text:
Recommendations to the Board
The Board receives recommendations from a variety of sources from the ICANN community, including advice from the Advisory Committees as set forth in Article 12 of ICANN's Bylaws.
This page provides information on the status of advice to the Board from the Advisory Committees identified below:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
Actions and updates on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are not currently included on this page. Please refer to GAC Advice Scorecards adopted from time to time by the Board on the GAC website. Most recently, the Board adopted the scorecard for the ICANN 64 Kobe Communiqué.
Latest Advice to the ICANN Board
As of 30 June 2019
Advice Document
ICANN64 Joint GAC-ALAC Statement on EPDP (13 March 2019)
RSSAC043: Report from the RSSAC April 2019 Workshop (4 June 2019)
SAC105: The DNS and the Internet of Things: Opportunities, Risks and Challenges (3 June 2019)
Advice Status
The Board Advice Status Report [PDF | XLSX] provides status and details of related resolutions as well as the resulting implementation actions for information on advice items issued by the ALAC, RSSAC, and SSAC since 2010. Information on individual items by Advisory Committee can be found in the below sections "Open Advice Items" and "Advice Items Closed in the Last 12 Months."
Board Advice Register Phases and Descriptions
Advice Items by Advisory Committee
Phase ALAC RSSAC SSAC Total Items by Phase
Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge - - - -
Phase 2 | Understand - 1 1 2
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider - 11 - 11
Phase 3 | Deferred - - - -
Phase 4 | Implement 2 1 18 21
Phase 4 | Deferred - - 5 5
Phase 5 | Close 2 - 19 21
Total Open Items by
Advisory Committee 4 13 43 60
Total Items Closed in
Past 12 Months 3 12 15 30
Open Advice Items
1. At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
Advice Item
Action(s) Taken
Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation at ICANN: A Joint Statement by ALAC and GAC (R1)
(2 Nov 2017)
Phase 4 | Implement
The Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) team previewed new Announcements and Blog pages on feedback.icann.org in October 2018. Work on the authoring and content model in the document management system has begun and several content types have been completed. Since the launch of ITI in January 2018, the team has published eight blogs on icann.org and conducted several public sessions to provide the community with updates and input into the progress of this project.
On 9 February 2018, the ICANN Board sent a letter to Alan Greenberg, chair of the ALAC, regarding this joint ALAC-GAC advice. Please see the letter here. The letter also refers to the GAC scorecard, which can be found here.
The 2nd At-Large Summit (ATLAS II) Final Declaration -- At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN (R-37)
(26 Jun 2014)
Phase 5 | Close Request
Staff, under the direction of At-Large leadership, has already begun to rework the website and Wiki to ensure that our "Policy Advice" pages are accurate and understandable. This will continue as volunteer and staff resources allow. We will also ensure that as documents are published, the classification of the document is clear. The goal is to address two issues:
Confusion about the type of document (ie "Advice" vs "Comment")
The "End user" justification for intervention.
Accordingly, staff together with At-Large leadership will categorize the existing documents (as advice, public comment, correspondence, etc.) in a more granular fashion and provided enhanced tools with which to filter search results based on these categories. Furthermore, staff will create a new field in the database for "End User Issue" and At-Large leadership will populate this field both in current documents and those generated going forward. The following items have been created to satisfy these goals:
An Executive Summaries: ALAC Policy Comments & Advice resource page has been created to address "type" of document (#1).
The At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) meets weekly to discuss "end user" justification for intervention (#2).
With these simple modifications, it should be easier for a Wiki visitor to peruse the work of the At-large and to quickly understand the rationale for creating individual documents.
The 2nd At-Large Summit (ATLAS II) Final Declaration -- Future of Multi-Stakeholder Models (R-7)
The Board in its 9 September 2014 resolution acknowledged the Final ATLAS II Declaration: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-09-09-en#3.e
This recommendation was discussed by the Board Organization Effectiveness Committee (OEC), which subsequently added the item to the OEC workplan: "Holistic Assessment of ICANN structures." The OEC agreed that the work underway on the current cycle of 11 reviews and the recommendations of WS2-Accountability should progress further, before the topic of "holistic assessment of ICANN structures" is to be addressed. Updates on OEC's progress on this work item are reported on the Semi-Annual Committee Report.
For further information on the OEC's consideration of this topic, see the latest OEC meeting minutes.
2. Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC)
RSSAC043: Report from the RSSAC April 2019 Workshop
(6/4/19)
Phase 2 | Understand Request
The ICANN organization understands that RSSAC043 is a high-level summary of the outcomes of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) sixth workshop held from 23 April 2019 to 25 April 2019. There is no action for the ICANN Board.
