- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Antony Van Couvering, As chairman of NARALO, I believe it's my duty to inform you this e-mail communication, specifically the part that says "I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself," constitutes an implied threat, and therefore violates participation guidelines for ICANN mailing lists. If another such infraction occurs you will be barred from this list. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Apr 1, 2011 12:05 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >I agree that this is somewhat unkind, but it is rather on point to the discussion. > >I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself. > >Antony > >On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> >> >> On 31 March 2011 23:25, Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> wrote: >> >> P.S. Is that jl.ly in your signature one of those "vanity" domain names you're always going on about? >> >> >> So much for the claim of good faith attempt to engage without personal attack. >> Welcome to my troll filter. >> >> - Evan >> > >------ >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 >------

4 3

New IPv6 Webinar now available
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear All, Following the very well-attended At-Large Community Briefing Call on IPv6 with guest speaker Leo Vegoda that took place on 4 March 2011 (see agenda and slides at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Community+Call+on+IPv6+04.03.11) , a webinar on Leo's presentation has been produced. You may listen to this webinar at: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/p18473023/. Additional background information on IP history and policy issues is available in the Beginner's Guide to Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses <http://icann.org/en/learning/ip-addresses-beginners-guide-04mar11-en.pdf> [PDF]. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

With .berlin, I think the issue was severe limitation of German TLDs, .de being the favored and oversubscribed choice. And so Germany was running out of appealing options. I don't know if that's still the case, but to me that has more merit as something of public interest than, say, .wienerschnitzel, or arguments that the public will suddenly decide it must have thousands more TLDs after it sees the first 500. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Sent: Apr 1, 2011 2:10 PM >To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Hi, > >I do not understand in what way their application is so special from all other applications that they should jump the queue. >As I recall .Berlin was ready a long time ago and they too asked to be given special license to go before everyone. >In fact I can think of few applicants who do not think their application is special and should be able to go before all the others. >So at least in the presumption that they should go first, they aren't very different. > >What they all seem to ignore is that any effort to push ahead, necessarily pushes everyone else behind. >Or maybe they don't ignroe it, they might just not care. > >a. > > >On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:07, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > >> On 3/31/11 1:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote: >>> Thanks for those kind words >>> >>> Where we differ is the effect on an applicant of being deferred to the second round due to any 'limitation' mechanism (this would probably be a one or two year delay - i.e. a 2013 application). >>> >>> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users). >> >> The City of Paris entered into a process to select a registry operator >> in 2007. The City of New York did so in 2009. >> >> These two applicants have been waiting for ICANN to accept >> applications, for for its own reasons ICANN has refused to accept >> applications from each, arguing that it, ICANN, had some policy >> development, unrelated to either application, to resolve as a >> precondition to accepting either application. >> >> At some point, perhaps in 2011, in this one-of-two hypothetical to >> explore the claim of harm, one of these two application is accepted by >> ICANN, and in 2013 the other of these two application is accepted by >> ICANN. >> >> Assume Paris before New York (unless you find a good reason to >> entertain New York before Paris), and describe the harm to New York >> (or Paris), resulting from this delay. >> >> I hope this isn't necessary, but under the GAC model, the status of >> Paris as the capital of a territory with a code point in ISO 3166, and >> the lack of that status for New York, is not relevant, as the GAC >> model proposes, inter alia, to do more than just establish and resolve >> contention sets. So both .paris and .nyc are to be allocated >> unconditionally to the applications brought by the municipal >> authorities of Paris and New York City, respectively. I just wanted to >> eliminate this as a possible rational for harm, as I believe you're >> making a much broader delay-equals-harm claim. >> >> Eric >> >>> R >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> First, my condolences. Of the many persons I've worked with while responsible for XRP/EPP standards development at NeuStar and the technical aspects of NeuStar/NeuLevel's .biz and .us applications, and competed with prior to separating from CORE, I consider you to be one of the most level headed and pragmatic, as well as ingenious, of the for-profit advocates, and your lack of employment indicative of how clueless and unenlightened the self-interested actors in the .com following portion of the domain name industry really are. >>>> >>>> There are two models to work with. >>>> >>>> The