- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Gross Deletes
by Danny Younger June 8, 2007

June 8, 2007

The latest monthly registry reports have been posted. This report sees an increase of almost 8 million gross deletes in .com/.net over last month's totals -- current monthly total is at 55,794,877 gross deletes. http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/com-net/verisign-200702.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

1 0

omblog.icann.org
by Danny Younger June 8, 2007

June 8, 2007

June 5, 2007 Why does it take longer to consider conflict resolution than it would have to re-apply for status? Filed under: Uncategorized, cases and findings Frank Fowlie @ 1:03 pm I remain concerned that the handling of the file 06-317 remains inadequate. ALAC was in possession of my report for 85 days before making a reply to the Board for their consideration. This left the Board with 3 working days to deliberate and comment on my recommendations, consistent with the Ombudsman Framework. The Ombudsman Framework states: Where a recommendation has been made to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors shall respond to the Ombudsman within 60 days following their next Board meeting following a recommendation. I have raised a number of concerns with the ALAC reply, as it would appear that a number of the responses, or criticisms of my report, are factually inaccurate. I have urged the ALAC to reconsider these, and to retract their report to correct these errors, but to date, they have declined to do so. In order to make sure that the Board has the best information before them, I am taking the liberty of responding to points that ALAC has made in its reply, which, at your discretion, you may or may not use to update that reply. ALAC Reply page 1, Item 4. The Ombudsmans interaction with the Committee was marked by misunderstanding on both sides with regard to the roles and responsibilities of the respective offices, leading to some acrimonious exchanges. This is regrettable, and we suggest that the Ombudsmans office provide a Dummies guide to the Ombudsman that explains the role, powers and processes. It is clear from the long interaction with the ALAC that the position of Ombudsman does not have meaning in certain other cultures, and ICANN and the Ombudsman should take a proactive role in explaining this concept to those who may not understand it. Ombudsmans comment: I would point out that I have provided a number of orientations to ALAC, and I volunteer to attend each and every ALAC meeting conducted at the ICANN Meetings. I note that the Ombudsman Webpages provides basic information about the Office, and Annual Reports in English, German, Spanish, Chinese, French and Arabic. For the last several ICANN meetings a six language multi-lingual brochure on the Office of the Ombudsman is available with all other ICANN print information. I believe that this would constitute the Ombudsman for Dummies information that you reference. You may wish to modify or remove that bullet in light of this information. ALAC Reply page 1, item 5. We wish to discuss charge of negligence against the ALAC with respect to the process for referral to the Ombudsmans office. If giving the email contact for the Ombudsman was not sufficient, and if a standard set of information is to be sent to applicants who wish review, this information should have been provided to the ALAC when the position of Ombudsman was introduced to the ICANN community. It is clear from the extract of the email correspondence quoted that this process was not adequately explained to the ALAC. While ignorance is not a defense, it can be used to show lack of malice in the failure to comply. Ombudsmans comment: The issue with respect to the negligence in this matter is not related to the provision of the Ombudsman email address to the complainant, but that to the fact that once the complainant wrote to the ALAC demanding an Ombudsman review, that nothing was done to facilitate the initiation of a complaint by the Office of the Ombudsman, nor to further inform the complainant to of how to access Ombudsman services. Rather, the applicant asked ALAC for an Ombudsman review on October 5, 2006, and on November 22, 2006, ALAC then provided an email address for my Office. In this 6 week gap, ALAC did not inform my Office of the requested review, nor did it advise the complainant of any method to contact my Office. Neither did ALAC simply contact my Office to ask what to do. I note that my Office has provided orientation to the three ALAC staff members over time, and has oriented ALAC on a number of instances. The Office of the Ombudsman does not allege any malicious intent or action on behalf of the ALAC. Negligent is a technical term meaning that something was not done which should have been done. It does not infer malice. Again, you may wish to modify or remove that bullet in light of this information. ALAC Reply page 2, Item 8. We are unclear as to the quick fix mentioned in the report. Ombudsmans comment: The quick fix was the suggestion circulated at or around November 22, that the ALAC could reconsider their vote. PDF of this email chain attached. ALAC Reply page 2, item 9. The Ombudsmans office needs to apply its own respect for diversity in setting deadlines with respect to requests for action and information. The ALAC and its constituency consists of volunteers from many countries and many cultures. This means that in some parts of the world, business shuts down for holidays that do not correspond to North American ones. It is incumbent on the Ombudsmans office to consider these cultural differences in setting deadlines. Just as one would not expect a US business to respond over the Thanksgiving holiday, one cannot expect a German to respond over the long Christmas holidays, the Easter holidays etc, nor a Brasilian to respond over Carnival. The ALAC does take these into consideration, and sometimes this makes our response time longer, but it is important. Also, the Ombudsman must consider that English is not the first language for the majority of the ALAC and its constituency. In this case, misunderstandings may occur, and additional care must be taken to avoid jumping to a wrong conclusion based on a simple difficulty of language. Ombudsmans comment: Whilst I understand and empathize with your argument; I must respectfully point out that there is a substantial difference between trying to cold call a person to have a conversation during a holiday period, and actually having a conversation at a time and date pre-arranged by participants. Factually, the latter was the case in attempting to speak with your predecessor. I attach a half dozen emails between us from the relevant time period which show those efforts. I point out again the efforts of this Office to diminish linguistic challenges; from multi-lingual documents, to the reception of complaints in any language, with translation conducted through my Office. I would note that the latter was as a suggestion of the ALAC. Finally, I would also remind you that with respect to this file, that I have previously offered to receive communication from any ALAC member in any language, and then conduct translations. Again, you may wish to modify or remove that bullet in light of this information. In general, while it is not my intent to look at the substantive matter of the ALAC deliberations, I remain concerned that there may be a lack of predictability with the ALS certification process. In the application of an administrative process it should be predictable that persons or entities applying for a benefit or privilege should expect to receive the same response, with all things being equal in the application. In the case of ******, the application was rejected as ******* was considered to be an organization of organizations; rather than an organization of individuals. I note that, in the interim, applications 81, 87, 91, and 95, which all appear to meta organizations, have been approved by the ALAC. On an administrative process view, the delays in considering my recommendations have now far exceed the 90 day time frame that ALAC promises to process ALS applications in. Therefore, it would have been less time consuming for the applicant to have reapplied for ALS status anew, than the time that it has taken to create an administrative response to my recommendations; which remains outstanding. I would note that in the interim that what appear to be four other meta organizations (organizations made up of organizations) have been approved by ALAC, and that this was the primary reason that the applicant in 06-317 was rejected. ___________________________________________________________________________________ You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html