RSSAC028: Technical Analysis of the Naming Scheme Used For Individual Root Servers R-1
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider
The ICANN org understands RSSAC028 Recommendation 1 to mean that no changes should be made to the current naming scheme used in the root server system until more studies have been conducted. ICANN received confirmation of understanding from the RSSAC on 1/17/18.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC028 Recommendation 2 to that studies on current behaviors of DNS software and DNS resolvers should be conducted to understand different elements of root server responses to queries, both individually and in combination; for initial priming and standard responses; and for how well specific implementations, such as the DO bit are interpreted by root servers and the DNS software. ICANN received confirmation of understanding from the RSSAC on 1/17/18.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC028 Recommendation 3 to mean that a study should be conducted to understand how the current infrastructure is susceptible to various cache poisoning attack scenarios, specifically node re-delegation attacks, and that proof-of-concept code for testing these scenarios should be made available to others in the DNS community for further studies. ICANN received confirmation of understanding from the RSSAC on 1/17/18.
The ICANN org understands that the RSSAC has also provided an additional, speculative recommendation, which states that if node re-delegation attacks pose a serious risk that needs to be mitigated, the following should also be considered:
The root server addresses should be signed with DNSSEC to enable a resolver to authenticate resource records within the priming response.
Because the root server IP address information and the root zone are closely correlated, both sets of information should continue to be hosted on the same servers.
Among the various options considered in this document, moving the root server names to the root zone (5.3), or adding a new TLD under the root zone (5.4) are both viable options that would result in signing the root server addresses. Additional studies are needed to determine which of these options, if any, would be more favorable than the other in practice.
ICANN received confirmation of understanding from the RSSAC on 1/17/18.
RSSAC038: RSSAC Advisory on a Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root Server System R-2
(6/14/18)
The ICANN org understands RSSAC038 Recommendation 2 is for the ICANN Board to estimate costs of the Root Server System and for developing the Model for implementation based on RSSAC037. The ICANN Board should refer to RSSAC037 section 5.5.3 in estimating these costs. Initial efforts should focus on developing a timeline for costing these. The RSSAC estimates the suggested costing effort should not take more than six months. ICANN sent this understanding to the RSSAC for review on 24 July 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC038 Recommendation 3 is for the ICANN Board and community to implement the final version of the Model for implementation based on RSSAC037 based upon the principles of accountability, transparency, sustainability, and service integrity. ICANN sent this understanding to the RSSAC for review on 24 July 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
RSSAC041: RSSAC Advisory on Organizational Reviews (R-1)
(10/5/18)
The ICANN org understands RSSAC041 Recommendation 5 to mean that at the conclusion of every organizational review, the ICANN org should report on how the process transpired. The ICANN org should demonstrate how the process will be modified if there are any lessons learned from the organizational review. The RSSAC confirmed this understanding on 13 June 2019.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC038 Recommendation 1 is for the ICANN Board to initiate a process to produce a final version of the Model for implementation based on RSSAC037. ICANN sent this understanding to the RSSAC for review on 24 July 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
3. Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
SAC102: SSAC Comment on the Updated Plan for Continuing the Root KSK Rollover
The ICANN org understands SAC102 is the SSAC's response to ICANN Board Resolution 2018.05.13.09. ICANN org understands the SSAC has not identified any reason within the SSAC's scope why the rollover should not proceed as currently planned. The SSAC suggests that ICANN establish a framework for scheduling further rolls of the root KSK based on analysis of the outcomes of this initial roll of the KSK. The ICANN org also understands five members of SSAC provided a dissent in SAC102 in which they believe that the risks of rolling in accordance with the current schedule are larger than the risks of postponing and focusing heavily on additional research and outreach, and in particular leveraging newly developed techniques that provide better signal and fidelity into potentially impacted parties. There is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the SSAC on 7 September 2018.
SAC060: Active Variant TLDs (2 of 14)
Phase 4 | Deferred
RZ-LGR-3 integrating 16 scripts is being released in July 2019. The inclusion of RZ-LGR to validate TLD labels and their variant labels has also been recommended as part of managing IDN variant TLDs. GNSO and ccNSO are currently considering this recommendation. The Study Group on Technical Utilization of Root Zone Label Generation Rules took up this item to discuss. Recommendation four (4) of their report suggests a way forward. This work has been released for public comment and will be finalized afterwards for further consideration of the ICANN Board. See report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-rz-lgr-14may... and public comment at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/technical-rz-lgr-2019-05-15-en. Further implementation of this item is deferred as of 30 June 2019 pending external activity. ICANN org will take up further work once the GNSO and ccNSO have considered these items as part of their policy development work.
