The ALAC and Regional Leadership Working Session 1 was a very productive and fulfilling day. There were various reports presented by the various Working Groups and updates from a few constituencies within ICANN. APRALO delegates that were present physically included Cheryl Langdon Orr (gNSO Liaison and APRALO member), Holly Raiche (APRALO Vice Chair), Edmon Chung (APRALO Rep to ALAC and APRALO Secretariat), Rinalia Ibrahim(APRALO Rep to ALAC through NomCom Appointment), Sivasubramanium (APRALO member and ISOC Chennai President), Grigori Saghyan (ALS from Armenia and APRALO member), Maureen Hilyard (APRALO member and PICISOC Chair) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro(APRALO rep to ALAC).
APRALO was invited to stream into the sessions and were notified of the link through an email alert that I sent in the morning. We would also like to strongly encourage people to remotely stream in and participate. It is also great to see the various At Large Structures that were present today. There were many At Large Structures present from the LACRALO region and a few from the APRALO region. It was also great to see and meet the Fellows from within our region.
Tomorrow, we are gearing up for another dynamic and fun filled day and welcome you to join us through remote streaming. You can access the meetings and view the Schedule.
I advise that the transcripts for today's session have yet to be uploaded. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to raise them with any of your representatives or by responding to this email.
This session was supposed to be an opportunity for the ICANN community to hear about recent developments and upcoming events related to Internet Governance, and how such developments may be relevant to ICANN.
In late 2012, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will host two world conferences, the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), and the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Both conferences are addressing issues relevant to the global Internet Governance discourse, and their outcomes may have an impact on various parts of the Internet space.
Agenda Details:
Discussion in this session focused on:
• a factual overview of the issues and forums where Internet governance will be considered in the upcoming year
• preparations for the 2012 IGF, including the CSTD report on improvements to the IGF
• exploring stakeholders’ views on these developments
I was a little surprised that there really wasn't much new in this session that I haven't heard many other times at IGF meetings.
The Chair (Emily ?) gave a very comprehensive overview of the report and its recommendations. I was moreso interested in the comments from the community. Some of them I captured hereunder:
Micheal:
Use WHOIS for spam protection as business. No ICANN Mandate for public WHOIS, he says.
nic.cr is struggling to provide WHOIS service; mandate from ICANN MUST say 'somebody's public name must be attached to a public domain'. [nic.cr is a ccTLD so might not be in the tent for ICANN oversight of WHOIS].
Barry Schien - "President of the World"
He's asking for RT to distinguish between 'accuracy' and 'precision' for the report.
Sabine Dolderer:
Don't like the 'tag' WHOIS Policy. It is a protocol. Let's talk about access to domain name holder information. IS the question just about easier access to data? Are these legitimate. Balance for the interests is necessary. [Maybe a SAC051 aficionado?]
No possibility to support IDNs but IRIS can so long as we talk about whois information instead of the policy.
Pressure from consumer protection agencies for more personal data protection; making access to WHOIS data less easy and not to give it to everybody
Benedict Addis: Serious Organized Crime Agency, UK & on LEA looking at WHOIS validation.
The report and recommendations is clear and common-sense. They're willing to accept privacy/proxy services are going to be used. Do LEA get a pass to 'trusted' services. What of the NOMINET model? He thinks time enough for formal concept for privacy/proxy services.
Peter Nettleford from GAC:
GAC recommendations is in recognition of a clear problem. Proxy/privacy services are organic and in response to some need. But the risks are seeminly established. So we accept it that they should be standardized.
Olaf Nordling:
"Online Chatroom: From GPM Group. Why is there no incentive for an open and accurate WHOIS?
Kathy Kleinman (member of the RT): The report offer both carrot and stick towards this objective.
Milton: WhOIS is about surveillance of Internet users, not about or for consumers. He says consumers don't use it, so says his mama..and so goes the world.
Emily T.: Consumer trust is not about a particular website but the Internet overall! Consumers use third parties to use it for them.
Difference between 'contactability' and 'accuracy' because of how WHOIS is instantiated. Maybe there is a better way for ICANN to solve the problem. [He's flogging new protocol and services!] But he's mute of whether the need/objective for WHOIS remains
Emily T.: She hopes that privacy and open whois can be accommodated.
Wendy Selzer:
WHOIS hammer; from AoC scoped right. Did you ask 'Is WHOIS the right tool'? [Minimum data view is required. We will not resile from unfettered access to that minimum view for ordinary users.IETF new technical protocols; maybe an ISOC Fellow commission?]
Holly Raiche (At-Large):
Data accuracy terminology must be refined.
Melissa Cooper, BC:
Agree on most recommendations, some could be expanded. Views on SAC051 and roadmap. They reviewed and used a lot from SAC051 re terminology, didn't look at the Roadmap but there is some time to look.
Steve DelBianco (Netchoice):
Rec 17: WOuld it not be necessary for policy changes to make all ao f this data available to a centralized service? PDP for Thick WHOIS passed so policy extension required for data to flow to a centralized service in event it is accepted.
RFC Ignorant is blacklisting registries because they not following RFC 1032. They following EU Privacy Regulations.
Member of Panel: Agrees RFC 1032 is outdated. But the organizations that use it will go out of business eventually and that is regardless of the RFC situation. Remedy for RFC outside scope.
Rob Golding (from chat):
Are there recommendations criminalizing misues of WHOIS data?
Emiily: Current studies of use and misuse of WHOIS has picked this up and most likely there would be some resoultion. Kathy Klienman says registry/registrars had a lot to say on it.
Steve Metallitz:
From IPC constituency gives the team kudos on understating accomplishments. Disagree with Steve DelBianco. ICANN have it in its power to require thick WHOIS for .com registry as well as the other outliers can be done via RAA
Keith Drazek Verisign):
Registry Stakeholder group will deliver their Statement this week. He believes the RT has moved it forward. Re migrating to a thick WHOIS is not just a registry issue but will impact registrars,registrants and others. There must be a PDP around this important question. Lookup facility must get data from registrar or registry to that central registry. And he says it would be DIFFICULT! NOT!!!!! Lookup, read and write is hard, in other words.
Micheal:
Use WHOIS for spam protection as business. No ICANN Mandate for public WHOIS, he says.
nic.cr is struggling to provide WHOIS service; mandate from ICANN MUST say 'somebody's public name must be attached to a public domain'. [nic.cr is a ccTLD so might not be in the tent for ICANN oversight of WHOIS].
