AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
Meeting | Date and Time | Assignee and RALO | Report | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constituent Stakeholder Travel Guidelines Update & Review | 9 April 2013, 16:00-17:00 | Tijani BEN JEMAA | Rapport_Constituent Stakeholder Travel Guidelines | ||||
New gTLD SSR Update | 8 April 2013, 1500-1630 | Julie Hammer |
General Points
Discussion on SAC057 - Internal Name Certificates Certificate Authorities (CAs)
Browser Vendors
Other Applications
Other Issues and Concerns
Letter from Paypal
New Measurements
Conclusion There was a call to the community to identify any other issues and concerns which should be addressed in relation to new gTLDs.
Supplementary Note Mozilla has a Network Security Services (NSS), a set of libraries designed to support cross-platform development of security-enabled client and server applications. This library provides a complete open-source implementation of the crypto libraries used by AOL, Red Hat, Sun, and other companies in a variety of products, including the following:
At the SSAC Public Meeting in Beijing (0800-0900 Thursday 11Apr12), it was revealed by a member of the CAB Forum that recently Mozilla started the process to adopt the gTLD requirements (ballot 96). Once Mozilla adopts it, the requirement will be binding on all CAs (in NSS), regardless of whether they are CAB Forum members. | ||||
DNSSEC for Everybody -- A Beginners' Guide | 8 April 2013, 17:00-18h30 | Yaovi Atohoun | When typing a name in a browser for example, that name must be first translated into a number by a system before the connection can be established. That system is called the Domain Name System (DNS) and it translates names like www.icann.org into the numbers – called Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. ICANN coordinates the addressing system to ensure all the addresses are unique. DNSSEC (DNS Security Extension) is a technology to secure the Domain Name System. During this session, the panelist presented through a sketch a scenario where user is redirected to another website pretending that it is the one he is looking for when there is a security problem. DNNSEC can be implemented by any individual or organization who is handling a Domain name System server or simply a name server. Another session for a half day workshop is scheduled for April 10, 2013. | ||||
Thick Whois | 8 April 2013 | Holly Raiche | Thick Whois GNSO Working Group (providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation on universal ‘thick’ Whois) looking at the following elements: response consistency, stability, accessibility, impact on privacy and data protection, cost implications, synchronization and migration, authoritativeness, competition in Registry services, existing WHOIS applications, data escrow and Registrar Part 43 WHOIS requirements. Began with a brief explanation of what ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ whois means. For thick, registrar collects data on the registrant, the domain and various contacts, and provides the information to the registry. For thin registries, only the domain data published – but all three data types retained. The WG has reached consensus on most issues – but not all. The issue for this session: privacy. Specifically, looking at the privacy implications for the Registrants who have registered their information in the thin model with the expectation that only domain data would be captured at the Registry during a transitional period where they’ve registered their name in a jurisdiction where there are strong privacy protections in local law? And now that data is going to be published in a Registry where the local law is different. The issue for registrants may arise if they deal with a registrar in a ‘privacy-friendly’ country with strong privacy laws, but the registry is in a jurisdiction with far less stringent privacy laws and registrant data is then made publicly available when all registries are ‘thick’. | ||||
Middle East Strategy | 8 April 2013 | Holly Riache | Middle East Strategy : The meeting talked to strategies that are being worked on to improve achieve three goals:
In comments, the CEO of AusRegistry made suggestions including the need for metrics (such as number/percentage of registrations per population, registrations for businesses, number of gTLDs, ccTLDs, and talked of the need to promote local content as a driver. | ||||
Multistakeholder Roundtable | 8 April 2013 | Holly Raiche |
| ||||
Constituent Stakeholder Travel Guidelines Update & Review | 9 April 2013, 16:00-17:00 | Tijani BEN JEMAA | Rapport_Constituent Stakeholder Travel Guidelines
| ||||
Whois Working Group | 10 April 2013 | Holly Raiche | Whois Working Group Review of documents published Since then, have been additional negotiations, and has been agreement in principle to additional issues Cautions:
| ||||
ICANN Finance Open Session | 10 April 2013, 11:00-12:30 | Tijani BEN JEMAA | Report_ICANN Finance Open Session.pdf
| ||||
11 April 2013 | Holly Raiche | Engagement with RIRs – especially APNIC – be aware of events involving RIRs
| |||||
Global Stakeholder Engagement | 11 April 2013, 11:00-12:30 | Tijani BEN JEMAA | |||||
New gTLD SSR Update | 8 April 2013, 1500-1630 | Julie Hammer | Report on New gTLD SSR Update by SSAC Liaison The Audiocast of the Session can be found at http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37057 | ||||
Report_Global Stakeholder Engagement.pdf
| |||||||
