Association for Computing Machinery: Difference between revisions

Line 42:

==ACM and ICANN==

The ACM Internet Governance Committee (ACM-IGF) has been active in sharing its views, comments and recommendation to the Policy Issues of the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]]. In 1999, ACM-IGF submitted a compromise proposal to ICANN regarding the creation of Non-Commercial Users Constituency ([[NCUC]]) under the then Domain Name Supporting Organization now [[GNSO]] to clarify the goals and objectives of the Constituency. It proposed that the NCUC should not be a catch for all organization and it must be limited only to organizations that are non-profit and ~~provides~~ welfare and community services, ~~promotes~~ arts and culture, and engaged in scientific research and human rights. In addition ACM-IGF also emphasized that the Constituency is a poor representative for ~~Individuals Domain Name Holders~~ and they should have their own Constituency to properly represent their views and needs to ICANN.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-dnso/archive/msg00022.html ACM-IGF Compromise Proposal]</ref>

The ACM Internet Governance Committee (ACM-IGF) has been active in sharing its views, comments and recommendation to the Policy Issues of the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]]. In 1999, ACM-IGF submitted a compromise proposal to ICANN regarding the creation of [[NCUC|Non-Commercial Users Constituency]] (NCUC) under the then Domain Name Supporting Organization, now [[GNSO]], to clarify the goals and objectives of the Constituency. It proposed that the NCUC should not be a catch for all organization and it must be limited only to organizations that are non-profit and provide welfare and community services, promote arts and culture, and are engaged in scientific research and human rights. In addition ACM-IGF also emphasized that the Constituency is a poor representative for individual domain name holders and they should have their own Constituency to properly represent their views and needs to ICANN.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-dnso/archive/msg00022.html ACM-IGF Compromise Proposal]</ref>

During the same year, ACM-IGF also submitted a petition for ICANN to return the [[cybersquatting]] definition and alternative dispute resolution procedures to the DNSO Names Council for additional work on substance and procedure to create a well-balanced and widely supported Cybersquatting Policy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00001.html ACM-IGC Petition for Reconsideration on Cybersquatting]</ref>

During the same year, ACM-IGF also submitted a petition for ICANN to return the [[cybersquatting]] definition and alternative dispute resolution procedures to the DNSO [[Names Council]] for additional work on substance and procedure to create a well-balanced and widely supported Cybersquatting Policy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00001.html ACM-IGC Petition for Reconsideration on Cybersquatting]</ref>

In 2002, the ACM Public Policy sent a letter to Dr. [[Vinton Cerf]], then Chairman of ICANN asking the leadership of the internet governing body to "~~scale down~~ scale down its size and scope of operations to focus on its core function of coordinating Internet resources on a technical level."<ref>[http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Apr/17 USACM letter on ICANN]</ref>

In 2002, the ACM Public Policy sent a letter to Dr. [[Vinton Cerf]], then Chairman of ICANN, asking the leadership of the internet governing body to "scale down its size and scope of operations to focus on its core function of coordinating Internet resources on a technical level".<ref>[http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Apr/17 USACM letter on ICANN]</ref>

==References==

__NOTOC__

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ==ACM and ICANN==
-The ACM Internet Governance Committee (ACM-IGF) has been active in sharing its views, comments and recommendation to the Policy Issues of the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]]. In 1999, ACM-IGF submitted a compromise proposal to ICANN regarding the creation of Non-Commercial Users Constituency ([[NCUC]]) under the then Domain Name Supporting Organization now [[GNSO]] to clarify the goals and objectives of the Constituency. It proposed that the NCUC should not be a catch for all organization and it must be limited only to organizations that are non-profit and provides welfare and community services, promotes arts and culture, and engaged in scientific research and human rights. In addition ACM-IGF also emphasized that the Constituency is a poor representative for Individuals Domain Name Holders and they should have their own Constituency to properly represent their views and needs to ICANN.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-dnso/archive/msg00022.html ACM-IGF Compromise Proposal]</ref>
+The ACM Internet Governance Committee (ACM-IGF) has been active in sharing its views, comments and recommendation to the Policy Issues of the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]]. In 1999, ACM-IGF submitted a compromise proposal to ICANN regarding the creation of [[NCUC|Non-Commercial Users Constituency]] (NCUC) under the then Domain Name Supporting Organization, now [[GNSO]], to clarify the goals and objectives of the Constituency. It proposed that the NCUC should not be a catch for all organization and it must be limited only to organizations that are non-profit and provide welfare and community services, promote arts and culture, and are engaged in scientific research and human rights. In addition ACM-IGF also emphasized that the Constituency is a poor representative for individual domain name holders and they should have their own Constituency to properly represent their views and needs to ICANN.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-dnso/archive/msg00022.html ACM-IGF Compromise Proposal]</ref>
-During the same year, ACM-IGF also submitted a petition for ICANN to return the [[cybersquatting]] definition and alternative dispute resolution procedures to the DNSO Names Council for additional work on substance and procedure to create a well-balanced and widely supported Cybersquatting Policy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00001.html ACM-IGC Petition for Reconsideration on Cybersquatting]</ref>
+During the same year, ACM-IGF also submitted a petition for ICANN to return the [[cybersquatting]] definition and alternative dispute resolution procedures to the DNSO [[Names Council]] for additional work on substance and procedure to create a well-balanced and widely supported Cybersquatting Policy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00001.html ACM-IGC Petition for Reconsideration on Cybersquatting]</ref>
-In 2002, the ACM Public Policy sent a letter to Dr. [[Vinton Cerf]], then Chairman of ICANN asking the leadership of the internet governing body to "scale down scale down its size and scope of operations to focus on its core function of coordinating Internet resources on a technical level."<ref>[http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Apr/17 USACM letter on ICANN]</ref>
+In 2002, the ACM Public Policy sent a letter to Dr. [[Vinton Cerf]], then Chairman of ICANN, asking the leadership of the internet governing body to "scale down its size and scope of operations to focus on its core function of coordinating Internet resources on a technical level".<ref>[http://seclists.org/politech/2002/Apr/17 USACM letter on ICANN]</ref>
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}
 __NOTOC__