September 2012 - lac-discuss-es

Re: �C�mo es la Red Neutral?
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: ¿Cómo es la Red Neutral? De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com El Miércoles, 26 de septiembre 2012 a las 4:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro @ gmail.com> escribió: > What is interesting though was the proposal by the US FTC > for a USF on global submarine cables. > Impuestos sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que la FCC se ha opuesto sistemáticamente aplicado a el tráfico de voz entrante, como en el caso de la tasa de Jamaica que principalmente los fondos de nuestros UAF. Tal vez una "finta doble", que: pensar en ello y que podría hacer que el caso se es un complemento de la propuesta ETNO. [Por cierto, hubo un amplio debate sobre el tema aquí en el LACIGF. Tuvimos una bargy argy tiempo para decidir definición.] - Carlton ============================== Carlton Samuels A Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/38a8d4f1c2.html --]]

1 0

Re: �C�mo es la Red Neutral?
by salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: ¿Cómo es la Red Neutral? De: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com Gracias Carlton, lo más seguro es. Esto es relevante para la ETNO Propuesta para la CMTI y al mismo tiempo hay múltiples interpretaciones a muchas de las zonas rojas, por ejemplo. Ejemplos clásicos son las jurisdicciones en las que tiene una penetración muy baja tasas, es decir teledensidad, la penetración de Internet, etc, debido a que tiene sólo una proveedor a menudo el gobierno funcione porque ningún inversionista va a querer ir allí debido a múltiples razones, a saber, la falta de tener un retorno tangible de la inversión en su CAPEX y tomar 15 años para ver Rois como se informó en un reciente Alcatel Lucent / Bell Labs estudio. Por estas jurisdicciones, lo que significaría que se daría prioridad a cierto tráfico sobre los demás, etc, etc Hay no respuestas fáciles, pero bueno para el debate, sin embargo. Acceso, disponibilidad y asequibilidad siguen siendo desafíos y son los países slowlly tratando de resolverlo mediante la construcción más fuerte y más diversa backbones, etcLo que es interesante, aunque era la propuesta por la FTC de EE.UU. para un USF en los cables submarinos globales. En * Thu, Sep 27, 2012 a las 5:50 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> escribió: > ...here's a helpful pictorial to answer..... > > http://netneutralitymap.org/ > > - Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro alias Sala PO Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @ SalanietaT Skype: Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Celular Fiji: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/1b2d435505.html --]]

1 0

Re: El juez brasile�o �rdenes de detenci�n de jefe local de Google
by omar＠kaminski.adv.br Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El juez brasileño órdenes de detención de jefe local de Google De: omar(a)kaminski.adv.br Sucedió dos veces, de dos jueces diferentes electorales de diferente Estados pero por la misma razón. [] S 09/26/2012 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> : > Interesting, the slant on electoral integrity...and grist for the mill. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19724403 > > - Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a96b4ea48e.html --]]

1 0

El juez brasile�o �rdenes de detenci�n de jefe local de Google
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: El juez brasileño órdenes de detención de jefe local de Google De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Interesante, la inclinación de la integridad electoral ... y grano para el molino. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19724403 - Carlton ============================== Carlton Samuels A Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * ============================= _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/b112e26d83.html --]]