5 6

Vote on OP and ROC
by Thompson, Darlene June 7, 2007

June 7, 2007

Hi Bret, I believe that the voting closed yesterday on our Operating Procedures and Rules of Conduct. Can we get the final tally, please? Thank you, Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

1 0

Call for Nominations for Candidates to the MINC Board of Directors
by Danny Younger June 7, 2007

June 7, 2007

FYI: The Multilingual Internet Names Consortium (MINC) is a non-profit, non-governmental, international organization. It focuses on developing and promoting a truly multilingual Internet domain names and keywords, internationalization of Internet names standards and protocols, technical coordination and liaison with other international bodies. Tuesday - June 5 - 2007 Pursuant to the Board Resolution (07.06) to extend the MINC NomCom for an additional two year term under the Chairmanship of Mr Fattal, the MINC Nomcom hereby announces a call for nominations to the international community for qualified candidates to serve on the MINC Board of Directors. Policies, procedures and further details will be posted shortly. http://minc.org ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

1 0

Multilingual Domain Name Delay A Barrier to Net Diversity
by Robert Guerra June 7, 2007

June 7, 2007

Thought i'd share the following article (below) that was published today in Michael Geist's blog and syndicated column . Regards Robert -- http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2000/159/ Multilingual Domain Name Delay A Barrier to Net Diversity Monday June 04, 2007 Appeared in the Toronto Star on June 4, 2007 as It's Time to Support a Multilingual Web Imagine if each time a Canadian Internet user entered an email or website address, they would be required to include a Chinese or Cyrillic character. For millions of non-English speakers around the world, this is precisely what they experience when they use the Internet as the domain name system is unable to fully accommodate their local language. Since their inception, domain names have been largely confined to ASCII text, based on a Roman character set used in the English language. While this works well for people familiar with those characters, thousands of other language characters - from French accents to the Greek alphabet to Japanese Kanji - are not represented. This creates a significant access barrier for non- English speakers, who are forced to use the Roman characters for most aspects of their Internet addressing. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the agency responsible for administering the domain name system, has long pledged to remedy this issue by creating “internationalized domain names” (more appropriately described as multilingual domain names). Indeed, nearly seven years ago the ICANN board passed a resolution recognizing "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set." Notwithstanding its stated commitment to multilingual domains, the issue has languished, a victim of indifference and even occasional hostility from ICANN leadership. Last year, after a group of developing countries emphasized the need for faster progress on the issue, ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey warned that "if we get this wrong we could very easily and permanently break the Internet." Multilingual domains have also been stymied by opposition from the trademark community, a powerful lobby group within the ICANN system which fears that the introduction of new language characters will lead to market confusion and a proliferation of cybersquatting disputes. ICANN has repeatedly struck committees, held workshops, and introduced guidelines, yet there has been little to show for the efforts. Governments have become increasingly impatient with the lack of progress. At the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society, they specifically underlined the need to "advance the process for the introduction of multilingualism in a number of areas including domain names, e-mail addresses and keyword look-up" and to "implement programmes that allow for the presence of multilingual domain names and content on the Internet...to ensure the participation of all in the emerging new society." While the international Internet community has struggled with the multilingual domain name issue, many countries have prioritized the implementation of local languages within their country-code domain names. In fact, the strongest indictment of international inaction comes from the experiences elsewhere - China, Korea, Germany, Sweden, Greece, and Israel are among the dozens of countries that have successfully implemented multilingual domain names within their local domain name system so that Internet users can function in their local language when using country-code domains such as dot-cn (China) or dot-de (Germany) even if the international system is still off-limits. Canada has disappointingly lagged on this issue. