This page is for you to publish your meeting reports for Monday. Please log in with your email address and password ad use the "edit" button to add your report.

Reports from other days:

Saturday, 06 March 2010
Sunday, 07 March 2010
Tuesday, 09 March 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Friday, 12 March 2010

Fellowship Morning Breakfast Workshop

Time: 0730 - 0900
Location: Impala
Author: Sebastien Bachollet

Please add your report here

Welcome Ceremony & President's Report

Time: 0900 - 1030
Location: Tsavo A
Author: Dave Kissoondoyal

The Vice President of the Republic of Kenya officially openned the 37th ICANN Meeting.
Rod Beckstrom made the audience to say "One world, one internet, everyone connected" in Swahili. He urged those African Governments who are not already members of the GAC to form part of same to have their voices heard. He mentioned that the rate of $13/monthly for broadband Access per household in Kenya can still be lowered. He took position against monopolies in telecoms. He mentioned that the goal is to foster a healthy Internet Ecosystem. He dispels rumours about a shortage IPv6 addresses in Africa. He says contact him if you can't get IPv6 in Africa

ccNSO Tech Day

Time: 1000 - 1800
Location: Shimba
Author: Rudi Vansnick, Ron Sherwood

Please add your report here

New gTLD Update and EOI Panel Discussion

Time: 1100 - 1300
Location: Tsavo A
Author: Sebastien Bachollet, Adam Peake, Les Allison, Wolf Ludwig, Dev Teelucksingh, Carlton Samuels, Beau Brendler

Author:Dave Kissoondoyal

Author: Olivier Crépin-Leblond

I'll let someone else provide a report of the session's contents and provide my (biased) feedback as a panel participant.
The panel mysteriously arranged itself in a polarized fashion, with opposite views held by opposite ends of the linear table. Panellists found the room to be distributing itself in a similar fashion. With the debate being (in my opinion) slightly sterile, a post session discussion among the panellists and the moderator reached the conclusion that a possible future panel discussion might be more productive by adopting a crescent-shaped panel with panellists being able to see each other and therefore being able to interact with each other, and a moderator having a direct line of sight of every panellists with no difficulty. The linear panel appeared to stop the flow of the debate and made an possible interesting discussion sound tedious at the end.

Joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Meeting

Time: 1230 - 1400
Location: Lenana
Author: Rudi Vansnick, Ron Sherwood

Amazing statement from Rod Bekstrom at the ccNSO session with Peter and Rod : Rod states that the majority of financial support (funding) to ICANN comes from North America and GTLDs ... he forgets that tose buying the domain names are not all located in North America and as such this statement is not correct. Chris Disspain corrected immediately the wording and was confirmed by Rod.

Affirmation of Commitment's Reviews

Time: 1400 - 1500
Location: Tsavo A
Author: Sebastien Bachollet, Dev Teelucksingh, Dave Kissoondoyal, Carlton Samuels, Adam Peake

Please add your report here

Consultation on Security Strategic Initiatives Paper

Time: 1400 - 1500
Location: Aberdere
Author: Vivek Anand

Please add your report here

Trademark Protection in New gTLD's

Time: 1600 - 1730
Location: Tsavo A
Author: Sebastien Bachollet, Dev Teelucksingh, Dave Kissoondoyal, Les Allison, Carlton Samuels, Evan Leibovitch, Andres Piazza, Beau Brendler

Author: Olivier Crépin-Leblond

Review of new gTLD IP protection processes. Discussion of IP Clearinghouse, and then uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure, as well as some time spent on Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure.
Of note, most comments submitted by the audience had been discussed within the STI working group, but with so few members of the STI working group on the panel, some questions went unanswered, with Mike Silber needing to fill-in with some somehow generic answers.

ICANN has been accused of delving into Trademark Resolution – this is clearly not so – it is an attempt at avoiding not doing anything and thus an attempt at facilitating the protection of rights holders through facilitated and streamlined external processes.