1 0

Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualizaci�n sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditaci�n
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualización sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditación De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Bien dicho, Alan. Como de costumbre, usted puede contar para seguir contextualizar un asunto con adición de detalles históricos. - Carlton ============================== Carlton Samuels A Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround * ============================= El Martes, 25 de septiembre 2012 a las 10:34 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> escribió: > Carlton, there is a lesson to be learned from the continued problems > with item 10 (verification of both e-mail and telephone numbers), and > I hope the Board and new CEO are paying attention. According to the > report, registrars are now saying that they will do one but not > both. Law enforcement wants both. > > It is worth considering how we got ourselves into this predicament. > It is almost impossible these days to sign onto a mailing list or get > a free id on some web site without clicking on a link in an e-mail. > Yet apparently, you can register a domain name without such a nicety. > If we (we being ICANN) had not ignored the issue of Whois validation > for so long, the trivial e-mail verification would have been done for > longer than many of us can remember. Now we are at the stage where we > need to beg to have done what the rest of the world considers > business as usual. > > Phone verification is a lot more costly, and it is natural that > registrars are reluctant to make this investment, particularly as > noted in the other document, under the current rules, where some > registrars could avoid having to do this for up to five years, giving > them a significant advantage. > > But if ICANN had paid even a modicom of attention to these problem long > ago: > > - we would not be negotiating just phone verification as e-mail would > have already been addressed > - when we VERY PAINFULLY modified the RAA in 2008/9, we ignored AGAIN > the issue of making future contracts effective in far less than 5 years. > > Hopefully going forward, we will not make these kind of mistakes > again. The historian Barbara Tuchman, in a book I can recommend, "The > March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam", defines "folly" as: > - an actions clearly contrary to the self-interest of those group > pursuing the them; > - carried out by a group or succession of people and not just the act > of a single lunatic; > - people at the time understood the error and gave valid alternatives. > > Clearly ICANN has been guilty of Folly. Perhaps we will stop. (And of > course, At-Large should be a large part of that solution.) > > Alan > > At 25/09/2012 07:40 PM, *Carlton Samuels wrote: > >So here we are. What do we know? And, when did we know it? > > > >Under the label 'Current Situation and Recent Developments' in the *RAA > >Negotiations Update* document, it says: > > > > "six additional negotiating sessions, including two all-day in-person > >meetings held in Washington DC (one of which was attended by Governmental > >Advisory Committee members and representatives from the law enforcement > >representatives)...........the negotiations since Prague has largely > >focused on the key areas of Whois verification and data retention, which > >are part of 12 GAC/law enforcement recommendations." > > > >In case you missed the significance, there is further contextualization: > > > >"I > >n Prague, we highlighted four critical elements of the law enforcement > >recommendations: > >(1)verification / validation of Whois data; > >(2)enhanced collection of information related to registrants (data > retention); > >(3)clarification of registrar responsibility regarding resellers and > >privacy/proxy services; > >and > >(4)creation of contacts for reports of domain name abuse. > > > >The ALAC and At-Large have certainly not been mute on said 'critical > >elements'. And while the ALAC is also on record demanding transparent > >negotiations if only because of the pivotal role the RAA plays in > consensus > >policy development, I personally do not have any the current information > >regarding At-Large/ALAC dispositions at these sessions. All things being > >equal, it appears the At-Large [and the ALAC] were treated like unloved > >country cousins on your father's side, thrice removed. > > > >I'm pleased to hear negotiations have progressed in certain areas. See the > >Summary of Negotiations Status. Look closely at Item #10: Registrar > >Validation of Registrant Data. Apply the stoplight status here and > >contextualize what this means. > > > >I have attached both documents for ease of access. > > > >- Carlton Samuels > > [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG] > > > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >============================= > > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > >Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM > >Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement > >Amendments > >To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > > > > >** > > [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert > > > >http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm > >------------------------------ > >Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments > > > >24 September 2012 > > > >In advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto, ICANN and the Registrars are > >posting two documents on the status of negotiations of amendments to the > >Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Since Prague, significant > progress > >has been made, though certain key issues remain open. There were six > >negotiation sessions, including a full day session with participants from > >the Governmental Advisory Committee and representatives of law > enforcement. > >As reported earlier, there is agreement in many areas, including nearly > all > >law enforcement recommendations. In the two remaining recommendations > still > >under discussion, ICANN and the registrars are much closer to reaching a > >negotiated position on Whois verification and data retention. > > > >On Whois verification, a framework for improving Whois accuracy has been > >developed, however, ICANN and the registrars still have not reached > >agreement on the number of fields that are to be verified. > > > >On data retention, discussion among law enforcement representatives, > >registrars and ICANN indicates there is agreement in principle on a > >two-tiered retention schedule to account for differing data privacy > >obligations. More detail on each of these items, as well as status of > >negotiations on the other law enforcement requests, are provided in the > >documents posted today: > > > >*RAA Negotiation > >Update< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-update-24sep1… > > > >:* A memo providing detail on the negotiations since the Prague meeting > and > >providing some questions for further community input. > > > >*Summary Chart of Status of > >Negotiations< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-status-summar… > > > >:* Detailed status of negotiation on each of the 12 law enforcement > >requests, noting the remaining items remaining for discussion. Key > requests > >from Registrars and ICANN for additional terms in the RAA are also > >identified at the end of the chart. > > > >Because the negotiations have been focused on these key areas, ICANN and > >the Registrars have not yet reached a fully negotiated agreement on all > >terms and provisions within the RAA. When available, a full draft will be > >posted for public comment. Until that time, ICANN and the Registrars > >welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the summary memo > to > >help inform the community discussions in Toronto. Comments can be > forwarded > >to the RAA Negotiations Status > >Wiki< > https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi… > > > >. > > > >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf" > >Content-Disposition: attachment; > > filename="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf" > >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3jpl0 > > > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > > name="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf" > >Content-Disposition: attachment; > > filename="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf" > >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3yky1 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >At-Large mailing list > >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > WHOIS-WG mailing list > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/272362bd20.html --]]