Barry Schien - "President of the World"
He's asking for RT to distinguish between 'accuracy' and 'precision' for the report.
Sabine Dolderer:
Don't like the 'tag' WHOIS Policy. It is a protocol. Let's talk about access to domain name holder information. Is the question just about easier access to data? Are these legitimate? Balance for the interests is necessary. [Maybe a SAC051 aficionado?]
No possibility to support IDNs but IRIS can so long as we talk about whois information instead of the policy.
Pressure from consumer protection agencies for more personal data protection; making access to WHOIS data less easy and not to give it to everybody
Benedict Addis: Serious Organized Crime Agency, UK & on LEA looking at WHOIS validation.
The report and recommendations is clear and common-sense. They're willing to accept privacy/proxy services are going to be used. Do LEA get a pass to 'trusted' services. What of the NOMINET model? He thinks time enough for formal concept for privacy/proxy services.
Peter Nettleford from GAC:
GAC recommendations is in recognition of a clear problem. Proxy/privacy services are organic and in response to some need. But the risks are seeminly established. So we accept it that they should be standardized.
Olaf Nordling:
"Online Chatroom: From GPM Group. Why is there no incentive for an open and accurate WHOIS?
Kathy Kleinman (member of the RT): The report offer both carrot and stick towards this objective.
Milton: WhOIS is about surveillance of Internet users, not about or for consumers. He says consumers don't use it, his mama would confirm. [..and as his mama goes, so goes the world.]
Emily T.: Consumer trust is not about a particular website but the Internet overall! Consumers use third parties to use it for them.
Difference between 'contactability' and 'accuracy' because of how WHOIS is instantiated. Maybe there is a better way for ICANN to solve the problem. [He's flogging new protocol and services!] But he's mute of whether the need/objective for WHOIS remains
Emily T.: She hopes that privacy and open whois can be accommodated.
Wendy Selzer:
WHOIS hammer; from AoC scoped right. Did you ask 'Is WHOIS the right tool'? [Minimum data view is required. We will not resile from unfettered access to that minimum view for ordinary users.IETF new technical protocols; maybe an ISOC Fellow commission?]
Holly Raiche (At-Large):
Data accuracy terminology must be refined.
Melissa Cooper, BC:
Agree on most recommendations, some could be expanded. Views on SAC051 and roadmap. They reviewed and used a lot from SAC051 re terminology, didn't look at the roadmap but there is some time to look.
Steve DelBianco (Netchoice):
Rec 17: WOuld it not be necessary for policy changes to make all ao f this data available to a centralized service? PDP for Thick WHOIS passed so policy extension required for data to flow to a centralized service in event it is accepted.
RFC Ignorant is blacklisting registries because they not following RFC 1032. They following EU Privacy Regulations.
Member of Panel: Agrees RFC 1032 is outdated. But the organizations that use it will go out of business eventually and that is regardless of the RFC situation. Remedy for RFC outside scope.
Rob Golding (from chat):
Are there recommendations criminalizing misuses of WHOIS data?
Emily: Current studies of use and misuse of WHOIS has picked this up and most likely there would be some resoultion. Kathy Klienman says registry/registrars had a lot to say on it.
Steve Metallitz:
From IPC constituency gives the team kudos on understating accomplishments. Disagree with Steve DelBianco. ICANN have it in its power to require thick WHOIS for .com registry as well as the other outliers can be done via RAA
Keith Drazek Verisign):
Registry Stakeholder group will deliver their Statement this week. He believes the RT has moved it forward. Re migrating to a thick WHOIS is not just a registry issue but will impact registrars,registrants and others. There must be a PDP around this important question. Lookup facility must get data from registrar or registry to that central WHOIS data repository. He says it would be DIFFICULT to do so! [NOT!!!!! Lookup, read and write is hard, in other words.]
What are the objectives of the session and what takeways might be on offer?
Emily T:
Board views on Draft Report in context of the AoC.
Ray P:
Qualified that members in this session might only provide personal views & cautioned the report reflects GNSO-related WHOIS matters and not, for example, those of RIRs.
Steve C:
Reminded the group that as Bard Chair he's actually chief spokesperson for the Board.
Bertrand de la C:
How does the RT recommendations articulate with ongoing RAA negotiations
Steve C:
Expresses where the WHOIS RT fits in to AoC; one of four Reviews mandated by AoC, ATRT completed and in implementation, WHOIS RT now and SSRT coming; "we take this stuff quite seriously"; next steps: Board will consider the recommendations, will ask staff to provide first look report on implementation, including requirements to do this as well as implications; the Board will make a decision on feasibility of implementing and set the pace. ATRT experience will inform this process, including decision to adopt ALL recommendations as it was with ATRT; there is a bias to accept recommendations; as cheif spokesperson he must always be in a position to report on implementation status with clarity; favours establishing milestones with tracking and reporting fully what is met, what is unmet and what is required to make them; he favours a keen eye on incorporating and embedding recommendations in standard processes. He commits to provide period reports to the community on status.
Bertrand de la C:
Created a little kerfuffle by asking how would the RT reconcile the report perspectives to Judith ?(Board) assertion elsewhere that "WHOIS is a museum piece". That precipitated a very lively - and refreshing! - discussion principally between Judith and Emily. The principal outcome from the discussion was that RT was following the actual language of the AoC from which it derives its legitimacy and so was constrained to examine what exists. This did not exclude them making suggestions as to what might happen as part of the discourse to address real concerns. Australia has floated an idea of a separate organization to handle WHOIS compliance and compliance. This feeds into Judith's qualifier for a new and separate centralized 'WHOIS' support infrastructure> She is interested in funding and time to operationalize. [What was left out of the equation is how to compel delivery of that legacy source data from current owners.
Emily T:
Requested a feedback loop from Staff with RT plug in to monitor implementation progress.
[This was my report to APRALO and was written in that context]
27thMarch, 2012
REPORT of APRALO REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE of ICANN 43 [11-16thMarch, 2012]
Introduction
Warm Greetings! I arrived in Fiji on the 25th March, 2012 and headed straight to work over the weekend and have had no chance to recover. Whilst I had attempted to brief you daily, I discovered that coupled with my responsibilities as an ALAC member and work with the various Working Groups, Task Forces and social networking did not allow me to do so in real time. I have been informed that our social networking features have already been incorporated so we may have reporting in real time through twitter etc.