Meeting Strategy Working Group | 11 April 2013, 09:00-10:30 | Eduardo Diaz and others | Members of the MSWG Group: This was the first meeting of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). It was mostly an introductory meeting. The agenda was as follows: 1.Welcome 2.Composition 3.Goals 4.Deliverables 5.Organization 6.Schedule 7.AOB (any other business) Please check here for more details: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40929548/ICANN_MSWG_Beijing_2013_04_11_fin+%283%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1367251475241 The next meeting will be a telephone conference to be held May 2, 2013 @ 1400UTC. The group agreed to have these calls every two weeks going forward. | ||||
ccNSO Study Group on Country and Territory Names | 11 April 2013, 08:00-09:00 | Eduardo Diaz | This was one of the final meetings of the WG. The Study Group was established by a resolution of the ccNSO Council on 8 December 2010. The Study Group was tasked with developing an overview of:
The Study Group is comprised of representatives from across the ICANN stakeholder community and has been conducting its work since May 2011. A Final draft report was discussed and will be shortly presented to the public for comments. Final draft recommendations from the group are:
Please check meeting transcript here: Transcript Country Names Beijing.pdf and final draft report here: 2012-03 ccNSO Study Group on Country and Territory Names -Final Report v02.docx
| ||||
INTERNET GOVERNANCE. THE GLOBAL AGENDA. | 08 april 17:00-19:00
| Natalia Enciso | Governance itself its very complex. We are on a learning curve, understand very complex issue, understand each other. 2 main issues: Wsis +10, ITU Sharm El Sheik, IGF Baku, Bali. Enhanced cooperation. Review UN GA WSIS. Growing confusion, lot of these documents refers to similar principles, substantially differences and apparently contradicted. Deeply discussion in Paris Wsis +10. Recommend to deep in the discussion in Bali. Consider the idea to create a framework of commitment for intern principles universal by nature and supported not only by gov but other stakeholders. Would be a challenge, can be compare to Human Rights Declaration, Not know if it is realistic. As look as wee keep the principles to very high level, no torture, freedom of expression, very short an clearer principles, not biding. The challenged is not in the internet development. Bali is a good opportunity to test it out. One step is to produce a compendium to give an overview to have a real basis and can start from a factual analysis. WCIT was a treaty making conference, does not lend itself to open discussion. Better to discuss at the IGF. Theme spam, big issue in Dubai already discussed in Athens in 2006, not to revisit. Explore further in Bali. IGF needed to revamp itself and reinvent itself. Too much of a routing track, difficult to navigate to the meeting.Finding new and innovative ways of framing the issues.What should be the main sessions issues, enhanced cooperation, freedom right freedom of expression on the internet, intern principles, legal frameworks and cybercimre, mulstistakeholder cooperation, economic and social aspects the internet as an engine for growth and advancement. How to move forward with workshops. MAG decided the preliminary proposals, very short proposals outline the concept, an the MAG would decide how to move forward. The challenge now is to reduce it to manageable program. Received an indication the community should be after Paris, many proposals of HR, cybercrime, freedom of expression, multilingual, capacity building, youth participation, IP and digital content, MS cooperation, Regional cooperation. The big challenge now is to condensed that in a coherent program. Will meet again in May in Geneva in open consultation. ICC prioriy to ensure that enhanced cooperation remain fully multistakeholder. WGEC Modalities. Mulstistakeholder approach, mutual trust, consensus, ECOSOC rules apply for observers, constraints (time, resources, venue, etc). It wouldn't be helpful to have many observers in the first meeting. Its just a getting together. Consultations probably soon online. Results made available on UNCTAD website. Brazil is one of the country that is supporting this discussion of principles that could be of universal values on internet governance. Enhanced cooperation starts with enhanced communication. | ||||
Policy vs. Implementation | 10 april 9:00 - 10:30 | Natalia Enciso |
| ||||
Global Stakeholder Engagement | 11 April 2013, 11:00-12:30 Grand Hall A | Hong Xue | ICANN GSE team formed 4 teams on "Collateral", "Conferences, event and speaker panels, workshops", "Digital engagement", and "Populating the ‘Waffle’model (community self-assessment)" respectively. The team outlined the different engagement models, from "Inform, Raise Awareness and Initiate Engagement", "contribution to policy" to "access to public at-large". Each team had its own discussions and then presented its suggestions to the whole group. The suggestions included pursuing outreach beyond 3 ICANN meetings, improving translation/interpretation quality, and developing Waffel mode in which ICANN will developed more programs and tools from region to region and from SG to SG. Generally, it seems ICANN is building a huge GSE program with significant budget and resource impact. On the other hand, ICANN has not been able to effectively link up its various programs and tools in its institutional matrix. |