1 0

Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualizaci�n sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditaci�n
by alan.greenberg＠mcgill.ca Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualización sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditación De: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca Carlton, hay una lección que aprender de los persistentes problemas con el punto 10 (verificación de ambos de correo electrónico y números de teléfono), y Espero que el Consejo y el nuevo CEO está prestando atención. De acuerdo con la informe, los registradores están diciendo ahora que van a hacer uno, pero no ambos. La policía quiere tanto. Vale la pena considerar cómo nos metimos en este lío. Es casi imposible en estos días para inscribirse en una lista de correo o conseguir una identificación libre en algún sitio web sin hacer clic en un enlace en un correo electrónico. Sin embargo, al parecer, se puede registrar un nombre de dominio sin tal sutileza. Si nosotros (estamos siendo ICANN) no había pasado por alto la cuestión de la validación Whois durante tanto tiempo, lo trivial e-mail de verificación que se han hecho para ya que muchos de nosotros podemos recordar.Ahora estamos en la etapa en la que necesidad de mendigar para haber hecho lo que el resto del mundo considera como de costumbre. Verificación teléfono es mucho más costoso, y es natural que registradores son reacios a hacer esta inversión, en particular en lo se señala en el documento que, bajo las reglas actuales, donde algunos registradores podría evitar tener que hacer esto para un máximo de cinco años, lo que ellos una ventaja significativa. Pero si ICANN había pagado ni un modicom de atención a estos problemas hace mucho tiempo: - No estaría negociando sólo verificación por teléfono como por e-mail harÃa ya han sido tratados - Cuando muy dolorosamente modificado la RAA en 2008/9, ignoramos OTRA VEZ la cuestiÃ³n de hacer contratos a futuro en efectivo menos de 5 aÃ±os. Esperemos que en el futuro, no vamos a hacer este tipo de errores de nuevo.La historiadora Barbara Tuchman, en un libro que puedo recomendar: "El Marzo de la locura: De Troya a Vietnam ", define la" locura "como: - Una acciones claramente contrarias a los intereses propios de los grupos persiguiendo el ellos; - Llevada a cabo por un grupo o una serie de personas y no sÃ³lo el acto de un Ãºnico lunÃ¡tico; - Las personas en el momento comprendiÃ³ el error y dio alternativas vÃ¡lidas. Es evidente que la ICANN haya cometido una locura. Tal vez nos detendremos. (Y por Por supuesto, At-Large debe ser una parte importante de la soluciÃ³n.) Alan En 25/09/2012 07:40 PM, * Carlton Samuels escribiÃ³: > AsÃ que aquÃ estamos. Â¿QuÃ© sabemos? Y, Â¿cuÃ¡ndo lo sabes? > > En "SituaciÃ³n actual y evoluciÃ³n recientes 'en la etiqueta de la RAA * > Negociaciones documento de actualizaciÃ³n *, dice: > > "six additional negotiating sessions, including two all-day in-person >meetings held in Washington DC (one of which was attended by Governmental >Advisory Committee members and representatives from the law enforcement >representatives)...........the negotiations since Prague has largely >focused on the key areas of Whois verification and data retention, which >are part of 12 GAC/law enforcement recommendations." > >In case you missed the significance, there is further contextualization: > >"I >n Prague, we highlighted four critical elements of the law enforcement >recommendations: >(1)verification / validation of Whois data; >(2)enhanced collection of information related to registrants (data retention); >(3)clarification of registrar responsibility regarding resellers and >privacy/proxy services; >and >(4)creation of contacts for reports of domain name abuse. > >The ALAC and At-Large have certainly not been mute on said 'critical >elements'. And while the ALAC is also on record demanding transparent >negotiations if only because of the pivotal role the RAA plays in consensus >policy development, I personally do not have any the current information >regarding At-Large/ALAC dispositions at these sessions. All things being >equal, it appears the At-Large [and the ALAC] were treated like unloved >country cousins on your father's side, thrice removed. > >I'm pleased to hear negotiations have progressed in certain areas. See the >Summary of Negotiations Status. Look closely at Item #10: Registrar >Validation of Registrant Data. Apply the stoplight status here and >contextualize what this means. > >I have attached both documents for ease of access. > >- Carlton Samuels > [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG] > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> >Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM >Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement >Amendments >To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > >** > [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert > >http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm >------------------------------ >Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments > >24 September 2012 > >In advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto, ICANN and the Registrars are >posting two documents on the status of negotiations of amendments to the >Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Since Prague, significant progress >has been made, though certain key issues remain open. There were six >negotiation sessions, including a full day session with participants from >the Governmental Advisory Committee and representatives of law enforcement. >As reported earlier, there is agreement in many areas, including nearly all >law enforcement recommendations. In the two remaining recommendations still >under discussion, ICANN and the registrars are much closer to reaching a >negotiated position on Whois verification and data retention. > >On Whois verification, a framework for improving Whois accuracy has been >developed, however, ICANN and the registrars still have not reached >agreement on the number of fields that are to be verified. > >On data retention, discussion among law enforcement representatives, >registrars and ICANN indicates there is agreement in principle on a >two-tiered retention schedule to account for differing data privacy >obligations. More detail on each of these items, as well as status of >negotiations on the other law enforcement requests, are provided in the >documents posted today: > >*RAA Negotiation >Update<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-update-24sep1…> >:* A memo providing detail on the negotiations since the Prague meeting and >providing some questions for further community input. > >*Summary Chart of Status of >Negotiations<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-status-summar…> >:* Detailed status of negotiation on each of the 12 law enforcement >requests, noting the remaining items remaining for discussion. Key requests >from Registrars and ICANN for additional terms in the RAA are also >identified at the end of the chart. > >Because the negotiations have been focused on these key areas, ICANN and >the Registrars have not yet reached a fully negotiated agreement on all >terms and provisions within the RAA. When available, a full draft will be >posted for public comment. Until that time, ICANN and the Registrars >welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the summary memo to >help inform the community discussions in Toronto. Comments can be forwarded >to the RAA Negotiations Status >Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi…> >. > >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Negotiations-update-24sep12-en.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3jpl0 > >Content-Type: application/pdf; > name="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="Negotiations-status-summary-24sep12-en.pdf" >X-Attachment-Id: f_h7jn3yky1 > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5770abc51d.html --]]