The APRALO was well represented through Vice Chair Holly Raiche, the Secretariat ISOC Hong Kong Edmon Chung( ALAC member), Cheryl Langdon Orr ( ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO), Rinalia Ibrahim ( ALAC member) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (ALAC).
APRALO ALS also sent in their representatives and some were self funded like ISOC Armenia and others either held offices within ALAC where they were entitled to have their costs covered or received Fellowships. It was great to see participation enabled for Maureen Hilyard (PICISOC Chair), Bill Tomon (PNG), Stanley Osao (PNG) and someone from East Timor.
There were members of APRALO who also belong to other communities within ICANN and so there was great diversity with people from Australia, New Zealand, Nauru, Cook Islands, East Timor, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia etc. We have yet to do a Survey of attendance to see which ALS’ sent representatives but this is certainly something that we can monitor within the ICANN 44.
As you can imagine the intensity and robustness of preparations and discussions are in a class of their own. Overall, it is always great to see the At Large family face to face and to hear the developments happening within their regions. I was very impressed with the large turnout from countries and ALS’s within the LACRALO region. I would like to make mention of the new ALS members within APRALO who were present at the meetings namely the ISOC Chapter in Armenia who was represented by Grigori. We had a fantastic time and they are gearing up for their Cyber Security Conference in Armenia and we have made arrangements with At Large Staff to send them material so that they can promote APRALO etc.
Work Within the At Large Community
For the benefit of those who have just joined APRALO, I am inserting an At Large Organisation diagram[1|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn1] to help people see the level of interface that occurs.
General Observations About ICANN meetings
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) meetings are like Icebergs, they are merely visible manifestation of the diverse and varied complex work (research, analysis, consultations) that happen daily, weekly. ICANN meetings are only 1/10 of the enormous scope of work involved. The other 9/10, which is often “unseen” is the magnitude of work that goes on behind the scene that is part of the ongoing scope of works of various constituencies within ICANN. It means various working groups, task forces, supporting organizations, councils working behind the scenes to ensure the delivery of its mission and core values.
For the At Large community and its various working groups, task forces and ALAC meetings, this includes weekly teleconferences that last for two hours at a time (and for me in Fiji this means 3am – 5am or sometimes 6am) and that also requires much work prior such as reading papers, research, analysis and consultation and advocacy of positions.
ICANN’s Mission
ICANN’s mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. The At Large Community which comprises of 5 RALOs were created to facilitate the voice of the end users into the various working groups, task forces, supporting organizations, councils which help to shape and influence policy.
Role and Responsibilities of ALAC
The At Large Advisory Community also appoints representatives to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which advises the Board. The ALAC are simply the voice of their constituencies into affirming statements and also distilling the vision, mission and objectives of ICANN and also the numerous diverse Policies back to their constituencies. They exist together with the RALOs from each region, to coordinate how to create effective and meaningful participation within their constituencies.
The ALAC also appoints non-voting liaisons to the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which will be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board policies relating to generic top- level domains, the ICANN Board, and several other organs of ICANN. It also selects five delegates to ICANN's Nominating Committee, which selects eight of the 15 voting members of the ICANN Board and also selects individuals to serve in other key positions.
Other activities undertaken by the ALAC and its supporting organizations include:
Proposing criteria and an accreditation process for self-forming At- Large Structures;
Approving applications for “At-Large Structure” designation;
Assisting with outreach strategies on At-Large and relevant ICANN issues in each geographic region;
Publicizing and analyzing ICANN's proposed policies and decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region;
Providing advice to various policy-making organizations within ICANN on issues, proposals, and activities that are relevant to individual Internet users and fall within ICANN's purview; and
Offering Internet-based mechanisms and processes that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures and with those involved in ICANN decision-making so interested individuals can share their views on pending ICANN issues.
I believe that the way in which the ALAC’s responsibilities are currently framed that it would include the following:-
a) Working with the RALO to ensure that there is increased meaningful input from the ALS members and giving feedback which includes and is not limited to the following:-
arranging for appropriate translations;
encouraging the RALOs to engage in Inreach and Outreach components from the members of their RALOs;
working with the Secretariats to ensure that the RALO is fully aware of the various Policy consultations that are underway;
organizing with ICANN At Large Staff for liaisons or experts to give briefings on various issues etc;
Identifying “non-responsiveness” of ALS members;
Constantly evaluating how the role of facilitator of the voice of the end user can be improved.
b) Reviewing and Participating in substantive policies through any of the following means:-
Reviewing draft proposals;
Researching and analyzing the substantive content;
Assessing its impact on the ordinary end users;
Organising consultations within the At Large Structures and soliciting their views on issues etc.
c) Working with other communities within ICANN from time to time;
d) etc
General Feedback of ALAC Participation at the ICANN 43
For the ALAC, the week started on Sunday 10th March, 2012. This included the ALAC and Regional Leadership meeting[2|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn2]. It was good to see Fellows and ALS representatives attend the Session. Should you wish to access the podcasts and translations of all the meetings that took place within ICANN 43, they are available via http://costarica43.icann.org/costarica43/schedule/all/simple
At Large Meetings included ALAC, Regional Meetings, and Briefings from liaisons and working groups and other constituencies. There were also policy specific meetings and briefings that took place every day. The At Large community also has various working groups and task forces and they too had their meetings.
Overall, we had productive meetings and this was the result of much hard work behind the scenes. It was also great to be given one hour on Sunday to talk about Capacity Building Initiatives from an Outreach and Inreach Perspective where I emphasized the importance of ALAC members working with the RALO Secretariats to ensure that there is meaningful participation from our accredited ALS members.
It was also heartening to hear all across ICANN the need to expand and increase outreach in this area. I am excited about the ICANN Academy that will be launched in Toronto in terms of training of new officers (15). At the same time, I was happy to see volunteers rise to the mark such as Sivasubranium, Glenn, Lance who will be working together on the Moodle Project.
I would also like to underscore that it is critical and imperative that ALS develop structures within their bodies to enable people to work on critical policy areas and bring these up to the RALOs. At the same time, the RALO Secretariat will need to be increasingly involved in facilitating this transactions.
