton Samuels A MÃ³vil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, PlanificaciÃ³n, Gobierno, EvaluaciÃ³n y Turnaround * ============================= El MiÃ©rcoles, 06 de febrero 2013 a las 1:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> escribiÃ³: > The two (concrete, reall application) examples that seem to be used the > most are: > > > 1. .book -- multiple applications, but Amazon's (and IIRC Google's) is > for a closed TLD > > 2. .beauty -- applied for by L'Oreal as a closed TLD > > > My own approach to this has been (what I believe to have been) > straightforward. ICANN has never before cared about the appropriation of > dictionary words at the second level (ie., books.com and beauty.com) > Indeed, much of ICANN's revenue comes from the buying and trading of > speculative domains based on dictionary words (or combinations of > dictionary words) in the hope that someone wants it. There is a whole > industry of domainers based on the hope that buried in their portfolio is > the next "funds.com <http://fund.com>" (sold for $10M) or merely even > just " > cameras.com" ($1.5M). > > To these eyes, the TLD expansion is merely a higher-stakes elevation of > this same game. We have a company, Donuts, that has applied for a massive > number of strings. At this point we don't know whether the company actually > intends to run all the ones it has applied for; it is easy to suggest that > some of its string contentions are for sale in the hope that one or more of > its applications -- almost all for generic words -- is really wanted by > someone who doesn't want to go to auction. > > So ICANN has never had a problem with making dictionary words chattel, > indeed it thrives on such activity. So we then have the added element of > "closed" domains. > > All we know about "closed" TLD proposals is that the applicants have no > intention to redistribute subdomains through the usual supply chain of > registrars and resellers. They intend to control -- ie, own -- all > subdomains themselves. So it is of COURSE natural that the domain industry > would protest. Registrars see an opportunity to sell domains vanish and > speculators complain about the inability to trade domains in a potentially > interesting (translation: "valuable") TLD. > > Given the high amount of industry capture of the ICANN Board -- a similar > level of capture that led to the whole wide-open TLD expansion adventure in > the first place -- it is only to be expected that this industry is unhappy > about the potential of "locking away" domains that it would love to sell / > resell / auction to you. (Remember, policy here is made by the GNSO which > is almost wholly made up of domain buyers and sellers. The public interest > bodies -- governments and At-Large -- have sideline, advisory roles only.) > > So what about the public good? > > As a sheer matter of consistency, ICANN -- and both its industry and > public advisory constituency bodies -- have no problem with closed generic > strings at lower levels so should have no problem with them at the top > level. The logic of how it is benign for Barnes & Noble to close off "*. > books.com" but seemingly evil for Amazon to close off "*.books" has not > yet > been advanced in any but an emotional manner from what I have seen. If > there is no confusion or harm done at the lower level inside dot-com (which > many have seen as a "default" domain to date), it is hard to see how the > same string as a TLD would necessarily cause significantly more confusion > or harm done simply by elevating the whole situation up one level. > > I personally agree that, in general closed ownership of common words is NOT > a good thing. But I happen to believe that for second-level domains too, > and that choice has LONG AGO closed and cannot be undone. Early on ICANN > made a conscious, money-driven decision that domains were commodity rather > than identity, and there is no solid evidence-backed reason that this > philosophy, being acceptable at lower levels, is unacceptable at the top. > There is no evidence that a public that has had to accept -- and deal with > -- closed generic words as second-level domains in dot-com will suddenly > forget this experience when the same strings start showing up at the top > level. > > Moreover, the move against closed domains indicates IMO a short-sightedness > about how domains can be used. We have no idea how the "closed"domains will > be allocated, The assumption is that a closed domain will be used 100% for > internal company use. But I see a potential for creative uses in which a > "closed" TLD owners indeed owns all subdomains but allows others to use > them, perhaps even with long-term committment, for free. With companies not > primarily in the domain-selling business such as Amazon, L'Oreal or Google > getting involved, creative subdomain allocation schemes are possible that > go beyond the binary choice of whether or not registrars can sell them like > commodities. Banning closed domains denies the public from such > experiments, and there is no reason that they should be limited to > coined-word (ie, "dot-brand") strings. > > (BTW, what about closed applications from brand names that are also generic > words, such as Microsoft's application for ".live"?) > > And then there are simple market forces. If enough people and potential > registrants don't like ".beauty" being closed off, apply for an open > ".glamour" TLD in the next round. No single word is irreplaceable, and > thesauruses are easy to come by. > > IMO, the only reason the Board is re-examining this issue is because the > domain industry capture is in force in its opposition, cloaking itself as > "public interest" when the real interest is simple selfishness, maintaining > the status quo and stifling potentially disruptive innovation. To be > concerned NOW about public confusion, after going through years of > second-level-domain prosperity with no "public interest" complaints about > closed strings, easily crosses the line from inconsistency to hypocrisy. > And while I understand -- and am sympathetic -- to the genuine public > interest advocates and GAC members who bemoan the commoditisation of the > DNS and the private ownership of dictionary words, I ask: where the hell > were you when this was a problem at the second level that could be actually > fixed? > > This is indeed a conversation that should have happened five -- or more -- > years ago. At this point, the potential lawsuits likely -- from companies > with bigger legal budgets than ICANN's -- are almost beyond contemplation. > Sure, ICANN gave itself an out in the AG by allowing for retroactive > changes. But this would be a biggie that