June 22, 2010 Brussels Meetings

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

Reports from other days:

Friday, 18 June 2010
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Monday, 21 June 2010
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Friday, 25 June 2010

Monthly APRALO Meeting

Time: 0700 - 0800
Location: 300
Author: JS, APRALO Members

Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG)

Time: 0800 - 0900
Location: 313/315
Author: JS, Mohamed

ALAC: Policy Discussion - Part I

Time: 0800 - 0930
Location: 300
Author: All

GAC Meeting with NRO

Time: 0900 - 1000
Location: 400
Author: Yjro

There’s a need to pay attention to what happens at the ITU Plenipot and to fend off ITU attempts to become an RIR itself. RIR’s will be present at the Plenipot.

Indian GAC representative inquired, whether some sort of ”GAC” could be set up for the RIR’s. From the side of the NRO it was felt that there are already different forms and opportunities of interaction with the GAC, so that a separate mechanism would not be needed. |

ccNSO Members Meeting

Time: 0900 - 1800
Location: Gold Hall
Author: RVK

ALAC: Policy Discussion Part II

Time: 0930 - 1100
Location: 300
Author: All

New gTLD Basics

Time: 1100 - 1200
Location: 311/312
Author:

She explained in a very academical perspective what means gTLDs in a first place,

Also she identified the differences between gTLDs and ccTLD.

She mentioned also what are the currently gTLDs.

gTLDs have three caracters or more.

ICANN agreement – Registry and Registrars

UDRP – how we can solve the problem presented between trademarks and domain names.?

The follow point also were treated :

What is ICANN mission and New gTLDS.

Especially promote competion , consumer trust and consumer choice.

Explain what is the Policy and Program Deveploment approved in june 2008.

Bottom up process. Critical community cooperation. Development steps shared with the community. Colaborative work with the community.

Applicant Guide Book, in it differents versions built in the previous way mentioned.

By froups with certain expertise - IRT_ STI_ IDN:WT_ ZFA etc..

What can we potentially expect:

Increase in creativity

Increase in competition in the domain name space

gTLD tailored to address community needs

Geographically gTLDs

New ways of branding and stablishing corporate identity on the internet

IDN

Need for user education

First Round - Future rounds.

What that is important

New ways end users find and produce information on line

More choices as registrants

Opportunityof investments and new bussines

A more globally interest and culturally…etc

Future Registries wiil be part of a complex ecosystem !!

Costs , when, what, where, how much, timelines, level of control = Applicant Guide book

Complex and Comprehensive process

Specific requieremnets

The applicant

Not for individuals !!

Global entity established

Specific Industry

Contractual compliance with ICANN

Financial commitment

The TLD string

The top level domain can be a ASCII or IDN (specific requirements)

The submission Process and fees

English based program !!!!

TLD application suistem(TAS)

Web Based secure system to collect information and documentation

Customer Support

Unique user ID for each slot

Deposit 5 K – credited against the evalution 185 k

Refunds in certainly cases, not in all cases !!!

The evaluation Process – many steps in differents kind of evaluations.

What next?

Final applicant guide book

Implementing a Global Communications Campaign

Application period and other specific dates

Session In Brussels - she especially encouraged the Reducing barriers meeting

For more information

Icann webpage

newgtld@icann.org

ICANN meetings

Webinars.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre – Alac member by LACRALO |

GAC Meeting with ALAC

Time: 1100 - 1230
Location: 400
Author: Davek, JS

SSAC Open Meeting

Time: 1100 - 1230
Location: 300
Author: Patrick Vande Walle

Update on A Registrant’s Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts

This document will include a series of recommendations to registrants to help them choose a registrar from a purely technical point of view.
The document is intended for a broad, non-technical, audience. It will be available in all the 5 usual languages used at ICANN, and the staff is asking if other translations should be added. A draft will be submitted for comments before the Carthagena meeting.
Both Vanda and myself suggested that the ALSes could be a good vector for disseminating the guide to a wide audience.
I further suggested that it might be useful to integrate this into a broader document which would also include the rights of the registrants

Update on SSAC Work Party on Orphaned Name Servers

This is also work in progress. Most fundamentally, there is a need for an unambigious definition of what constitutes an "orphaned name server". Suffice to say that such servers are used in DNS-based malicious activities like phishing and spam. A report will be published later, although no timeframe was commited.