It was also great to see the ASO maintain their commitment on assisting us with outreach etc. I also raised within their ASO meeting that they should consider having ALAC or RALO representatives into their ASO (NRO) and RIR meetings where policy is discussed in relation to IP addressing. This was met with much enthusiasm and encouragement. At the ASO meeting, I raised that it was critical that discussions of extraterritorial jurisdictional treatment in relation to IP addressing is discussed especially in light of the US v John Doe. The Post Indictment Protective Order pursuant to 21 U.S.C issued by the Honorable William H Pauly III United States District Judge Southern District of New York see para 13, page 7 and 8 http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/ProtectiveOrder.pdf
I also enjoyed the ALAC meeting with the GAC where invitations to raise issues of mutual concern with a united front was welcoming in light of the impact on ordinary end users. I also found the meeting with the Commercial Stakeholders also excellent and there are ongoing discussions about establishing a joint working group to identify common ground etc and both communities recognized the importance of being aware of the global dynamics and its relative impact on ICANN policy processes.
It was interesting to see the dynamics of the meeting between the Non Commercial Stakeholders group and At Large compared to Dakar. We had a fruitful meeting.
If you would like to get involved but don’t know how, please let the APRALO Secretariat know.
Policy Updates and Consultations
Whilst there are numerous concurrent Policy work that are largely ongoing, I have chosen to highlight ALAC’s top ten issues in Costa Rica.
The ALAC issued a Statement[3|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn3] on the Reservation of Olympic and Red Cross Names in the gTLD Application Procedure. Prior to Costa Rica, the ALAC had been discussing the issues raised which culminated in the drafting of a Statement and it was put to the ALAC to vote on the 14th March, 2012. The ALAC gNSO liaison Alan Greenberg (NARALO) was the liaison that took forward ALAC views on the matter.
The Security, Stabillity & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR --RT) in Costa Rica released a Draft Report on the 15th March, 2012 and the call for comments closes on the 8th April, 2012. I have written to the ALAC to ask them to seek an extension to enable consultations and feedback from our respective RALOs. Julie Hammond from APRALO as our newly appointed liaison officer into the SSAC.
Review of the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO)[4|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn4]. The comments period will close on the 30th April, 2012. At the Costa Rica ASO meeting on the matter, I had suggested the inclusion of ALAC/RALO liaisons into their policy processes which takes place in the different RIRs. In a presentation by the co-Chairs of the ASO to the ALAC and At Large community, the ASO expressed their desire to work towards capacity development and outreach with the ALAC.
The Global Policy Proposal[5|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn5] Recovered IPv4 Address Space closes on the 4th April, 2012. The Proposal is in relation to IANA establishing a Recovered IPv4 Pool to be utilized following the exhaustion of RIR IPv4 exhaustion. The top level of the IPv4 address space was fully allocated on 3rd February 2011. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have developed a policy proposal to enable redistribution of IPv4 address space returned to that pool[6|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn6]. The proposal has been adopted by all RIRs, verified by the NRO EC and ASO AC, and submitted to the ICANN Board in line with the provisions of the ASO MoU and applicable procedures[7|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn7]. The Asia Pacific region as advised by APNIC, was the first to exhaust its IPv4 addresses allocation. To see the statistics on allocation, visit: http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/stats/ipv4-geographic. Address allocations are critical internet resources and as the internet continues to expand globally through infrastructure, development of content, increased diversity of peer to peer applications, etc. In the APRALO region, the relevant RIR s are APNIC, RIPENCC and AFRINIC. For example, Armenia’s address allocations are administered by RIPE NCC. To see statistics from RIPE NCC on this, visit: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph. To see statistics from AFRINIC on this, see: http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv4_exhaustion/
Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition and call for comments will open on the 4th April, 2012 and will close on the 24th April, 2012. One of the things that may be worthwhile noting is the omission of the definition of an internet users. Is a consumer in this instance the buyer of a domain name and does it also include ordinary internet end users who may not necessarily own a domain name etc.
There is an ICANN Board of Conflicts of Interest Review[8|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn8] – Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy and Related Governance Documents. Comments close on 2nd April, 2012 and I would encourage all of APRALO to review the same and give feedback. Reply period opens on the 3rd and closes on the 24th April, 2012. For us, the key date is 2nd April, 2012. I have given my comments on structure of feedback. NARALO’s Beau initiated the Draft which was revised by Carlton and put to the community for input and feedback. Recent events such as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) short release which hinted ICANN’s failure to secure the contract has numerous implications on encouraging reforms and restructures to inspire confidence in IANA. There is a lot of activity in the workspace and on the skype chats around these issues.
The Interim Report on Support Significantly Interested Parties for ccTLD Delegation or Re delegation Requests Workspace[9|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn9] is also significant. Comments will close on 30th March, 2012 although the reply period opens after. I strongly urge members of APRALO to read the Report and give feedback as there are a few countries where redelegation is being discussed in the APRALO region.
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process and Recommendation Concerning the Standardizing and Clarification of WHOIS Status Message[10|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn10] is also closing on the 25th March, 2012.
The Initial Report on Universal IDN TLDs was voted and adopted.
10. The Whois Review Team Draft Report closed on 18th March, 2012. APRALO’s Vice Chair Holly Raiche organized the Whois briefing before the San Jose meeting.
11. The Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 has also been closed although the Reply period is open. I suggested to Olivier that it will be good to get Julie Hammer to help gather feedback so we can contribute to the process.
12. IDN Variant Issues Proposed Project[11|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn11] – Plan for Next Steps. Comments close on 18th March, 2012 and reply opened on 19th March, 2012 and closes on 8th April, 2012. The At Large IDN Working Group had two meetings and we started working on the structure of our response and also important outcome in my view was the need to look through our RALOs and identify skill set combinations that could compliment work on the ground.
13. Defensive Application of gTLDs[12|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn12]. There was a workshop on this but I did not attend the same as I was at something else that was on at the same time. However the opportunity to be involved is available. I am mindful though that the comment period has closed.
14. Further Bylaw Changes Following Adoption of Revised Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP)[13|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn13]. This closed on the 23rd March, 2012. Alan Greenberg who is our gNSO liaison is always happy to give briefings. He also raises concern that people should be careful to comment within the allotted time.
15. Framework for the FY 13 Budget Workspace[14|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn14]. We had an interesting meeting with the CFO of ICANN. I asked for the last 5 years worth of Budget allocations to all of ICANN’s outreach activities so that we can do better analysis and evaluate how we are faring.