Staff model, which for all of our respective advocacy, and that of our peers, we've only decorated slightly since San Juan. That one has one or more tranches of 500 from a single application window, with no policy tools to differentiate applications other than those for the purposes of determining string contention outcomes. >>>> >>>> The GAC model, which so far has not much specific form (not that the Staff model has a lot of essential form, though it has a great deal of simulation of form), and which I and some others may manage to decorate slightly. That one has a sub-tranche, and after a period sufficient to resolve some outstanding policy issues, another sub-tranche, possibly both from a single application window. >>>> >>>> The Staff model has the feature that it is nominally cyclic, and a second application window, with attractive features like the possibility of lower cost to the applicant, in a year or two after the first round. >>>> >>>> The GAC model has the feature that it proposes that the set of policy issues in which applications not policy-qualified (and the term in Heather's letter of Oct. 23rd was "non-controversial" which I hope we can agree means policy-qualified for some statement of policy, regardless of what one's views on the utility or necessity of that policy may be) can be resolved in a period comparable to or less than what Staff proposes as the period between rounds. >>>> >>>> Abstractly then, the two models into which to fit our competing assumptions are an application window in which anything is accepted (Staff) and an application window in which less than anything is accepted (GAC), and regardless of the absence or existence of condition on that first application window, recurring windows without restriction. >>>> >>>> So if you accept the above, then I suggest that the problem you've posed, Paris before New York (or the reverse), results in no harm to the application which is deferred for lack of capacity in the tranche beyond a delay. Paris, or New York, waits a year or two and then its application is processed. Given the modest level of harm to the municipal governments of Paris and New York of any year of delay, it is not a given that the harm of deciding which to delay is sufficiently great to abandon the putative advantages of the GAC model for the putative advantages of the Staff model. >>>> >>>> I commend to you the recent paper prepared for Rod Beckstrom by ICANN Staff on the NTIA NOI for the IANA Functions. You'll find that ICANN Staff are quite committed to the preference of private agency, of necessity for-profit (and of course dominated by the highly profitable), over public agency, to a truely astonishing degree. >>>> >>>> As to the mechanism for limiting to N some set of M applications, where all M applications meet some policy criteria (GAC model, generally), where M is greater than N, a spelling bee using words from the first language of the applicant would suffice, as there is, as I pointed out above, little actual loss to qualified applicants in deferring the processing of their application by the interval currently proposed in either model. >>>> >>>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------ >> 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 >> ------ >> > > >------ >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 >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

This was a general statement of discussion, not an attempt to convey an opinion derived through social science. One thing I don't need a poll to tell me, though, is that anecdotal evidence presented by someone who is directly lobbying on behalf of his own considerable financial interests should be taken with a tablespoon of salt. -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:46 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up. > >What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors? > >If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined? > >Antony > > >On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.< >> >> Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. >> >> I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM >>> To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >>> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I >>>> think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective >>>> users). >>>> >>> >>> Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly >>> irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the >>> interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even >>> registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain. >>> >>> I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. >>> And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different. >>> >>> So basing any argument here about >>> >>> You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are >>> harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users. >>> >>> Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been >>> deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing >>> namespace? >>> >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >>> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >>> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >>> does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >>> connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >>> more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >>> the panic rush for more TLDs. >>> >>> The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >>> end-user demand (and my full support). >>> >>> - Evan >>> ------ >>> 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 >>> ------ >> >> ------ >> 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 >> ------ >