would certainly leave ICANN > legally exposed -- as it should be, for considering such a 11th hour > redirection. > > ICANN has clearly set its direction; closed generic-string TLDs are > *not* unintended > consequences, they are but a logical extension of everything ICANN has been > about for a decade. Even blocking a handful of applications now won't > change a thing. > * > * > While this may not have always been true*, at this stage* the threat to > innovation is greater than the threat to the public of just letting closed > generics happen; or so it seems. This is not a source of dogmatism; my mind > can be changed on this, but it will take far more evidence and much sounder > logic than has appeared so far. > > - Evan > > > > > > On 6 February 2013 10:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > Olivier, I completely agree. Some might remember > > that I raised this issue several months ago (that > > I thought that the window was re-opening and we > > had an opportunity to comment to the Board if we > > wish). Time is a lot shorter now. > > > > The gNSO has explicitly been asked to comment, a > > near impossibility in that time-frame, even if > > there were unanimity there (which is unlikely). I > > think that the ALAC is nimble enough to do so, > > but we really need some input from ALAC and At-Large first. Quickly. > > > > Alan > > > > At 06/02/2013 03:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > >Dear Alan, > > > > > >thank you for forwarding this faster than I could read it. :-) > > >Some might adopt a cynical attitude to this by saying that this is a > > >classic case of the Board having put the carriage before the horses and > > >that this debate was closed several years ago. > > > > > >In fact, I think that it is exactly because of this kind of feeling that > > >the ALAC should be looking at this very carefully. It is obviously of > > >great concern to some Board members. From past discussions, I know that > > >it is of great concern to some of our members whilst some other members > > >do not think it is a problem. Regardless, with the very tight schedule > > >that was imposed, we do not have the option of a reply period nor an > > >extension but either way, I believe that we need to comment on this. > > > > > >Matt will create a WIKI space ASAP on this. A pen-holder is invited to > > >volunteer. Comments welcome, of course. > > >Warmest regards, > > > > > >Olivier > > > > > >On 06/02/2013 04:54, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > > Note that the Public Comment closes on March 7 and does not seem to > > > > have a reply period. Alan > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm > > > > > > > > ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" > > > > gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted > > > > corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are > > > > invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, > > > > comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria > for: > > > > > > > > - classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., > > > > how to determine whether a string is generic, and > > > > - determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator > > > > should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration > policies. > > > > > > > > The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has > > > > discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of > > > > focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to > > > > be taken. At its 2 February 2013 meeting, the Committee passed the > > > > following resolution: > > > > > > > > Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee has received correspondence > > > > from the community addressing "closed generic" TLDs and understands > > > > that members of the community term a "closed generic" TLD as a TLD > > > > string that is a generic term and is proposed to be operated by a > > > > participant exclusively for its own benefit. > > > > > > > > Whereas, ICANN implemented the Generic Names Supporting Organization > > > > (GNSO) policy recommendations on the "Introduction of New Generic > > > > Top-Level Domains", and within those policy recommendations there is > > > > no specific policy regarding "closed generic" top-level domains > (TLDs). > > > > > > > > Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding > > > > applications for "closed generic" TLDs. > > > > > > > > Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is > > > > important to understand all views and potential ramifications > > > > relating to 'closed generic' TLDs. > > > > > > > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > > > > the President and CEO to open a 30-day public comment forum on this > > > > topic, which should include a call for identification of proposed > > > > objective criteria to classify applied-for TLDs as "closed generic" > > TLDs. > > > > > > > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > > > > the President and CEO to, concurrently with the opening of the public > > > > comment forum, request the GNSO to provide guidance on the issue of > > > > "closed generic" TLDs if the GNSO wishes to provide such guidance. > > > > Guidance on this issue is requested to be provided by the close of > > > > the public comment forum. > > > > > > > > Resolved (2013.02.02.NG03), the New gTLD Program Committee directs > > > > the President and CEO to: > > > > - Summarize and analyze all comments submitted in the public comment > > forum. > > > > - Review materials supporting the policy development process > > > > resulting in the GNSO policy recommendations on the Introduction of > > > > New Generic Top-Level Domains and provide analysis of any discussions > > > > relating to the limitations on potential new gTLDs. > > > > - Analyze the feasibility of objectively classifying applied for TLDs > > > > as "closed generic" TLDs. > > > > - Provide an analysis as to whether the public interest and > > > > principles of international law are served by adopting a clear > > > > approach regarding 'closed generic' gTLDs. > > > > - Provide a report to the New gTLD Program Committee informed by the > > > > comments received and analysis conducted, including alternatives to > > > > addressing this issue. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > GTLD-WG mailing list > > > > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > > > > > > Working Group direct URL: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GTLD-WG mailing list > > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > > Working Group direct URL: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/00453363e9.html --]]