ALAC Policy Updates: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Policy+Development+Page [This covers cross regional community wide policy consultations] and this means that all ALS members would have received alerts and given the opportunity to discuss amongst members within your respective membership base and feedback your positions on the matter to the RALO meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO APRALO
I would recommend and urge RALO leadership to put systems in place to ensure that there is significant meaningful participation and make the following recommendations:-
Secretariat to make and issue regular reports to Regional Meetings on key areas
Design and set up parallel working groups within the RALO to ensure that there is meaningful participation to discuss issues across ALS and organize policy immersion exercises;
Harnessing and identification of human resources and facilitating the relevant chairing.
As such I will be designing a survey for the APRALO membership to gather feedback on the level of human resources available on the ground so that we can figure out how to assist in making the policy immersion and consultations easier. There is also a need for sustainability of systems and processes.
Wish you well and look forward to seeing increased engagement from within the ALS’s in the APRALO region. I am also available for discussion with any of the ALS on how we can strengthen participation. Kindly contact me on salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com and place “APRALO – ALS” within the subject line.
Warmest Regards,
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
[1|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref1] ICANN At Large Website
[2|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref2] http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29497 to watch the podcasts. The Audiocast is available in English, Spanish and French.
6 Comments
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
Attention to all APRALO members:
The ALAC and Regional Leadership Working Session 1 was a very productive and fulfilling day. There were various reports presented by the various Working Groups and updates from a few constituencies within ICANN. APRALO delegates that were present physically included Cheryl Langdon Orr (gNSO Liaison and APRALO member), Holly Raiche (APRALO Vice Chair), Edmon Chung (APRALO Rep to ALAC and APRALO Secretariat), Rinalia Ibrahim(APRALO Rep to ALAC through NomCom Appointment), Sivasubramanium (APRALO member and ISOC Chennai President), Grigori Saghyan (ALS from Armenia and APRALO member), Maureen Hilyard (APRALO member and PICISOC Chair) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro(APRALO rep to ALAC).
APRALO was invited to stream into the sessions and were notified of the link through an email alert that I sent in the morning. We would also like to strongly encourage people to remotely stream in and participate. It is also great to see the various At Large Structures that were present today. There were many At Large Structures present from the LACRALO region and a few from the APRALO region. It was also great to see and meet the Fellows from within our region.
Tomorrow, we are gearing up for another dynamic and fun filled day and welcome you to join us through remote streaming. You can access the meetings and view the Schedule.
I advise that the transcripts for today's session have yet to be uploaded. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to raise them with any of your representatives or by responding to this email.
See you online tomorrow!
Darlene Thompson
ICANN and the Internet Governance Landscape
This session was supposed to be an opportunity for the ICANN community to hear about recent developments and upcoming events related to Internet Governance, and how such developments may be relevant to ICANN.
In late 2012, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will host two world conferences, the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), and the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). Both conferences are addressing issues relevant to the global Internet Governance discourse, and their outcomes may have an impact on various parts of the Internet space.
Agenda Details:
Discussion in this session focused on:
• a factual overview of the issues and forums where Internet governance will be considered in the upcoming year
• preparations for the 2012 IGF, including the CSTD report on improvements to the IGF
• exploring stakeholders’ views on these developments
I was a little surprised that there really wasn't much new in this session that I haven't heard many other times at IGF meetings.
Carlton Samuels
WHOIS RT INTERACTION WITH COMMUNITY
The Chair (Emily ?) gave a very comprehensive overview of the report and its recommendations. I was moreso interested in the comments from the community. Some of them I captured hereunder:
Micheal:
Use WHOIS for spam protection as business. No ICANN Mandate for public WHOIS, he says.
nic.cr is struggling to provide WHOIS service; mandate from ICANN MUST say 'somebody's public name must be attached to a public domain'. [nic.cr is a ccTLD so might not be in the tent for ICANN oversight of WHOIS].
Barry Schien - "President of the World"
He's asking for RT to distinguish between 'accuracy' and 'precision' for the report.
Sabine Dolderer:
Don't like the 'tag' WHOIS Policy. It is a protocol. Let's talk about access to domain name holder information. IS the question just about easier access to data? Are these legitimate. Balance for the interests is necessary. [Maybe a SAC051 aficionado?]
No possibility to support IDNs but IRIS can so long as we talk about whois information instead of the policy.
Pressure from consumer protection agencies for more personal data protection; making access to WHOIS data less easy and not to give it to everybody
Benedict Addis: Serious Organized Crime Agency, UK & on LEA looking at WHOIS validation.
The report and recommendations is clear and common-sense. They're willing to accept privacy/proxy services are going to be used. Do LEA get a pass to 'trusted' services. What of the NOMINET model? He thinks time enough for formal concept for privacy/proxy services.
Peter Nettleford from GAC:
GAC recommendations is in recognition of a clear problem. Proxy/privacy services are organic and in response to some need. But the risks are seeminly established. So we accept it that they should be standardized.
Olaf Nordling:
"Online Chatroom: From GPM Group. Why is there no incentive for an open and accurate WHOIS?
Kathy Kleinman (member of the RT): The report offer both carrot and stick towards this objective.
Milton: WhOIS is about surveillance of Internet users, not about or for consumers. He says consumers don't use it, so says his mama..and so goes the world.
Emily T.: Consumer trust is not about a particular website but the Internet overall! Consumers use third parties to use it for them.
Difference between 'contactability' and 'accuracy' because of how WHOIS is instantiated. Maybe there is a better way for ICANN to solve the problem. [He's flogging new protocol and services!] But he's mute of whether the need/objective for WHOIS remains
Emily T.: She hopes that privacy and open whois can be accommodated.
Wendy Selzer:
WHOIS hammer; from AoC scoped right. Did you ask 'Is WHOIS the right tool'? [Minimum data view is required. We will not resile from unfettered access to that minimum view for ordinary users.IETF new technical protocols; maybe an ISOC Fellow commission?]
Holly Raiche (At-Large):
Data accuracy terminology must be refined.
Melissa Cooper, BC:
Agree on most recommendations, some could be expanded. Views on SAC051 and roadmap. They reviewed and used a lot from SAC051 re terminology, didn't look at the Roadmap but there is some time to look.
Steve DelBianco (Netchoice):
Rec 17: WOuld it not be necessary for policy changes to make all ao f this data available to a centralized service? PDP for Thick WHOIS passed so policy extension required for data to flow to a centralized service in event it is accepted.