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), which manages the dot-ca domain, should pass one million domain name registrations by early 2008, yet implementation of French language characters is only likely to take place in the next few years. CIRA has faced community pressure to address the issue. Multilingual domains were raised as a concern at a 2003 CIRA public forum in Halifax and again at a 2004 CIRA public forum in Calgary. At each event, CIRA indicated that the issue was a priority and promised action by 2006. By August 2006, the Government of Quebec decided that it had waited long enough. In a letter to the CIRA Board (I was a member of the board at the time), it delivered an official request for multilingual domains to allow for the use of French language characters. Most of the world - including thousands of Canadians - are literally locked out of the domain name system by reason of limitations in language. With an ICANN meeting set for later this month in Puerto Rico and the CIRA annual meeting scheduled for early September, the time has come to prioritize linguistic diversity on the Internet by giving multilingual domains the attention they deserve. Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E- commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist(a)uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Voting Update
by Ted Ernst June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

So as not to hold things up unnecessarily, and understanding that we can change things later as need be, and given that my questions in point 1 caused so much conversation, and given that I didn't get any answers to questions in 2 or 3, I change the Emerging Futures Network vote to YES on the Draft Operating Principles. On 6/4/07, Ted Ernst <ted(a)chicagohumanist.org> wrote: > > I (Ted Ernst representing Emerging Futures Network) abstain on the Draft > Operating Principles at this time. I'm still unclear on much of what we're > doing, and how voting works. > > Some questions: > 1.) What are the boundaries of our region? I ask because I see we use > English and French, which presumably covers USA and Canada, but not Spanish, > which tells me Mexico is not in our region. Is this correct? > 2.) 70% affirmative vote is required to adopt the Operating Principles. > Is there a time-limit? Am I free to change my vote anytime before we reach > the 70%? > 3.) Is the document we're currently voting on fixed until is passes or > can it be changed in order to satisfy concerns raised during voting? If > it's changed, are previously cast votes void and we start over? > > Sorry for my basic ignorance and newness. Hopefully I'll catch up soon. > > peace, > ted > > On 6/4/07, Bret Fausett < bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm sorry for the short delay in responding to the list. I moved houses > > last week and much of life has been in and out of boxes since our > > conference call. Anyway, returning to the matters at hand, on our > > conference call last week, we asked all accredited ALSs who had either > > not voted or abstained to review the Draft Operating Principles and the > > Draft Code of Conduct again and cast an affirmative or negative vote on > > the documents. We agreed that At Large Staff would reach out to > > non-voting ALSs to let them know that if they did not cast a vote by > > tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5th, we would deem them not "active" for > > purposes of this ratification vote described in Paragraph 15 of the > > Operating Principles. After the close of the day, Hawaii time, tomorrow, > > I will send an announcement to the list with our status. > > > > Bret > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > --- > > Draft MoU with ICANN: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > > > Draft Operating Principles: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > Draft Code of Conduct: > > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > > > -- > Humanize the Earth! http://tedernst.com > Open more space! http://www.openspaceworld.org > skype: TedErnst -- Humanize the Earth! http://tedernst.com Open more space! http://www.openspaceworld.org skype: TedErnst

1 0

Voting
by Garth Graham June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

Garth Graham - Telecommunities Canada I vote yes on the (1) Operating Procedures, and (2) Code of Conduct.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Language
by Robert Guerra June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