1 0

Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualizaci�n sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditaci�n
by salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Fwd: ICANN Alerta de Noticias - Actualización sobre Registrador enmiendas Acuerdo de Acreditación De: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com Queridos todos, En primer lugar, muchas gracias Carlton. Tengo un par de preguntas, a saber: 1. La sesión fue grabada y hay transcripciones o audiopods? 2. ¿Quién representa la GNSO y ccNSO en esas reuniones? 3. Eran los expertos que realizan actualmente los 4 estudios de Whois presentes en la reunión y que las discusiones afectar el alcance actual de su Los estudios actuales? 4. ¿Quién de la OCDE, la CE estaba presente en esa reunión? 5. Que los representantes que asistieron Aplicación de la Ley y que haya incluido Autoridades de ingresos y en qué países eran? 6. ¿Quién establece la agenda de las discusiones y fue esta disponible en la Wiki o sitio web de ICANN? 7. ¿Cuál fue el resultado de los debates? Gracias y un cordial saludo, Sala En Wed, Sep 26 2012 a las 11:40 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > wrote: > So here we are. What do we know? And, when did we know it? > > Under the label 'Current Situation and Recent Developments' in the *RAA > Negotiations Update* document, it says: > > "six additional negotiating sessions, including two all-day in-person > meetings held in Washington DC (one of which was attended by Governmental > Advisory Committee members and representatives from the law enforcement > representatives)...........the negotiations since Prague has largely > focused on the key areas of Whois verification and data retention, which > are part of 12 GAC/law enforcement recommendations." > > In case you missed the significance, there is further contextualization: > > "I > n Prague, we highlighted four critical elements of the law enforcement > recommendations: > (1)verification / validation of Whois data; > (2)enhanced collection of information related to registrants (data > retention); > (3)clarification of registrar responsibility regarding resellers and > privacy/proxy services; > and > (4)creation of contacts for reports of domain name abuse. > > The ALAC and At-Large have certainly not been mute on said 'critical > elements'. And while the ALAC is also on record demanding transparent > negotiations if only because of the pivotal role the RAA plays in consensus > policy development, I personally do not have any the current information > regarding At-Large/ALAC dispositions at these sessions. All things being > equal, it appears the At-Large [and the ALAC] were treated like unloved > country cousins on your father's side, thrice removed. > > I'm pleased to hear negotiations have progressed in certain areas. See the > Summary of Negotiations Status. Look closely at Item #10: Registrar > Validation of Registrant Data. Apply the stoplight status here and > contextualize what this means. > > I have attached both documents for ease of access. > > - Carlton Samuels > [Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG] > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement > Amendments > To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > > ** > [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm > ------------------------------ > Update on Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments > > 24 September 2012 > > In advance of the ICANN meeting in Toronto, ICANN and the Registrars are > posting two documents on the status of negotiations of amendments to the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Since Prague, significant progress > has been made, though certain key issues remain open. There were six > negotiation sessions, including a full day session with participants from > the Governmental Advisory Committee and representatives of law enforcement. > As reported earlier, there is agreement in many areas, including nearly all > law enforcement recommendations. In the two remaining recommendations still > under discussion, ICANN and the registrars are much closer to reaching a > negotiated position on Whois verification and data retention. > > On Whois verification, a framework for improving Whois accuracy has been > developed, however, ICANN and the registrars still have not reached > agreement on the number of fields that are to be verified. > > On data retention, discussion among law