ICANN org recently developed the Recommendations for Managing IDN Variant TLDs, published at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-variant-tld-implementation-201.... These have been adopted by ICANN Board at their meeting at ICANN64, where the Board asked the GNSO and ccNSO to consider these in their policy and procedures. Further implementation of this item is deferred as of 30 June 2019 pending external activity. ICANN org will take up further work once the GNSO and ccNSO have considered these items as part of their policy development work.
A detailed analysis has been publised as part of recommendations for managing IDN variant TLDs, which has been approved by ICANN Board at ICANN64. The analysis has been forwarded to the GNSO and ccNSO for their consideration for relevant policy and procedure development. The analysis is avaialble at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-variant-tld-implementation-201.... Specifically see section 3 of the report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendati....
SAC095: SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain Names R-1
On 2 Nov 2017, the ICANN Board directed the ICANN org to engage with gTLD and ccTLD communities on the findings and recommendations in SAC095 in addition to requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO integrate conformance with IDNA2008 and its successor into their relevant policies so as to safeguard security, stability, resiliency and interoperability of domain names (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-11-02-en...). IDN ccTLD Fast Track process already limits labels at top level to IDNA2008 which does not allow for emojis (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-pla...). Further, GNSO is considering limiting the TLDs to IDNA2008 (through the use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules) for the subsequent procedures for the gTLDs. The policy work is still under development by the community. Limiting TLDs to Root Zone LGRs is also recommended in the recent recommendations for IDN variant TLDs published at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-variant-tld-implementation-201... and adopted by the ICANN Board at ICANN64 for further consideration by GNSO and ccNSO. Finally the recent work on technical use of Root Zone LGR by the study group also recommends the same: see recommendations 1 and 2 in the report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/recommendations-rz-lgr-14may.... Further implementation of this item is deferred as of 30 June 2019 pending external activity. ICANN org will take up further work once the GNSO and ccNSO have considered these items as part of their policy development work.
On 2 Nov 2017, the ICANN Board directed the ICANN org to engage with gTLD and ccTLD communities on the findings and recommendations in SAC095 in addition to requesting that the ccNSO and GNSO integrate conformance with IDNA2008 and its successor into their relevant policies so as to safeguard security, stability, resiliency and interoperability of domain names (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-11-02-en...). Registrations under gTLDs are limited to IDNA2008 under the new gTLDs program. So registrations for such gTLDs do not permit emojis. The same restrictions are also also extended for contracts for other gTLDs. There is active outreach to the ccTLDs for following the same practice, and not register emojis, by ICANN org's GSE team and the IDN program team. ICANN org has also translated the advice from SSAC to training materials, e.g. see the flyer and its translations at the bottom of the webpage www.icann.org/idn - which is being disseminated by the GSE team.
SAC045: Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System (R-6)
This advice item requires further policy determination. ICANN will refer this advice to the GNSO for consideration.
SAC046: Report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on Root Scaling (R-4)
The plan will be updated to include actual measurement, monitoring, and datasharing capability of root zone performance, in cooperation with RSSAC and other root zone management participants to define the specific measurements, monitoring, and data sharing framework.
SAC047: SSAC Comment on the ICANN gTLD Registry Transition Processes Model (2 of 7)
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the CEO or his designee to implement the advice (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...).
SAC051: SSAC Report on WHOIS Terminology and Structure (R-2)
The Board accepted this advice in October 2011 and requested that a roadmap to implementation of SAC051 be developed (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2011-10-28-en#5). A roadmap to implementing SAC051 was published for public comment in February 2012: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-6-2012-06-04-en. Implementation of this specific advice item is ongoing. ICANN is determining how to implement the new protocol in the gTLD space. The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) has submitted proposals/correspondence to ICANN regarding the registration data access protocol (RDAP) implementation: Initial Proposal, May 2017: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-03m... ICANN's response, June 2017: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/atallah-to-diaz-16j... Updated proposal, June 2017: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-22j... Adoption of Temporary Specification, May 2018: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en
SAC059: R-1 Interdisciplinary studies of security and stability implications from expanding the root zone
Issues related to the expansion of the root zone have been/are being considered through other means, including Name Collision and DNSSEC roll over. Other reports on the expansion of the root zone include: - Scaling the Root Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/root-scaling-study-report-31... - Summary of the Impact of Root Zone Scaling: https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-of-impact-root-zon... - Impact on Root Server Operations and Provisioning Due to New gTLDs: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/root-scaling... - Continuous Data Driven Analysis of Root Server System Stability Study Plan (Public Comment): https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cdar-study-plan-2015-12-02-en ICANN continues to work to address the issues identified in SAC059.