RFC Ignorant is blacklisting registries because they not following RFC 1032. They following EU Privacy Regulations.
Member of Panel: Agrees RFC 1032 is outdated. But the organizations that use it will go out of business eventually and that is regardless of the RFC situation. Remedy for RFC outside scope.
Rob Golding (from chat):
Are there recommendations criminalizing misues of WHOIS data?
Emiily: Current studies of use and misuse of WHOIS has picked this up and most likely there would be some resoultion. Kathy Klienman says registry/registrars had a lot to say on it.
Steve Metallitz:
From IPC constituency gives the team kudos on understating accomplishments. Disagree with Steve DelBianco. ICANN have it in its power to require thick WHOIS for .com registry as well as the other outliers can be done via RAA
Keith Drazek Verisign):
Registry Stakeholder group will deliver their Statement this week. He believes the RT has moved it forward. Re migrating to a thick WHOIS is not just a registry issue but will impact registrars,registrants and others. There must be a PDP around this important question. Lookup facility must get data from registrar or registry to that central registry. And he says it would be DIFFICULT! NOT!!!!! Lookup, read and write is hard, in other words.
Micheal:
Use WHOIS for spam protection as business. No ICANN Mandate for public WHOIS, he says.
nic.cr is struggling to provide WHOIS service; mandate from ICANN MUST say 'somebody's public name must be attached to a public domain'. [nic.cr is a ccTLD so might not be in the tent for ICANN oversight of WHOIS].
Barry Schien - "President of the World"
He's asking for RT to distinguish between 'accuracy' and 'precision' for the report.
Sabine Dolderer:
Don't like the 'tag' WHOIS Policy. It is a protocol. Let's talk about access to domain name holder information. Is the question just about easier access to data? Are these legitimate? Balance for the interests is necessary. [Maybe a SAC051 aficionado?]
No possibility to support IDNs but IRIS can so long as we talk about whois information instead of the policy.
Pressure from consumer protection agencies for more personal data protection; making access to WHOIS data less easy and not to give it to everybody
Benedict Addis: Serious Organized Crime Agency, UK & on LEA looking at WHOIS validation.
The report and recommendations is clear and common-sense. They're willing to accept privacy/proxy services are going to be used. Do LEA get a pass to 'trusted' services. What of the NOMINET model? He thinks time enough for formal concept for privacy/proxy services.
Peter Nettleford from GAC:
GAC recommendations is in recognition of a clear problem. Proxy/privacy services are organic and in response to some need. But the risks are seeminly established. So we accept it that they should be standardized.
Olaf Nordling:
"Online Chatroom: From GPM Group. Why is there no incentive for an open and accurate WHOIS?
Kathy Kleinman (member of the RT): The report offer both carrot and stick towards this objective.
Milton: WhOIS is about surveillance of Internet users, not about or for consumers. He says consumers don't use it, his mama would confirm. [..and as his mama goes, so goes the world.]
Emily T.: Consumer trust is not about a particular website but the Internet overall! Consumers use third parties to use it for them.
Difference between 'contactability' and 'accuracy' because of how WHOIS is instantiated. Maybe there is a better way for ICANN to solve the problem. [He's flogging new protocol and services!] But he's mute of whether the need/objective for WHOIS remains
Emily T.: She hopes that privacy and open whois can be accommodated.
Wendy Selzer:
WHOIS hammer; from AoC scoped right. Did you ask 'Is WHOIS the right tool'? [Minimum data view is required. We will not resile from unfettered access to that minimum view for ordinary users.IETF new technical protocols; maybe an ISOC Fellow commission?]
Holly Raiche (At-Large):
Data accuracy terminology must be refined.
Melissa Cooper, BC:
Agree on most recommendations, some could be expanded. Views on SAC051 and roadmap. They reviewed and used a lot from SAC051 re terminology, didn't look at the roadmap but there is some time to look.
Steve DelBianco (Netchoice):
Rec 17: WOuld it not be necessary for policy changes to make all ao f this data available to a centralized service? PDP for Thick WHOIS passed so policy extension required for data to flow to a centralized service in event it is accepted.
RFC Ignorant is blacklisting registries because they not following RFC 1032. They following EU Privacy Regulations.
Member of Panel: Agrees RFC 1032 is outdated. But the organizations that use it will go out of business eventually and that is regardless of the RFC situation. Remedy for RFC outside scope.
Rob Golding (from chat):
Are there recommendations criminalizing misuses of WHOIS data?
Emily: Current studies of use and misuse of WHOIS has picked this up and most likely there would be some resoultion. Kathy Klienman says registry/registrars had a lot to say on it.
Steve Metallitz:
From IPC constituency gives the team kudos on understating accomplishments. Disagree with Steve DelBianco. ICANN have it in its power to require thick WHOIS for .com registry as well as the other outliers can be done via RAA
Keith Drazek Verisign):
Registry Stakeholder group will deliver their Statement this week. He believes the RT has moved it forward. Re migrating to a thick WHOIS is not just a registry issue but will impact registrars,registrants and others. There must be a PDP around this important question. Lookup facility must get data from registrar or registry to that central WHOIS data repository. He says it would be DIFFICULT to do so! [NOT!!!!! Lookup, read and write is hard, in other words.]
Carlton Samuels
WHOIS RT MEETING W/ THE BOARD
Ray Plazak:
What are the objectives of the session and what takeways might be on offer?
Emily T:
Board views on Draft Report in context of the AoC.
Ray P:
Qualified that members in this session might only provide personal views & cautioned the report reflects GNSO-related WHOIS matters and not, for example, those of RIRs.
Steve C:
Reminded the group that as Bard Chair he's actually chief spokesperson for the Board.
Bertrand de la C:
How does the RT recommendations articulate with ongoing RAA negotiations
Steve C:
Expresses where the WHOIS RT fits in to AoC; one of four Reviews mandated by AoC, ATRT completed and in implementation, WHOIS RT now and SSRT coming; "we take this stuff quite seriously"; next steps: Board will consider the recommendations, will ask staff to provide first look report on implementation, including requirements to do this as well as implications; the Board will make a decision on feasibility of implementing and set the pace. ATRT experience will inform this process, including decision to adopt ALL recommendations as it was with ATRT; there is a bias to accept recommendations; as cheif spokesperson he must always be in a position to report on implementation status with clarity; favours establishing milestones with tracking and reporting fully what is met, what is unmet and what is required to make them; he favours a keen eye on incorporating and embedding recommendations in standard processes. He commits to provide period reports to the community on status.