1 0

Re: El asunto de las "cuerdas cerradas gen�ricos" ...
by michele＠blacknight.com Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El asunto de las "cuerdas cerradas genéricos" ... De: michele(a)blacknight.com Ellos se reunieron la semana pasada también aunque actas no están disponibles aún Sr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via typos iPhone tan excusa y brevedad El 5 feb 2013, a las 13:36, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> escribió: > Minutes from the meeting of the new gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN > Board. Recall these are voting Board members who are not conflicted inre > new gTLD program. > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13-en.… > > -Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/bc3dc78c11.html --]]

1 0

El asunto de las "cuerdas cerradas gen�ricos" ...
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: El asunto de las "cuerdas cerradas genéricos" ... De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Acta de la reunión del Comité de Programa de nuevos gTLD de la ICANN Junta. Recordemos que estos miembros de la Junta se votan que no están en conflicto INRE nuevo programa de gTLD. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-10jan13-en.… # 1.d -Carlton ============================== Carlton Samuels A Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f7d9adcc8c.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Pol�tica vs Implementaci�n
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Feb. 3, 2013

Feb. 3, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Política vs Implementación De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ** [Imagen: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> Alerta de noticias http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm ------------------------------ Política vs Implementación 31 de enero 2013 * Anuncio de Foro: Período Comentario * Abre en * Fecha: * 31 de enero 2013 * Categorías / Etiquetas: * Procesos * Política de Propósito (Breve): * Con el fin de fomentar la información sobre la política de personal de ICANN Papel vs Implementación Proyecto de marco para Discusión <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…> [PDF, 195 KB], un foro de comentarios públicos ha sido abierto. El recibió comentarios se espera que introduce en la sesión que se está planificando en este tema en la reunión de ICANN en Beijing.* Enlace Comentario Público caja: * http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-e… _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5b5a510138.html --]]

2 1

Programa de Capacitaciones - LACRALO - PROGRAMA DE CAPACIDAD - 2013
by sylvia＠internautabrasil.org Feb. 3, 2013