The IDN Guidelines have been updated to encourage the use reference LGRs which allow for consistent set of rules between top-level and second level. See recommendations eight (8) and nine (9) of the guidelines: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-10may18-en.pdf. The Guidelines are being considered by the ICANN Board. GNSO recently requested deferring their approval by the Board as it considers if some of these guidelines come under their policy remit. The reference second LGRs are posted at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/second-level-lgr-2015-06-21-en. The root zone LGR is posted at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en. IANA also maintains a central repository for IDN tables for all TLDs.
SAC064: SSAC Advisory on DNS "Search List" Processing (R-2)
The ICANN organization understands that SAC064 R-2 means that the SSAC recommends that ICANN organization work with the DNS community and the IETF to encourage the standardization of search list processing behavior, beginning with the submission of an Internet-Draft to the IETF and advocating for its standardization within the IETF process. Updates to RFC 1535 and other RFCs related to this topic should be included within the Internet-Draft. On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
The ICANN organization understands that SAC064 R-3 means that the SSAC recommends that in the context of mitigating name collisions, ICANN should consider the following steps to address search list processing behavior: a. ICANN should consider whether to commission additional studies to further understand the cause of invalid queries to the root zone and the significance of search list processing as a contributor to those queries. b. ICANN should communicate to system administrators that search list behaviors currently implemented in some operating systems will cause collision with names delegated as new gTLDs from the 2012 application round for the New gTLD Program. On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
SAC065: SSAC Advisory on DDoS Attacks Leveraging DNS Infrastructure (R-1)
The ICANN organization understands that SAC065 R-1 means that ICANN should help to facilitate an Internet-wide community effort to reduce the number of open resolvers and networks that allow network spoofing. This initiative, which should involve measurement efforts and outreach, should be supported by ICANN with appropriate staffing and funding to promote the recommendations made in SAC065 Recommendations 2-5. On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
SAC070: Advisory on the Use of Static TLD / Suffix Lists (R-5)
The ICANN organization understands recommendation 5 of SAC070 as directing IANA staff to host an authoritative PSL containing information about the domains within the registries with which IANA has direct communication. This list should at least include all TLDs in the root zone. On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
SAC070: SSAC Advisory on the Use of Static TLD/Suffix Lists (R-3)
The ICANN organization understands this recommendation to mean that ICANN, in concert with the Mozilla Foundation, prepare educational materials on the Mozilla PSL covering the meaning of the resource and the impact of the resource. On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
SAC097: SSAC Advisory Regarding the Centralized Zone Data Service (CZDS) and Registry Operator Monthly Activity Reports, R-1
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN President and CEO or his designee to implement an auto-renew feature in the CZDS system (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...). CZDS platform migration is complete, making it possible to add new features to address the problem of gaps in user access to zone files. The feature has been scoped and is in the process of being added to the next product road map for future system enhancements. A target completion date is not yet available, but a more substantive update should be available in 1QFY2020.
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN President and CEO or his designee to adjust the zone file access subscription agreement to the extent necessary to accommodate the implementation of Recommendation 1 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...). ICANN org is targeting to send necessary notification to the Subsequent Procedures WG in Q1 2019.
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN President and CEO or his designee to produce educational materials for registry operators to increase their awareness of ICANN's expectations with respect to zone file access (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...). During CZDS platform migration, a new feature was added to provide an option to the registry operators to automatically approve a request as soon as it is received. Adoption rate of 38% percent of TLDs helped reduce the number of complaints due to delays.
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN President and CEO or his designee to clarify the Zone File Access (ZFA) metric and to support registry operators to increase the accuracy of the public reporting for Webbased WHOIS query statistics (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...). ICANN org is targeting publication of educational materials to help registry operators report zone file access and web-based WHOIS query statistics more accurately, according to well-defined standards by the end of Q2 2019.
SAC101v2: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data (R-1)
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and accepted Recommendation 1 and directed the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to create a plan that reports on ICANN org's and the community's progress toward the four objectives identified in the advice (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "In accepting advice item one, the Board further notes that the creation of an "accredited RDDS access program," is a topic under discussion in the EPDP Phase 2. The Board cannot dictate outcomes of PDPs. Once the EPDP delivers its final Phase 2 report, the Board will consider the policy recommendations."