2 1

ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team - Call for Comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) which has been drafted by Patrick Vande Walle: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Comments+on+the+Publi c+Call+by+the+Stability%2C+Security%2C+and+Resilience+of+the+DNS+Review+Team +%28SSR-RT%29+-+March+2011) Short URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aQKX. The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues. This public comment closes on Wednesday, 6 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 3 April. An ALAC vote will begin on 4 April. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

as long as we are waxing nostalgic on this topic.... ------------------------------------------------------ Statement of Consumer Reports WebWatch on GNSO Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains October 24, 2007 Consumer Reports WebWatch is the Internet integrity division of Consumers Union, the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine, Web site and other publications, with a reach of more than 7 million consumers in the United States and Canada. WebWatch's audiences include business, government and consumer constituencies, but within policy and Internet governance arenas, we represent the interests of consumers who may have no specialized training or education in Internet use. We do not consider domain-name registrants, for example, to be "end-users" of the Internet. We consider domain-name registrants to represent a small percentage of overall Internet users. We consider domain-name registrars and registries to be even smaller percentages of those with overall Internet user interests. We believe our goal within ICANN and within its at-large community is to advocate for overall Internet users at-large. WebWatch believes in consumer choice and freedom. With proper implementation and consumer education we believe the addition of new domain names will benefit consumers and create positive development for the Internet. However, we cannot support the current GNSO Report on New TLDs, and strongly recommend the ICANN board send the report back to the GNSO for reconsideration and redrafting. We will give general comments in section one, followed by specific comments in section two on those among the 20 recommendations and implementation guidelines we believe are most important to consumers. We will end with section three, statements of agreement and disagreement with other constituencies. I. General comments. Consumers have a limited understanding of the domain name system. For instance, most believe they are safer on sites within the .org domain and attribute a higher level of credibility to sites with a .org suffix. They believe the .org domain to be the providence of non-profit organizations, therefore subject to more intensive oversight and scrutiny, having a higher bar for "admittance" than a .com or .biz site. In reality, no such restrictions exist for .org such as those on .edu or .mil. We believe ICANN and the GNSO need to ascertain additional detail on consumer perceptions of the domain name system, either through survey research or literature review. ICANN should work with other organizations to promote better consumer education about how domains work. Few consumers are aware, for instance, of the sponsored domains, .COOP, .AERO, .TRAVEL, etc. What has ICANN and the GNSO learned from the success of, say, .MOBI and the failure of .COOP? The GNSO document contains no specific language about safeguards and provisions to prevent criminal abuse of TLDs. For an organization seeking to create a new TLD, what would the abuse complaint handling procedure be? How would takedowns be handled? To overstate the case, in order to make a point: The GNSO document is so vaguely worded it appears there would be little to prevent the Russian Business Network from creating, for example, a .trust domain in hopes of convincing consumers they could transact there in safety, while at the same time selling registrations to unscrupulous operators. The document presumes only law enforcement agencies should be considered authoritative sources for investigations and takedowns. In the United States, most consumers find law enforcement agencies to be unresponsive in cases of individual identity theft and Internet fraud. What recourse would consumers have with operators of sites in these proposed new TLDs? We know from experience TLD administrators are not interested in dealing with anyone who is not in a law enforcement organization. What about consumer organizations the public? Since most consumers are concerned about phishing, identity theft, fraud and other problems, we believe any document discussing means of creation for new TLDs must be specific in addressing safeguards in the creation and administration processes that would prevent these problems. The GNSO document is grossly inefficient in this regard. Strengthening and specification within these documents is especially important in light of the review of Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs). Consumer Reports WebWatch publicly stated, and stated within the RAA working group document, that these current agreements contain few to no incentives for compliance. In short, the RAAs have no teeth, and this GNSO document has no teeth. II. Specific comments: Recommendations. 7. "Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability1" According to what set of guidelines and provisions? 8. According to what criteria, and to whom, in what time frame, triggered or prompted by what circumstance? 9. Where will it be published? How will it be brought to the attention of the public? What are the criteria and how will they be arrived at? 12. How will dispute resolution and challenge processes be established? What guidelines will be used to establish them and what is the source of these guidelines? How will disputes be resolved in a timely matter? Who has dispute resolution oversight? 19. Or else? What is the penalty for violating this provision? What is the incentive for compliance? 20. Who will be on the expert panel? How will its makeup be determined? To whom will it answer? Specific comments: Implementation guidelines. IG C: What is the definition of "frequent"? What format will the communications be in? IG P: What criteria will be used to determine the makeup of the dispute resolution panel? To whom will it report? What sort of oversight will it have? III. Statements of agreement and disagreement with other constituencies. We agree with the Non-Commercial Users Constituency's assessment of recommendation 6, found on page 29 of the GNSO final report Part B. We agree with the Non-Commercial Users Constituency's comment on recommendation 7, found on page 31 of the GNSO final report Part B. We disagree with the NCUC's comment on Recommendation 8 (page 31) in that we believe more criteria are necessary, though we do agree that they must be published, adhered to, etc. We disagree with the NCUC's comment on Recommendation 11 (page 32). We do not believe placing limits on the participation of ICANN staff will generate the outcomes the NCUC posits. We agree with the Business and Commercial Users' Constituency in their statement of concern about abusive registrations. We support discussion and possible implementation of the recommendations cited by the Business and Commercial Users' Constituency to help control abusive practices. The BCUC suggests (paraphrase): * Graduated sanctions for contract non-compliance * Avoiding confusingly similar domain names * Avoiding infringement of third-party prior rights * Clear, quick and low-cost procedures for dispute resolution and removal of bad-faith registrations * Measures to prevent abuse of personal data Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Beau Brendler, Director Consumer Reports WebWatch -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:11 PM >To: NA-Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Interesting indeed. I must admit that I am one of those who has never >really seen the need for the "let a thousand flowers bloom" >philosophy of TLDs. When I started on the ALAC, I said as much a >couple of times. I was so shouted down and told I really did not >understand things that I learned to keep my mouth shut (about this >anyway). Until recently when it has somewhat become acceptable if not >universal within At-Large. > >Alan > >At 31/03/2011 03:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >>ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >>hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >>does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >>connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >>more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >>the panic rush for more TLDs. >> >>The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >>end-user demand (and my full support). > >------ >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 >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Interesting indeed. I must admit that I am one of those who has never really seen the need for the "let a thousand flowers bloom" philosophy of TLDs. When I started on the ALAC, I said as much a couple of times. I was so shouted down and told I really did not understand things that I learned to keep my mouth shut (about this anyway). Until recently when it has somewhat become acceptable if not universal within At-Large. Alan At 31/03/2011 03:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >the panic rush for more TLDs. > >The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >end-user demand (and my full support).