Bertrand de la C:
Created a little kerfuffle by asking how would the RT reconcile the report perspectives to Judith ?(Board) assertion elsewhere that "WHOIS is a museum piece". That precipitated a very lively - and refreshing! - discussion principally between Judith and Emily. The principal outcome from the discussion was that RT was following the actual language of the AoC from which it derives its legitimacy and so was constrained to examine what exists. This did not exclude them making suggestions as to what might happen as part of the discourse to address real concerns. Australia has floated an idea of a separate organization to handle WHOIS compliance and compliance. This feeds into Judith's qualifier for a new and separate centralized 'WHOIS' support infrastructure> She is interested in funding and time to operationalize. [What was left out of the equation is how to compel delivery of that legacy source data from current owners.
Emily T:
Requested a feedback loop from Staff with RT plug in to monitor implementation progress.
Yaovi Atohoun
IPv6Deployment: Business Cases & Development Opportunities (Presentations are available at http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29715)
The session took place in La Paz C from 09 and ended about 09:45 on March 15, 2012 and was moderated by Raoul Echeberria
Presentations was given by Jacques Latour, Carlos Watson, Arturo Servin, Patricio Poblete and Martin Levin.
In Canada, IPv6 deployed by the ccTLD. Important to do assessment and training. Financial implication is also mentioned.
Various actions are going on in the LAC region. Also important to remember 2012 World IPv6 day http://www.worldipv6day.org/
Personal conclusion/contribution:
- Information and also skill test on Huricanne website: http://ipv6.he.net/certification/
- I think that ALSes can also take actions like approaching their ISPs, government official to know what is happening in our various countries.
Thanks
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
[This was my report to APRALO and was written in that context]
27th March, 2012
REPORT of APRALO REPRESENTATIVE TO THE AT LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE of ICANN 43 [11-16th March, 2012]
Introduction
Warm Greetings! I arrived in Fiji on the 25th March, 2012 and headed straight to work over the weekend and have had no chance to recover. Whilst I had attempted to brief you daily, I discovered that coupled with my responsibilities as an ALAC member and work with the various Working Groups, Task Forces and social networking did not allow me to do so in real time. I have been informed that our social networking features have already been incorporated so we may have reporting in real time through twitter etc.
The APRALO was well represented through Vice Chair Holly Raiche, the Secretariat ISOC Hong Kong Edmon Chung( ALAC member), Cheryl Langdon Orr ( ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO), Rinalia Ibrahim ( ALAC member) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (ALAC).
APRALO ALS also sent in their representatives and some were self funded like ISOC Armenia and others either held offices within ALAC where they were entitled to have their costs covered or received Fellowships. It was great to see participation enabled for Maureen Hilyard (PICISOC Chair), Bill Tomon (PNG), Stanley Osao (PNG) and someone from East Timor.
There were members of APRALO who also belong to other communities within ICANN and so there was great diversity with people from Australia, New Zealand, Nauru, Cook Islands, East Timor, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia etc. We have yet to do a Survey of attendance to see which ALS’ sent representatives but this is certainly something that we can monitor within the ICANN 44.
As you can imagine the intensity and robustness of preparations and discussions are in a class of their own. Overall, it is always great to see the At Large family face to face and to hear the developments happening within their regions. I was very impressed with the large turnout from countries and ALS’s within the LACRALO region. I would like to make mention of the new ALS members within APRALO who were present at the meetings namely the ISOC Chapter in Armenia who was represented by Grigori. We had a fantastic time and they are gearing up for their Cyber Security Conference in Armenia and we have made arrangements with At Large Staff to send them material so that they can promote APRALO etc.
Work Within the At Large Community
For the benefit of those who have just joined APRALO, I am inserting an At Large Organisation diagram[1|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn1] to help people see the level of interface that occurs.
General Observations About ICANN meetings
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) meetings are like Icebergs, they are merely visible manifestation of the diverse and varied complex work (research, analysis, consultations) that happen daily, weekly. ICANN meetings are only 1/10 of the enormous scope of work involved. The other 9/10, which is often “unseen” is the magnitude of work that goes on behind the scene that is part of the ongoing scope of works of various constituencies within ICANN. It means various working groups, task forces, supporting organizations, councils working behind the scenes to ensure the delivery of its mission and core values.
For the At Large community and its various working groups, task forces and ALAC meetings, this includes weekly teleconferences that last for two hours at a time (and for me in Fiji this means 3am – 5am or sometimes 6am) and that also requires much work prior such as reading papers, research, analysis and consultation and advocacy of positions.
ICANN’s Mission
ICANN’s mission is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. The At Large Community which comprises of 5 RALOs were created to facilitate the voice of the end users into the various working groups, task forces, supporting organizations, councils which help to shape and influence policy.
Role and Responsibilities of ALAC
The At Large Advisory Community also appoints representatives to the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) which advises the Board. The ALAC are simply the voice of their constituencies into affirming statements and also distilling the vision, mission and objectives of ICANN and also the numerous diverse Policies back to their constituencies. They exist together with the RALOs from each region, to coordinate how to create effective and meaningful participation within their constituencies.
The ALAC also appoints non-voting liaisons to the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which will be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board policies relating to generic top- level domains, the ICANN Board, and several other organs of ICANN. It also selects five delegates to ICANN's Nominating Committee, which selects eight of the 15 voting members of the ICANN Board and also selects individuals to serve in other key positions.
Other activities undertaken by the ALAC and its supporting organizations include:
I believe that the way in which the ALAC’s responsibilities are currently framed that it would include the following:-
a) Working with the RALO to ensure that there is increased meaningful input from the ALS members and giving feedback which includes and is not limited to the following:-
b) Reviewing and Participating in substantive policies through any of the following means:-
c) Working with other communities within ICANN from time to time;
d) etc
General Feedback of ALAC Participation at the ICANN 43
For the ALAC, the week started on Sunday 10th March, 2012. This included the ALAC and Regional Leadership meeting[2|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn2]. It was good to see Fellows and ALS representatives attend the Session. Should you wish to access the podcasts and translations of all the meetings that took place within ICANN 43, they are available via http://costarica43.icann.org/costarica43/schedule/all/simple
At Large Meetings included ALAC, Regional Meetings, and Briefings from liaisons and working groups and other constituencies. There were also policy specific meetings and briefings that took place every day. The At Large community also has various working groups and task forces and they too had their meetings.