SAC101v2: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data (R-2B)
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and accepted Recommendation 1 and directed the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the community to clarify existing contractual obligations relating to rate limits (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board state "Advice item 2B suggests that the Board direct ICANN org to work with the community to 'clarify current expectations for the use of rate limiting under existing policy and agreements.' In accepting advice item 2B, the Board notes that the community should be involved in the discussion to clarify existing contractual obligations relating to rate limits."
SAC058: R-3 SSAC Report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation
The ICANN organization understands SAC058 Recommendation 3 to mean that the ICANN community should seek to identify validation techniques to be used by registrars and registries for validating registration data. On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and directed the CEO or his designee to implement the advice (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...).
SAC061: R-2 SSAC Comment on ICANN's Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and noted that implementation has been completed (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...). Subsequently, on 2 August 2018 the SSAC contacted the ICANN org to oppose this determination and requested the ICANN org change SAC061 Recommendation 2's status from 'Closed' to 'Open." Upon review of SAC061 and SAC101v2, the ICANN org has returned SAC061 to Phase 2 | Understand. SAC061 Recommendation 2 will be considered in conjunction with SAC101v2. On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item five reiterates Recommendation 2 from SAC061 and suggests that 'The ICANN Board should ensure that a formal security risk assessment of the registration data policy be conducted as an input into the Policy Development Process. A separate security risk assessment should also be conducted regarding the implementation of the policy.' The advice further suggests that 'These assessments should be incorporated in PDP plans at the GNSO.' As the advice suggests that the assessments be incorporated into PDP plans and the GNSO is the manager of PDPs, the Board notes and refers this advice to the GNSO Council."
SAC062: SSAC Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk (R-1)
On 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed the ICANN organization to implement per the ICANN organization's recommendation (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en...).
SAC063: SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone - Item 1
On 15 October 2018 ICANN org determined that the first-ever changing of the cryptographic key that helps protect the DNS has been completed with minimal disruption of the global Internet (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-10-15-en). The communication plan is part of the overall KSK Rollover Project. See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover.
On 15 October 2018 ICANN org determined that the first-ever changing of the cryptographic key that helps protect the DNS has been completed with minimal disruption of the global Internet (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-10-15-en). The test pass is part of the overall KSK Rollover Project. See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover.
On 15 October 2018 ICANN org determined that the first-ever changing of the cryptographic key that helps protect the DNS has been completed with minimal disruption of the global Internet (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-10-15-en). The data collection program is part of the overall KSK Rollover Project. See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover.
SAC073: SSAC Comments on Root Zone Key Signing Key Rollover Plan
On 15 October 2018 ICANN org determined that the first-ever changing of the cryptographic key that helps protect the DNS has been completed with minimal disruption of the global Internet (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-10-15-en). See: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover.
SAC074: SSAC Advisory on Registrant Protection: Best Practices for Preserving Security and Stability in the Credential Management Lifecycle - Item 4
At GDD Industry Summit 2019 in Bangkok in May 2019 (https://www.icann.org/gddsummit), a session on Credential Management Lifecycle was conducted. A team of community experts presented an educational material that was shared with the SSAC prior to the session for input and guidance. A community wiki space has been established for the community to share good practices in credential management. The sharing of the good practices and community awareness will continue with the participation of the community.
SAC090: SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace, R-1
On 23 June 2018, the Board accepted this advice and will ask the GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP to include this recommendation in its work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-06-23-en...).
SAC098: The Security, Stability and Resiliency of the DNS Review (SSR2)
On 28 October 2017, the Board issued a letter to the SSR2 Review Team instructing the team to pause all work related to the review, excepting only planned engagement meetings at ICANN 60 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-ssr2-28o...). On 7 June 2018 ICANN Org announced the formal restart of the SSR2 Review with four additional Review Team members (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-06-07-en).
SAC101v2: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data (R-2A)
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item 2A suggests that the Board direct ICANN org to work with the community to 'develop policy with clearly defined uniform purposes for RDDS rate-limiting and corresponding service level agreement requirements.' As policy is developed by the community and this topic is in the work plan for the EPDP Phase 2, the Board notes this advice and refers to the GNSO Council as the manager of PDPs. In taking this action, the Board also notes that in the Annex to the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, the Board asked that the topic of rate limit be discussed and resolved by the community as quickly as possible."
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item three suggests that the 'Board and EPDP policy-makers should ensure that security practitioners and law enforcement authorities have access to domain name contact data, via RDDS, to the full extent allowed by applicable law.' As this is a policy matter and the topic is in the work plan for the EPDP Phase 2, the Board notes this advice and refers to the GNSO Council as the manager of PDPs."