Feb. 3, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Programa de Capacitaciones - LACRALO - PROGRAMA DE CAPACIDAD - 2013 De: sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org Estimados Miembros LACRALO; Como anunciamos en Nuestra ltima teleconferencia de 2012, Este ao continuaremos con el Proyecto de interiorización Capacitaciones Durante LACRALO Nuestras Mensuales teleconferencias. Para Que en 2013 el mar tan exitoso COMO FUE en 2012 lo necesitamos Su Sugerencias participaciny con los Temas abordados a ser. Por favor Responda la Encuesta Hasta El 31/01/2013 párr Que podamos organizar sabor Todas las Charlas de 2013. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GZ3RV38 Saludos y des de 2013 Crecimiento párrafo our regin! Sylvia -------------------------------------------------- ------ Estimados miembros de LACRALO; Como anunciamos en nuestra última reunión de 2012, este año vamos a continuar con el proyecto InReach "Capacidad del programa" en nuestras teleconferencias mensuales. Para ser tan exitoso en el 2013 como lo fue en el año 2012, necesitamos su participación y sugerencias a los temas que deben abordarse. Por favor, conteste la encuesta hasta 31/01/2013 para que podamos organizar todas las conversaciones de 2013. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GZ3RV38 Saludos y un crecimiento de 2013 para nuestra región! Sylvia ___________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein <mailto:sylvia@internautabrasil.org> sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org Secretaria LACRALO-ICANN / 2012-2013 - <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org Secretaria FLUI 2009-2012 sylvia_leite = Skype Descrio: Assinatura_Sylvia_Internautabrasil [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/d9624aba03.html --]]

4 4

RESULTADOS ENCUESTA Programa de Capacitacion LACRALO 2013
by sylvia＠internautabrasil.org Feb. 3, 2013

Feb. 3, 2013

Estimados miembros de LACRALO: Es con gran placer que les informo que 28 ALSs han respondido la encuesta = gracias por su tiempo!!!! El resultado de la misma ya está en manos de las organizadoras del Programa (Natalia Enciso y Fatima Cambronero) y será analizado para sacar el mejor provecho de la encuesta. Como un pequeño adelanto, los temas más votados para integrar el Programa de Capacitación 2013, son: Tema 9 = 71,4% La brecha digital y los usuarios de Internet en LAC / LAC Digital divide and Internet users Tema 6= 53,6% Participación de LACRALO en el ecosistema cross-constituencie de ICANN / LACRALO participation in "cross-constituencie" ICANN / LACRALO ecosystem Tema 11= 53,6% Neutralidad de la red / Net Neutrality Nuevamente gracias a todos los que participaron! Sylvia ___________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein <mailto:sylvia@internautabrasil.org> sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org Secretaria LACRALO-ICANN/ 2012-2013 - <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org Secretaria FLUI 2009-2012 sylvia_leite=Skype Descrição: Assinatura_Sylvia_Internautabrasil