SSAC Update on Root Scaling Issues

In summary, the SSAC is not able to report a clear OK/not OK to the Board on the issue of the scaling of the root with regard to adding new TLDs, DNSSEC and IPv6. Some data is still missing, especially clear answers from the root operators. Further studies are necessary.

SSAC Improvements Resulting from ICANN Board Review

SSAC went through the same process of review as the ALAC did. There are also improvements that would need to be implemented. SSAC is interested to benefit from the experience of the ALAC, and especially, the roadmap that we have drafted. I will forward the document to the chair.
The chair further asked me to convey his congratulations to the ALAC for the tremendous progress that has been accomplished over the past two years and the quality of the output produced by the At-Large community. |

Intellectual Property Constituency

Time: 1400 - 1600
Location: 300
Author: Davek, Vivek

Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP)

Time: 1400 - 1600
Location: 311/312
Author: Frans, Gareth

They received a report on the Accountability and Transparency Review. They questioned the effectiveness of the public comment process. They are considering a group reponsse

On Vertical Integration they support proceeding with caution but acknowledge the difficulty of achieving consensus. They need to provide input as a constituency.

DAG v4 - was discussed and Vertical Integration was seen as the main issue still to be resolved.

They also discussed a working group on assisting small applicants and the problem of string similarity.

On the CSG Charter they were concerned about the fallout from the addition of more groups and noted that restructuring has caused issues of weighted representation on the Council.

Gareth

Please add your report here |

GAC Meeting with ccNSO

Time: 1415 - 1545
Location: 400
Author: Rudi, Christopher

ALAC and Regional Leadership Workshop on At-Large Improvements

Time: 1600 - 1800
Location: 300
Author: Davek, JS

GAC Meeting with the ICANN Board

Time: 1630 - 1800
Location: 400
Author: Yrjo

Must any advice in any written form from the GAC be interpreted as GAC ’advice’ as meant in the Bylaws? The Board doesn’t seem to think so. ”If GAC just expresses its emotions, that may be useful information, but advice is a special category that triggers special consequences” (Peter DT) Communiqué is just an announcement to the community. According to Bill Dee, common sense would suggest, when the GAC is taking a position on a policy issue, and that is advice.

Has what GAC had intended as an advice ever been ignored? Suzan Sene pointed out to GAC Principles on new gTLD’s from 2007. Peter: that process is not finished, and we are taking GAC advice into account all the time.

In some urgent situations, advice might be needed intersessionally. In such cases, GAC Chair has sent letters, and the advice has been confirmed at the next f2f meeting of the GAC.

GAC’s involvement in the earlier stages of the PDP, as in the IDN ccTLD fast track was generally seen as a good thing: the earlier the better.

MOPO

Morality and public order (MOPO) took up the rest of remaining available time.

Aggording to Suzan, GAC anticipated in March 2007 what MOPO is intended to accomplished, but used different terminology: national, cultutral etc sensitivities.
MOPO comes from the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and is ”completely unworkable” in the context of new gTLD’s. There is no internationally agreed definition of MOPO. On the other hand, MOPO doesn’t cover all sensitivities GAC had in mind, eg of religious nature (.catholic)

Dennis pointed to the objection procedures and said he thought they would take care of these issues.

Bruce Tonkin explained that GNSO tried to find applicable treaties and asked the GAC for advice, which it didn’t get.

The Chair of the Board asked, could GAC give some advice on how to follow GAC’s advice. Bill Dee countered that GAC is an advisory body and to find a solution is not its responsibility.

Bertrtand said there should be a mechanism ensuring that all strings are acceptable to all. Peter agreed that blocking as a means of dealing with the problem would lead to fragmentation and that would be the worst consequence.

He repeated that the Board was looking forward for an advice, not fo a judgment. |

AFRALO/AfrICANN Joint Meeting

Time: 1800 - 1930
Location: 300
Author: Davek, Vivek, AFRALO Members

EURALO Monthly Meeting

Time: 1800 - 2000
Location: 201 A/B
Author: SBT, APE, PVW, WLG, RVK, CW, Yrjo

Music Night at The Square Brussels

Time: 2030 - 2345
Location: The Square Brussels
Author: PVW, Frans