I would put forward that official languages should be used, otherwise as Luc has mentioned in the past .. it can be a slippery slope. As for spanish / french - Stats are in order ... ti have been able to find indicate that 12% of the US population speaks spanish, as opposed to 15.3 % who speak french in canada. As a Canadian, i'd been keen that other languages also be given status. For one, Indigenous languages are official in parts of our country (NWT, Yukon & Nunavut ) as well our census indicates that chinese (mostly cantonese) , Italian , Greek, italian, etc. The larger question really depends on ICANN and what resources it might be willing to give. That's a question I can't answer. Right now we have more french speaking ALS in the region then we have spanish. Perhaps that might change in the future. When it does, then i suggest we modify the OP so that spanish is added to French & English as our official working languages. saludos a todos. Roberto --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Refs: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=CA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_in_the_United_States http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/ lang/contents.cfm Canada. 32,507,874. Indian 800,000 and Inuit 32,000 ethnic total (1993): 146,285 first-language speakers (1981 census). 4,120,770 non- English or French first language, or 15.3% (1991 census). National or official languages: English, French. Literacy rate: 96% to 99%. Also includes Afrikaans (2,353), Armenian (20,053), Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (5,000), Belarusan (2,280), Bulgarian (2,276), Central Khmer, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, Corsican, Czech (27,038), Danish (29,807), Eastern Panjabi (214,530), Eastern Yiddish (49,890), Estonian (15,295), Finnish (39,069), Greek (143,892), Haitian Creole French (12,317), Hebrew, Hungarian (86,835), Icelandic, Irish Gaelic, Italian (514,410), Iu Mien (100), Japanese (43,000), Judeo-Moroccan Arabic, Kashubian, Korean (73,000), Lao, Latvian (15,000), Lithuanian, Macedonian (12,464), Maltese, Najdi Spoken Arabic (20,000), Northern Kurdish (6,000), Nung, Plains Indian Sign Language, Polish (222,355), Pontic, Portuguese (222,870), Romanian (16,356), Russian (31,745), Scottish Gaelic (3,525), Serbian (7,966), Sinhala (3,004), Slovak, Slovenian (6,415), Southwestern Caribbean Creole English, Spanish (228,580), Standard German (470,505), Swedish (21,591), Sylheti, Tagalog (158,210), Tongan, Turkish (5,179), Turoyo, Ukrainian (174,830), Vietnamese (60,000), Vlax Romani, Welsh (3,160), Western Farsi (15,000), Western Panjabi, Yue Chinese (250,000), India and Pakistan (280,000), speakers of many European languages. Information mainly from W. Chafe 1962, 1965; SIL 1951– 2002. Blind population: 27,184. Deaf population: 1,704,551. Deaf institutions: Many. The number of languages listed for Canada is 89. Of those, 85 are living languages and 4 are extinct. On 5-Jun-07, at 12:30 PM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote: > Jacqueline is right. Spanish should be included. Even though Puerto > Rico is > a commonwealth of the US, the 4 million people that live here > communicate in > Spanish. > > Eduardo Díaz > President > ISCOPR > www.isocpr.org > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > Jacqueline > A. Morris > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:08 PM > To: 'John L'; 'Robert Guerra' > Cc: 'NA Discuss' > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Voting Update > > Given that Puerto Rico is in NA - should you add Spanish now > anyway? There's > one ALS from Puerto Rico - ISOC PR. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:48 AM > To: Robert Guerra > Cc: NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Voting Update > >> - Official languages: The USA (as stated by congress) is English, >> Canada's > >> official languages (at a federal level) are English and French > > The US has no official language. But English is the de facto national > language. > > In the discussions I've heard, we agreed that if ICANN reorganized the > regions to put Mexico into NA, we would add Spanish as a working > langauge. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.ica > nn.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > 6/4/2007 6:43 > PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > 6/4/2007 6:43 > PM > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.ica > nn.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > >

7 13

Reports Issued - Protection of the Rights of Others and Reserved Names Working Group
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

Dear All: Be advised that two Working Group reports have just been released. The GNSO Protection of the Rights of Others (PRO) report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf. The Reserved Names Working Group of the New gTLDS Committee has released their report, available at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >

1 0

ALAC Rules of Procedure
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

Dear All: Herewith are the ALAC's Internal Rules of Procedure, which Vittorio Bertola, former ALAC Member for Europe, Former ALAC Chair, and present At-Large Board Liaison, took the lead in drafting and editing. Since there are provisions dealing with election of At-Large liaisons, nomination periods for the liaisons and also for the ALAC's officers, these may be of interest to the wider community. Note that current versions of these, plus draft Rules of Procedure for At-Large meetings and bodies, are always available at: https:// st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure Spanish and French versions of this text will be available in the next 10 days from the URL above. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0