January 2013 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 11 June 2012 @ 19:00 UTC /Canceled
by Beau Brendler Aug. 10, 2013

Aug. 10, 2013

Colleagues, Due to a conflict that I cannot immediately resolve, the NA teleconference for today has been CANCELLED. I would recommend that we reschedule for next Monday. Regards, Beau -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Jun 11, 2012 7:15 AM >To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, NA-Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] REMINDER/ NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 11 June 2012 @ 19:00 UTC > >Dear All, > >The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 11 June 2012 at >19:00 UTC > >For other times: http://tinyurl.com/d7ww2k4 > > The agenda (TO BE UPDATED) and call details can be found at: >https://community.icann.org/x/hgAQAg > >If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: >mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. > >Thank you. > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie >Peregrine > >ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

10 38

Google Fiber
by Glenn McKnight Feb. 11, 2013

Feb. 11, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-fiber-provides-fas… -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

7 26

Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 1, 2013

Feb. 1, 2013

As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the New gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) kindly requests the opinions from the At-Large community on the comments received on the following new gTLD applications: .amazon ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG ) .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG ) .nyc ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG ) .health ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.health_OG ) To date, there are not enough comments by the At-Large community on these applications to determine whether there is substantial opposition as described in Section 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook. This section describes 4 tests for the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that: * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. See https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg for more details about the criteria for objection grounds. You can post your opinions on the wiki pages linked to earlier or by visiting the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld before the next gTLD RG conference call on February 1 2013 Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

7 17

Interesting article pre WSIS
by Glenn McKnight Jan. 30, 2013

Jan. 30, 2013

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/wsis/WSIS_10_Ev… This white paper( no joke intended) is interesting as to ICT and Indigenous Communities. -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 29, 2013

Jan. 29, 2013

"*Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally worse), been closed.....*" ++1 ...........*The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This* *feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny.*" ++1. [Speaking] as a member of the RG WG, couldn't say it better myself. FWIW, I'm opposed to 'helping' with the documentation of the objection itself. For that would be like a [volunteer] fireman setting his own fires to certain objective! - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:16 AM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > On 28 January 2013 22:33, RJ Glass <jipshida2(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > There is a much larger issue at hand that should be addressed. > > > > I'm not sure I agree. > > Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really > worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related > to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally > worse), been closed. It's highly likely that many of the large issues you > want to be addressed already have been, just not in any way that serves the > public interest. > > ICANN has long ago decided that names -- including gTLDs -- are but > commodities, driven by an industry that cares about greatest volume and > speculative of names, public interest be damned. Every decision made about > the new gTLD expansion has been based on that sad foundation, one which > thrives on defensive activity and extracts value from the Internet rather > than adding. > > The only real impediment to unfettered wide-open commoditisation has been > imposed -- thanks to massive political clout -- by the legal trademark > lobby. But not all names are protected; non-trademark names, such as those > of non-profit bodies, common-law brands, aboriginal names and geographical > regions without governing bodies are out of luck. In the stupidity that is > ICANN names policy, protection of the word "olympic" (which has apparently > been under merciless attack by a paint company) is more important than > stopping fraudulent use of the name of Oxfarm or other non-favoured > charities. > > In this world, one in which ICANN long ago decided that generic terms at > the second level were up for grabs to the highest bidder, the gTLD > expansion is just a high-stakes extension of the existing philosophy. And > all "objections" made by At-Large have to be done under very specific > conditions, the result of a process primarily intended to filter our > obscene strings such as ".nazi". The current objection process does not > exist to reject applications merely because we don't think they'll serve > the public, unless we can identify specific communities that will > experience specific harm by misrepresentation. > > Dev and his team have done an excellent job setting up the process, and it > is very detailed in order to stay within the bounds of what we're entitled > to object to. Unless a string is obscene or an application misrepresents an > identifiable community, we don't have grounds to object (as a formal ALAC > objection). > > That's it. The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at > this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about > any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer > feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal > objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This > feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification > exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny. In > this context, there are insufficient grounds *under the available > criteria* for > At-Large to support the objections raised regarding .amazon, .book, or > .cba. I will spend some extra time determining whether the objections to > .patagonia and .nyc merit consideration; until now I have been opposed, but > based on comments in this thread I am prepared to re-evaluate. I won't > necessarily change my mind but I do promise both comments another look. > > But Randy, please don't think that this cold approach means I disagree with > your big-picture concerns. I would simply note here that the last > officially-endorsed ALAC statement about the new gTLD program -- made at > the Summit and never formally modified or rescinded -- unequivocally called > the gTLD expansion program "unacceptable" as a matter of public interest. > Current events will indicate to you how well that advice has been heeded. > To this day, outside of those of our members who are themselves associated > with TLD applications or domain resale, I have a hard time within At-Large > finding much enthusiasm for the expansion at all. Indeed, given issues > regarding compliance and protection against fraudulent use with existing > domains, I still have serious concerns that the expansion program will be > damaging to the public interest. > > As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD > expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely > led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific > applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn > anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them > domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way > to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD > creation process? > > THAT IMO, is the discussion we need to (continue to) have. > > Cheers, > > - Evan >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2013

Jan. 28, 2013

Of perhaps some relevance is the statement in the recent Board report saying that they are looking at the issue raised by the GAC on how to ensure that non-community applicants fulfill their intentions outlined in their applications. Despite many such demands in the past, the final AG did not hold applicants to their intent implementations (as it does for community applications). The GAC does seem to have been able to catch the Board's attention on this. Alan At 28/01/2013 04:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has >made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley >symathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in >the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could >avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics. >Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very >difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of >the two approaches.

2 1

January NOMCOM report
by Glenn McKnight Jan. 25, 2013

Jan. 25, 2013

*Greetings* *Here is the January NOMCOM report for distribution to the community* -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

3 2

Google suggests a domain industry trade association
by Joly MacFie Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

http://www.netnames.com/blog/2013/01/google-suggest-domain-industry-trade-a… Outside of its thrice-yearly international meetings designed to bring all interested parties together, ICANN also holds smaller regional meetings targeted at the entities it has direct contracts with, the registrars and the registries. The first such meeting of 2013 started today in Amsterdam and NetNames is a participant. Just before the start of the official ICANN agenda, Google initiated a fascinating side discussion by backing the idea of a trade association for domain names. Amazingly, despite the fact that there are now upwards of 2.4 billion internet users and close to 250 million domain names serving as access points to the Web for those billions of users, there is no viable trade association for the domain name industry. So if this initiative focuses on enhancing the Internet user experience, it will no doubt be very welcome. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

4 3

How the Internet got Started in Canada
by Glenn McKnight Jan. 24, 2013

Jan. 24, 2013

CBC Archives http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/science-technology/computers/inventin… -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

3 2

At-Large comments on objection grounds for several new gTLD applications received by the gTLD Review Group on January 16 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 17, 2013

Jan. 17, 2013

Dear All, Several At-Large comments on limited public interest and community objection grounds for several gTLD applications have been posted to the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld They are: .amazon : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG .cba : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.cba_OG .nyc : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG .patagonia : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG comment on multiple strings by RJ Glass : https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/multiple-strings-by-RJ-Glass The At-Large Community is invited to read and post further comments on the wiki pages. The gTLD Review Group will be having a conference call on Monday January 21 2013 to consider the comments on the wiki, as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. See the PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD for more information Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0