enforcement representatives, > registrars and ICANN indicates there is agreement in principle on a > two-tiered retention schedule to account for differing data privacy > obligations. More detail on each of these items, as well as status of > negotiations on the other law enforcement requests, are provided in the > documents posted today: > > *RAA Negotiation > Update< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-update-24sep1… > > > :* A memo providing detail on the negotiations since the Prague meeting and > providing some questions for further community input. > > *Summary Chart of Status of > Negotiations< > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/negotiations-status-summar… > > > :* Detailed status of negotiation on each of the 12 law enforcement > requests, noting the remaining items remaining for discussion. Key requests > from Registrars and ICANN for additional terms in the RAA are also > identified at the end of the chart. > > Because the negotiations have been focused on these key areas, ICANN and > the Registrars have not yet reached a fully negotiated agreement on all > terms and provisions within the RAA. When available, a full draft will be > posted for public comment. Until that time, ICANN and the Registrars > welcome feedback on the discussion topics identified in the summary memo to > help inform the community discussions in Toronto. Comments can be forwarded > to the RAA Negotiations Status > Wiki< > https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi… > > > . > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro alias Sala PO Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @ SalanietaT Skype: Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Celular Fiji: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2e356ef0ec.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Aportes de la Comunidad y asesoramiento de procesos
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Aportes de la Comunidad y asesoramiento de procesos De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Fecha: Martes, 25 de septiembre 2012 a las 12:30 PM Asunto: ICANN News Alert - Aportes de la Comunidad y asesoramiento de procesos A: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com ** [Imagen: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> Alerta de noticias http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-24sep12-en.htm ------------------------------ Comunidad de entrada y Asesoramiento Proceso 24 de septiembre 2012 * Anuncio de Foro: Período Comentario * Abre en * Fecha: * 24 de septiembre 2012 * Categorías / Etiquetas: * - Procesos de Política - La transparencia / responsabilidad - Comentarios / Mejoras * Propósito (Breve): * Este documento de debate se encuentra publicada en la solicitud de la Junta de Buen Gobierno para recabar las opiniones de la comunidad de ICANN en formas de mejorar el proceso mediante el cual la Junta busca el asesoramiento de la ICANN comunidad más allá del proceso de comentario público tradicional. Este problema se deriva de la labor realizada por el personal en cumplimiento de la recomendación N º 6 de la rendición de cuentas y Equipo de Revisión de Transparencia, y pone de relieve un zona donde las mejoras pueden conducir a la previsibilidad y consistencia para las acciones futuras de la Junta. Una sesión está prevista en Toronto para explorar esta problema importante con la más amplia comunidad de ICANN. * Enlace Comentario PÃºblico Box: * http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/input-advice-function-24sep12-e… _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0baf4fada2.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Recomendaci�n ATRT 6: Documento Clarificar Publicado
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Recomendación ATRT 6: Documento Clarificar Publicado De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Fecha: Tue, Sep 25 2012 a las 24:54 Asunto: ICANN News Alert - Recomendación ATRT 6: Aclarar Documento Publicado A: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com ** [Imagen: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> Alerta de noticias http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-4-24sep12-en.htm ------------------------------ Recomendación ATRT 6: Documento Clarificar Publicado 24 de septiembre 2012 En cumplimiento de la Recomendación 6 de la Rendición de Cuentas y Transparencia Equipo de Revisión (ATRT), la Junta de ICANN Comité