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item four suggests that 'initiation of charges for RDS access, or any significant future changes in fees for RDDS access, must include a formal assessment of user impacts and the security and stability impacts, and be conducted as part of a formal Policy Development Process (PDP).' As this is a policy matter and the topic is in the work plan for the EPDP Phase 2, the Board notes this advice and refers to the GNSO Council as the manager of PDPs."
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item five reiterates Recommendation 2 from SAC061 and suggests that 'The ICANN Board should ensure that a formal security risk assessment of the registration data policy be conducted as an input into the Policy Development Process. A separate security risk assessment should also be conducted regarding the implementation of the policy.' The advice further suggests that 'These assessments should be incorporated in PDP plans at the GNSO.' As the advice suggests that the assessments be incorporated into PDP plans and the GNSO is the manager of PDPs, the Board notes and refers this advice to the GNSO Council."
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en...). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item six suggests that the 'ICANN Board should direct the ICANN Organization to work to ensure that all methods of access to RDDS data provide an equivalent response to the same query.' As this is a policy matter and the topic is in the work plan for the EPDP Phase 2, the Board notes this advice and refers to the GNSO Council as the manager of PDPs."
On 23 June 2019 the ICANN Board considered SAC101v2 and noted advice items 2A and three through seven in SAC101 version 2 and referred them to the GNSO Council for consideration for inclusion in the EPDP Phase 2 work (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-06-23-en#1.c). In its rationale the Board states "Advice item seven suggests that the 'ICANN Board should direct the ICANN Organization to work to ensure that RDDS access is provided in a measurable and enforceable framework, which can be understood by all parties.' As this is a policy matter and the topic is in the work plan for the EPDP Phase 2, the Board notes this advice and refers to the GNSO Council as the manager of PDPs."
Advice Items Closed in the Last 12 Months
Date Closed
Joint GAC-ALAC Statement on the EPDP
(25 Mar 2019)
The ICANN org understands that this is the Joint GAC-ALAC Statement on the EPDP. As this item will be considered via the Public Comment process, the item will be considered closed. The Board will provide its rationale for its action in the Board Resolution on the EPDP Recommendations. This understanding was sent to the ALAC on 7 May 2019.
Follow-Up to the Joint Statement by ALAC and GAC: Enabling Inclusive, Informed and Meaningful Participation at ICANN
(12 Dec 2018)
On 27 January 2019 the Board addressed this advice in their Barcelona Scorecard. Additionally, Cherine Chalaby included a response in his 6 February 2019 letter to Maureen Hilyard. On 23 April 2019 the ICANN org notified the ALAC this advice is considered closed due to these two responses.
Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM
(5 Jun 2018)
The ICANN org understands that this is the ALAC statement regarding Release for Registration one .COM Domain Name with a Single-Character Label: O.COM. This statement was submitted as part of a public comment and there is no action for the ICANN Board.
RSSAC042: RSSAC Statement on Root Server Operator Independence
The ICANN org understands RSSAC042 illustrates important aspects of Root Server Operator (RSO) independence: organizational independence, financial independence, architecture and engineering design, and network operations and administration. RSO independence is a vital quality of the RSS that must be preserved for the purposes recognized in this publication and to ensure the stability, security, and resilience of the DNS.
As RSSAC042 does not contain any recommendations for the ICANN Board, the ICANN Org understands that there is no action for the ICANN Board and the item is closed. ICANN sent this understanding to the RSSAC for review on 11 Jun 2019.
RSSAC036: RSSAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Second Organizational Review of the RSSAC
The ICANN org understands that this statement is the RSSAC036: RSSAC Statement on the Draft Final Report of the Second Organizational Review of the RSSAC. As this item will be considered via the Public Comment process, there is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 19 July 2018.
RSSAC037: A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root Server System
The ICANN org understands that this is a detailed proposal of a governance model for the DNS Root Server System. The ICANN org understands the proposal document itself does not contain any recommendation items for the ICANN Board. There is no action for the ICANN Board for RSSAC037. ICANN sent this understanding to the RSSAC for review on 24 July 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
RSSAC039: RSSAC Statement Regarding ICANN's Updated KSK Rollover Plan R-1
(7 Aug 2018)
The ICANN org understands the RSSAC has heard from some members of the technical community that have expressed concern that an increase in traffic from misconfigured resolvers may occur after the October 11th, 2018 date in the rollover plan. ICANN org also understands the RSSAC is not aware of any method able to estimate such a potential load increase and that the RSSAC believes that there is little risk of this occurring and that there will be no impact to the stability of the RSS even if such a load increase occurs. There is no action for the ICANN Board. The RSSAC confirmed this understanding on 17 September 2018.