1 0

ALAC Statement on the Whois Review Team issues - Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Whois Review Team issues prepared by Carlton Samuels: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Whoi s+Review+Team+-+March+2011 Tiny URL: https://community.icann.org/x/VgO3 The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt <http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#idn-variant-tld> . The public comment closes on 17 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 7 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] What ALAC said about new gTLDs in 2003
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Antony, without commenting on the substance of the ALAC positions then or now, I hardly think it is relevant to quote a 7 1/2 year old INTERIM ALAC position from a time when: - the INTERIM ALAC had only been formed earlier in 2003; - it was composed largely (10 out of 15) of members appointed by the Board; - the NomCom appointed members had been in place for only a few months and some may not even have attended the only intervening ICANN meeting that started 6 days after their appointment. Alan At 30/03/2011 06:40 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote: >"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both >sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current >proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a >continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, >we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more >equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" >to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..." > >http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00067.html > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 2

ALAC Statement on the Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs- Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 31, 2011

March 31, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chair, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Proposal for the Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs prepared by Edmon Chung: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Draf t+Proposal+for+the+Study+of+Issues+Related+to+the+Delegation+of+IDN+Variant+ TLDs+-+March+2011 Tiny URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aAK3 The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#idn-variant-tld. The public comment closes on 6 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 1 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0