de Gobierno ha aprobado la publicación de un documento que trata de identificar los elementos que son claramente sujeto a consulta a la comunidad antes de la consideración de la Junta, y los no requieren de consulta a la comunidad.El documento incluye diagramas de ejemplos del proceso, como un proceso de la política de desarrollo formal. El papel es disponible en http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/consultation-clarifica… [PDF, 270 KB]. Si bien la Recomendación 6 se ha completado, el trabajo realizado tiene identificado un área en la que la mejora se requiere que el Directorio obtiene el asesoramiento que necesita de la comunidad de ICANN más allá de la tradicional proceso de comentarios públicos. Recientemente, han surgido cuestiones que la Junta tiene buscó en profundidad de entrada o asesoramiento de la comunidad, y tiene especÃficamente raciones solicitadas de la comunidad se reÃºnan para tal fin. Una Comunidad Entrada y FunciÃ³n de asesoramiento Papel <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-…> [PDF, 223 KB] abordan este trabajo estÃ¡ siendo publicado para comentarios del pÃºblico, y servirÃ¡ de base para el debate en una sesiÃ³n en la reuniÃ³n de ICANN en Toronto. _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/fde7163627.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Actualizaci�n Trademark Clearinghouse: Material de Implementaci�n para comentarios p�blicos
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Fwd: ICANN News Alert - Actualización Trademark Clearinghouse: Material de Implementación para comentarios públicos De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Fecha: Tue, Sep 25 2012 a las 13:09 Asunto: ICANN News Alert - Centro de Información de Marcas actualización: Implementación Material para comentarios públicos A: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com ** [Imagen: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> Alerta de noticias http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-7-24sep12-en.htm ------------------------------ Marcas Clearinghouse actualización: Material de Implementación para comentarios públicos 24 de septiembre 2012 El Centro de Información de Marcas es una de las mayores derechos importantes mecanismos de protección que se han construido en el programa de nuevos gTLD.La Clearinghouse aceptará y autenticar la información de los derechos y la voluntad apoyar tanto a las reclamaciones de marcas y servicios requeridos en la salida del sol, todos los nuevos gTLD. En la actualidad, ICANN publica dos notas explicativas relacionadas con el Marcas Clearinghouse para un período de comentario público de 45 días: 1. Aplicación de la Prueba del uso Verificación <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/proof-of-use-24s…> [PDF, 176 KB] Este documento describe los procedimientos a ser utilizados por el Centro de Información para verificar la prueba de uso asociado a una marca, cuando solicitada. 2. ImplementaciÃ³n del Matching Reglas <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-2…> [PDF, 194 KB] Este memorÃ¡ndum proporciona la explicaciÃ³n detallada de cÃ³mo un "Match" se determina entre un registro de marca y un nombre de dominio, por efectos de la salida del sol y los procesos de reclamaciones. El perÃodo de comentario pÃºblico abierto 24 septiembre de 2012 y se cerrarÃ¡ el 7 de Noviembre 2012 a las 23:59 UTC. Para acceder al foro de comentarios pÃºblicos vÃ©ase http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm. AdemÃ¡s de la exposiciÃ³n de motivos anteriormente, la versiÃ³n actual proyecto del Centro de InformaciÃ³n de Marcas Requisitos <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/draft-tmch-requi…> [PDF, 1,285 MB] estÃ¡ disponible para su revisiÃ³n. Esto Requisitos documento <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/draft-tmch-requi…> [PDF, 1,285 MB] detalla las responsabilidades del Centro de InformaciÃ³n de Marcas proveedor, ampliando el Centro de InformaciÃ³n Solicitud de InformaciÃ³n (RFI) definir los requisitos especÃficos de la cÃ¡mara de compensaciÃ³n en un nivel detallado. Se informa por el solicitante de gTLD GuÃa <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb> , asÃ como las aportaciones del Grupo de Ayuda para la EjecuciÃ³n (IAG) < https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home>and otras discusiones de la comunidad. _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/10b05fca58.html --]]

1 0