ICANN org understands the RSSAC advises the KSK rollover back out plan should be reviewed by all parties in the rollover (RSOs, RZERC, and IANA) to ensure it remains adequate and implementable. There is no action for the ICANN Board. The RSSAC confirmed this understanding on 17 September 2018.
RSSAC040: Recommendations on Anonymization Processes for Source IP Addresses Submitted for Future Analysis R-1
The ICANN org understands RSSAC040 Recommendation 1 is for the Root Server Operators to consider the advantages and disadvantages of harmonization of anonymization for DITL Data. There is no action for the ICANN Board. The RSSAC confirmed this understanding on 17 September 2018.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC040 Recommendation 2 is for each RSO to consider anonymization procedures in RSSAC040 individually. There is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 7 September 2018.
The ICANN org understands RSSAC040 Recommendation 3 is for Autonomous System (AS) numbers of original addresses should be made available with the anonymized data if the origin AS is sufficiently general that it does not unnecessarily expose data that should have been anonymized. There is no action for the ICANN Board. The RSSAC confirmed this understanding on 17 September 2018.
RSSAC032: Feedback on the Independent Review of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Assessment Report for Public Consultation
The ICANN org understands this is the RSSAC's Feedback on the Independent Review of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Assessment Report for Public Consultation. The RSSAC requests that the independent examiner reviews their stated concerns and applies them in the formulation of independent examiner's recommendations. There is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 24 April 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
RSSAC033: RSSAC Statement on the Distinction Between RSSAC and Root-Ops
(24 Apr 2018)
The ICANN org understands that RSSAC033 is the RSSAC's statement on the distinction between RSSAC and Root-Ops. The RSSAC is providing this document to help explain the differences between the two functional bodies, as confusion between the two has been noted. The document is informational only and there is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 5 June 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
RSSAC034: Report from the RSSAC May 2018 Workshop
(9 May 2018)
The ICANN organization understands that this is a high-level summary of the outcomes of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) sixth workshop held from 1 May 2018 to 3 May 2018. There is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 16 May 2018. ICANN received confirmation of understanding on 17 August 2018.
RSSAC003: RSSAC Report on Root Zone TTLs
(21 Aug 2015)
Closure notification letter sent to Board on 23 April 2018. RSSAC notified via ARR Tool as well.
SAC105 The DNS and the Internet of Things: Opportunities, Risks, and Challenges
(3 Jun 2019) 6/3/19 The ICANN org understands that the aim of SAC105: The DNS and the Internet of Things: Opportunities, Risks, and Challenges is to trigger and facilitate dialogue in the broader ICANN community. The ICANN org understands that SAC105 does not contain any recommendations nor does it solicit any actions from the ICANN Community or Board and therefore the item will be considered closed. This understanding was sent to the SSAC on 3 June 2019.
SAC104: SSAC Comment on Initial Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process
The ICANN org understands that this statement is the SAC104: SSAC Comment on Initial Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process. As this item will be considered via the Public Comment process, there is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the SSAC on 3 January 2019.
SAC101: SSAC Advisory Regarding Access to Domain Name Registration Data R-1
This recommendation is part of Version 1 of SAC101. ICANN closed recommendations under Version 1 on 12 December 2018 upon receipt of Version 2. As stated by the SSAC in SAC101v2, "Version 2 of SAC101 was published to reflect evolving circumstances related to ICANN's Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, and the ongoing Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. Version 1 of SAC101 has been retired and version 2 is authoritative."
SAC103: SSAC Response to the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Initial Report
(3 Oct 2018)
The ICANN org understands that this statement is the SAC103: SSAC Response to the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Initial Report. As this item will be considered via the Public Comment process, there is no action for the ICANN Board. This understanding was sent to the RSSAC on 1 November 2018.
(23 Jul 2013)
Completion letter sent to Board on 12 June 2018.
SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
Archived Status Reports
February 2019 [PDF | XLSX] | March 2019 [PDF | XLSX] | April 2019 [PDF | XLSX]
Historical Advice
In October 2016, ICANN issued a status report to the ALAC, RSSAC and SSAC on historical advice to the ICANN Board issued between 2010 and mid-2015. The Board's status reports on historical items can be found below. Updated Status on all items can be found in the reports listed above.
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (19 October 2016) [PDF]
Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) (19 October 2016) [PDF]
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) (19 October 2016) [PDF]
Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The text provided in this database explaining Resolutions is an interpretation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanation or interpretation modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further action by the ICANN Board.