Overall, we had productive meetings and this was the result of much hard work behind the scenes. It was also great to be given one hour on Sunday to talk about Capacity Building Initiatives from an Outreach and Inreach Perspective where I emphasized the importance of ALAC members working with the RALO Secretariats to ensure that there is meaningful participation from our accredited ALS members.
It was also heartening to hear all across ICANN the need to expand and increase outreach in this area. I am excited about the ICANN Academy that will be launched in Toronto in terms of training of new officers (15). At the same time, I was happy to see volunteers rise to the mark such as Sivasubranium, Glenn, Lance who will be working together on the Moodle Project.
I would also like to underscore that it is critical and imperative that ALS develop structures within their bodies to enable people to work on critical policy areas and bring these up to the RALOs. At the same time, the RALO Secretariat will need to be increasingly involved in facilitating this transactions.
It was also great to see the ASO maintain their commitment on assisting us with outreach etc. I also raised within their ASO meeting that they should consider having ALAC or RALO representatives into their ASO (NRO) and RIR meetings where policy is discussed in relation to IP addressing. This was met with much enthusiasm and encouragement. At the ASO meeting, I raised that it was critical that discussions of extraterritorial jurisdictional treatment in relation to IP addressing is discussed especially in light of the US v John Doe. The Post Indictment Protective Order pursuant to 21 U.S.C issued by the Honorable William H Pauly III United States District Judge Southern District of New York see para 13, page 7 and 8 http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/ProtectiveOrder.pdf
I also enjoyed the ALAC meeting with the GAC where invitations to raise issues of mutual concern with a united front was welcoming in light of the impact on ordinary end users. I also found the meeting with the Commercial Stakeholders also excellent and there are ongoing discussions about establishing a joint working group to identify common ground etc and both communities recognized the importance of being aware of the global dynamics and its relative impact on ICANN policy processes.
It was interesting to see the dynamics of the meeting between the Non Commercial Stakeholders group and At Large compared to Dakar. We had a fruitful meeting.
If you would like to get involved but don’t know how, please let the APRALO Secretariat know.
Policy Updates and Consultations
Whilst there are numerous concurrent Policy work that are largely ongoing, I have chosen to highlight ALAC’s top ten issues in Costa Rica.
10. The Whois Review Team Draft Report closed on 18th March, 2012. APRALO’s Vice Chair Holly Raiche organized the Whois briefing before the San Jose meeting.
11. The Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 has also been closed although the Reply period is open. I suggested to Olivier that it will be good to get Julie Hammer to help gather feedback so we can contribute to the process.
12. IDN Variant Issues Proposed Project[11|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn11] – Plan for Next Steps. Comments close on 18th March, 2012 and reply opened on 19th March, 2012 and closes on 8th April, 2012. The At Large IDN Working Group had two meetings and we started working on the structure of our response and also important outcome in my view was the need to look through our RALOs and identify skill set combinations that could compliment work on the ground.
13. Defensive Application of gTLDs[12|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn12]. There was a workshop on this but I did not attend the same as I was at something else that was on at the same time. However the opportunity to be involved is available. I am mindful though that the comment period has closed.
14. Further Bylaw Changes Following Adoption of Revised Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP)[13|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn13]. This closed on the 23rd March, 2012. Alan Greenberg who is our gNSO liaison is always happy to give briefings. He also raises concern that people should be careful to comment within the allotted time.
15. Framework for the FY 13 Budget Workspace[14|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn14]. We had an interesting meeting with the CFO of ICANN. I asked for the last 5 years worth of Budget allocations to all of ICANN’s outreach activities so that we can do better analysis and evaluate how we are faring.
16. .CAT Whois Proposed Changes[15|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftn15].
IMPORTANT
ALAC Policy Updates: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Policy+Development+Page [This covers cross regional community wide policy consultations] and this means that all ALS members would have received alerts and given the opportunity to discuss amongst members within your respective membership base and feedback your positions on the matter to the RALO meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO APRALO
I would recommend and urge RALO leadership to put systems in place to ensure that there is significant meaningful participation and make the following recommendations:-
As such I will be designing a survey for the APRALO membership to gather feedback on the level of human resources available on the ground so that we can figure out how to assist in making the policy immersion and consultations easier. There is also a need for sustainability of systems and processes.
Wish you well and look forward to seeing increased engagement from within the ALS’s in the APRALO region. I am also available for discussion with any of the ALS on how we can strengthen participation. Kindly contact me on salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com and place “APRALO – ALS” within the subject line.
Warmest Regards,
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
[1|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref1] ICANN At Large Website
[2|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref2] http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29497 to watch the podcasts. The Audiocast is available in English, Spanish and French.
[3|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref3] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+STATEMENT+ON+THE+RESERVATION+OF+OLYMPIC+AND+RED+CROSS+NAMES+IN+THE+GTLD+APPLICATION+PROCEDURE
[4|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref4] http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/aso-review-16mar12-en.htm
[5|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref5] http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gpp-recovered-ipv4-14mar12-en.htm
[6|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref6] ibid
[7|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref7] ibid
[8|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref8] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+ICANN+Board+Conflicts+of+Interest+Review+-+Revised+Conflicts+of+Interest+Policy+and+Related+Governance+Documents+Workspace
[9|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref9] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Interim+Report+on+Support+Significantly+Interested+Parties+for+ccTLD+Delegation+or+Redelegation+Requests+Workspace
[10|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref10] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31170416
[11|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref11] https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31170446
[12|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref12]https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Defensive+Applications+for+New+gTLDs+Workspace
[13|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref13] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Further+Bylaw+Changes+Following+Adoption+of+Revised+Generic+Names+Supporting+Organization+%28GNSO%29+Policy+Development+Process+%28PDP%29+Workspace
[14|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref14] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Framework+for+the+FY+13+Budget+Workspace
[15|file:///C:/Users/Sala/Documents/ICANN%2043%20Report.%20Salanieta%20Tamanikaiwaimaro.doc#_ftnref15] https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+.CAT+WHOIS+Proposed+Changes+Workspace Comments closed on 10th February, 2012.