Zahid Jamil, representing the Business Constituency (BC) pushed for BC’s minority statement as contained in the STI working group report. As expected, his opinion was not entirely shared by other panellists, since this is a minority opinion.

The tension which had been apparent in previous meetings dealing with the subject, specifically the IRT meetings in Sydney and in Seoul was absent from the session and the congregation appeared closer to consensus as a whole than ever before thanks to the wonderful work of consensus building by all parties.

In conclusion, it appeared as though the new gTLD process was slowly but surely moving forward. |

NARALO Monthly Meeting

Time: 2300 - 2345
Location: Offsite
Author: Darlene Thompson

The NARALO monthly meeting went very well. We found out that Rod Beckstrom joined ISOC San Francisco and so is now part of at large! This can be nothing but good.
One thing that was identified as a need for our region was the need to do “in-reach”. We have ALSs that used to be quite active that we hardly hear from any more. Outreach is fine but retention of existing ALSs is very important. Having said that, Gareth and Darlene will be attending the ICT Summit in Vancouver next weekend and have secured a spot on the agenda to do a Q & A on ICANN and At-Large.

The NARALO is still working on their At-Large Brochure. The English version will be ready in 4-6 weeks with Spanish and French ready by Brussels.

Possible meeting locations for the next ICANN meeting in North America were discussed. Since it is scheduled for March, only warm locations would be appropriate so Honolulu was recommended and Seth Reiss will contact the Hawaiian tourist bureau again in this regard. |



hi,
I try to add my report but the system doesn't allow me.

Moataz Shaarawy
Ofok NGO

contributed by moataz@ofoksystems.com on 2010-03-08 20:49:38 GMT


If you do not have an "edit" capability on your account, you can submit your report as a comment, and At Large Staff will cut/paste to the right locations.

contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-03-10 14:10:19 GMT


New gTLD process – At Large report
Author: Olivier Crépin-Leblond

Review of new gTLD IP protection processes. Discussion of IP Clearinghouse, and then uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure, as well as some time spent on Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure.

Of note, most comments submitted by the audience had been discussed within the STI working group, but with so few members of the STI working group on the panel, some questions went unanswered, with Mike Silber needing to fill-in with some somehow generic answers.

ICANN has been accused of delving into Trademark Resolution – this is clearly not so – it is an attempt at avoiding not doing anything and thus an attempt at facilitating the protection of rights holders through facilitated and streamlined external processes.

Zahid Jamil, representing the Business Constituency (BC) pushed for BC’s minority statement as contained in the STI working group report. As expected, his opinion was not entirely shared by other panellists, since this is a minority opinion.

The tension which had been apparent in previous meetings dealing with the subject, specifically the IRT meetings in Sydney and in Seoul was absent from the session and the congregation appeared closer to consensus as a whole than ever before thanks to the wonderful work of consensus building by all parties.

In conclusion, it appeared as though the new gTLD process was slowly but surely moving forward.

contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-03-10 14:10:43 GMT


Oops, the title to my contribution above should have been: Trademark Protection in New gTLDs, 16:00-17:00 and not New gTLD process. Sorry.

contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-03-10 14:12:26 GMT


New gTLD Update and EOI Panel Discussion

I'll let someone else provide a report of the session's contents and provide my (biased) feedback as a panel participant.

The panel mysteriously arranged itself in a polarized fashion, with opposite views held by opposite ends of the linear table. Panellists found the room to be distributing itself in a similar fashion. With the debate being (in my opinion) slightly sterile, a post session discussion among the panellists and the moderator reached the conclusion that a possible future panel discussion might be more productive by adopting a crescent-shaped panel with panellists being able to see each other and therefore being able to interact with each other, and a moderator having a direct line of sight of every panellists with no difficulty. The linear panel appeared to stop the flow of the debate and made an possible interesting discussion sound tedious at the end.

contributed by ocl@gih.com on 2010-03-10 14:25:09 GMT

  • No labels