1 0

ARIN: Busco solicitudes de becas
by fatimacambronero＠gmail.com Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: ARIN: Busco solicitudes de becas De: fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com Enlace de posible interés para los amigos del Caribe: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2013/20130131.html ARIN vuelve al Caribe para nuestra reunión de primavera bajo el sol de Barbados 21 - 24 de abril. ARIN proporcionará becas a tres candidatos en el Región ARIN, y usted podría ser uno de ellos! Tienes hasta el 01 de marzo de aplicar por esta oportunidad emocionante aquí < https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/fellowship.html>. Los becarios seleccionados recibirán pasaje aéreo libre, hotel, y un estipendio. Usted puede aprender más sobre el programa de becas en nuestro nuevo blog aquí <http://teamarin.net/2013/01/30/apply-now-for-an-arin-fellowship-to-sunny-ba…> . Este programa fue desarrollado para animar a nuevos participantes, así que si usted asisten regularmente a las reuniones de ARIN, apreciamos que el envío de esta información a un amigo o compañero de trabajo y ayudar a ARIN cultivar nuevas voces. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta, por favor póngase en contacto con nosotros en info(a)arin.net. Saludos, Comunicaciones y Servicios para Miembros Registro Americano para Números de Internet (ARIN) - * Fátima Cambronero * Abogada-Argentina Teléfono: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @ facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero * Participa en los debates LACRALO / ICANN: * https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es * Únete a las discusiones de la comunidad Diplo Internet Governance: * http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ * Ingreso a la Sociedad de Internet (ISOC): * http://www.internetsociety.org/ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f4c36e6442.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Convocatoria de comentario: " Consideraciones de privacidad para los protocolos de Internet '
by fatimacambronero＠gmail.com Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fwd: Fwd: Convocatoria de comentario: "Consideraciones de privacidad para los protocolos de Internet ' De: fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com FYI, ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Fecha: 30/01/2013 Asunto: [gobierno] Fwd: Llamado a Comment: "Consideraciones de privacidad para Protocolos de Internet ' Para: IGC <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org> para obtener información de la lista. y con la esperanza de que no habrá reclamaciones de algunos años de no tener ha hecho público. Este no es un llamado para su aprobación, sólo una oportunidad para su revisión. avri Comience el mensaje remitido: * De: * IAB Chair <iab-chair(a)iab.org> * Asunto: Convocatoria ** para el comentario: "Consideraciones de privacidad para Internet * Protocolos ' * Fecha: * 16 de enero 2013 14:30:34 PST * Para: * "ietf-announce(a)ietf.org" <ietf-announce(a)ietf.org> Este es un anuncio de una llamada IETF para todo el comentario sobre la privacidad " Consideraciones sobre Protocolos de Internet ". El documento está siendo considerado para su publicación como un RFC dentro de la corriente IAB, y está disponible para inspección aquí: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations La convocatoria de comentario se extenderá hasta el 18 de febrero 2013. Por favor envíe comentarios a iab en iab.org o enviarlos vía TRAC (véase más adelante). ================================================== ============= Envío de comentarios a travÃ©s de TRAC 1. Para enviar un tema de TRAC, primero debe iniciar sesiÃ³n en el sitio de IAB las herramientas de servidor: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/login 2. Si aÃºn no dispone de un ID de inicio de sesiÃ³n, puede obtener un navegando a este sitio: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin 3. Una vez que haya obtenido una cuenta y haya ingresado, usted puede presentar una problema, vaya a la ficha de inscripciÃ³n ticket: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/newticket 4.Al abrir un tema: una. El Type: campo debe establecerse en "defecto" de un problema con el actual texto del documento, o "mejora" para una propuesta de inclusiÃ³n de la funcionalidad (Tal como un requisito adicional). b. La prioridad: campo se establece en funciÃ³n de la gravedad de la EmisiÃ³n. Para ejemplo, las cuestiones editoriales suelen ser "menor" o "trivial". c. El Milestone: campo debe establecerse en milestone1 (inÃºtil, lo sÃ©). d. El Componente: campo se debe establecer en el documento que se presenta la emitir sucesivamente. e. La VersiÃ³n: campo debe estar en "1.0". f. La Gravedad: campo debe establecerse en base a la situaciÃ³n del documento (Por ejemplo, "A Call WG Last" de un documento en la Ãºltima llamada IAB) g. Las Palabras clave: CC: campos se pueden dejar en blanco a menos que se apodera de inspiraciÃ³n usted. h. La Asignar campo Para: generalmente se rellena con la direcciÃ³n de correo electrÃ³nico el editor. 5. Normalmente no serÃ¡ necesario incluir un archivo con el billete, pero si es necesario, seleccione "Tengo archivos para adjuntar a este billete". 6. Si desea obtener una vista previa de su problema, haga clic en el botÃ³n "Preview".Â¿CuÃ¡ndo usted estÃ¡ listo para presentar el problema, haga clic en "Crear Ticket" botÃ³n. 7. Si desea actualizar un problema, vaya a la opciÃ³n "Ver Entradas" de la pÃ¡gina: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iab/trac/report/1 Haga clic en el ticket que desee actualizar y, a continuaciÃ³n, modificar los campos de entradas segÃºn se requiera. ____________________________________________________________ Has recibido este mensaje como suscriptor de la lista: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org Para ser removido de la lista, puede visitar: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing Para obtener toda la informaciÃ³n de otra lista y sus funciones, consulte: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance Para editar tu perfil y encontrar la carta de la CIG, vÃ©ase: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Traducir este mensaje: http://translate.google.com/translate_t - * FÃ¡tima Cambronero * Abogada-Argentina TelÃ©fono: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @ facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero * Participa en los debates LACRALO / ICANN: * https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es * Ãnete a las discusiones de la comunidad Diplo Internet Governance: * http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ * Ingreso a la Sociedad de Internet (ISOC): * http://www.internetsociety.org/ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0d8164812f.html --]]

1 0