text:
Helga's Dowry: A Troll Love Story
by By: Tomie DePaola
From best-selling author and illustrator, Tomie dePaola, comes this folktale of a determined and self-reliant troll learning the importance of being true to yourself.
Helga, a troll, must somehow acquire a dowry with which to marry or, by the god Odin's command, be doomed to wander the earth forever. After Lars, her true love, is tempted away from her side by a rich dowry, Helga decides to go and earn a dowry of her own! Her cleverness, humor, and insight into people help her stand on her own two feet and be loved for who she is.
Grade(s): Pre-K-3
Tomie dePaola is the author and/or illustrator of more than 250 books for children. He receive a Caldecott Honor for Strega Nona and a Newbery Honor for 26 Fairmont Avenue. He is also the recipient of the American Library Association's Laura Ingalls Wilder Award for his substantial and lasting contributions to children's literature. He lives in New London, New Hampshire. Visit his website at www.tomie.com.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


SCARLET GERANIUMS.—Specimens of two soils from Sussex were lately analysed by Professor Way, the Consulting Chemist to the English Agricultural Society, and found by him to be "exactly alike," both in their mechanical and chemical properties; yet the two samples were respectively from the best and from the worst wheat land in the county. This is sufficiently curious, if not puzzling; but not more so, I think, than that two plants raised from seeds out of one pod should vary so much in their natures, that one of them refuses to bloom freely, or even to put out its leaves kindly, in the same bed, or on the same kind of soil, where the other flourishes in all the beauty of its native race. Yet such is a fact, which certain seedlings of Scarlet geraniums have clearly established, and of which I have often remarked in these pages. Of these scarlet geraniums for flower-beds I said enough last autumn, but to those new readers who may not have that part of the work, their names may be acceptable. Shrubland Scarlet is the strongest of them all, and has the largest truss. Smith's Emperor and Superb, Prince of Wales, and several other names are also given to seedlings of this variety which never fail to come true from seeds. I have reared hundreds of them from seeds, but never saw any variation, except in the leaf. The next largest trusser is a new one, sold last year by Mr. Ayres, of Blackheath, called The Gem of Scarlets. Conway's Royalist and Frost's Compactum are the two next largest trussers, both of them being well horse-shoe marked in the leaf. The Royalist is, indeed, the best "horse-shoe" geranium I have seen. Our seedling Punch is a far better bedder and trusser than either of the above, except the Shrubland Scarlet, on our light soil, but on rich or heavy land it does no good. Nine or ten celebrated seedlings have passed through my hands, which do remarkably well in the places where they originated, and in many other localities, but I failed to establish them here. Tom Thumb is one of the number. On the whole, therefore, to give a good list of scarlet geraniums would be as likely to disappoint as to be of general use.
I have often said, one can hardly have too many scarlet geraniums; and I only know of one bed in a good flower-garden where they come amiss, and that is in the centre bed of a regular figure of any shape where the rest of the beds come all round it. No matter what beautiful plants and flowers may occupy the rest of the beds, the eye will pass over them and rest on the brilliancy of the centre mass. Besides, some shades of pink and purple, which might occupy any of the beds next the centre one, would be neutralised by the scarlet in it; a neutral bed should always occupy the centre round which the chief colours in flower-garden plants are to be arranged; and for such a centre bed I know of no plant more suitable than Mangle's Variegated Geranium. The flowers of this are small, and of a light pink shade, but the whiteness of the leaves drown the pink colour so far as to establish a neutral bed; and any colour may be placed next to this bed without imparing its strength, and yet we cannot call it a white bed. The old Bouvardia and the Zauchsneria would pass for small scarlet beds, and so might the old Alonsoa; but where scarlet verbenas and geraniums are much used, these things are too sober or subdued colours for a good arrangement of tints; and they are only fit for a miscellaneous assemblage of beds where no decided system of arranging the colours is attempted.
PURPLE.—I find this colour the most difficult to represent properly, either in shades of purple or strictly as a distinct colour. We have not a single true purple verbena yet worth planting as such, but they furnish abundance of shades. I thought, from a figure and description of the Royal Purple Verbena in "The Florist," that at last the desideratum was supplied, but I was deceived; and Walton's Emma is still the best purple verbena we have for a bed, but it is too dark for a real purple. The next best purple is Heloise, a beautiful bedding verbena, but still not a true purple. Plant either of these two best purple verbenas alongside of the light purple variety of the American groundsel, or the petunia, nearest to that colour, and you will soon see the reason I have for saying that we have no real purple amongst the verbenas. The original red or purple petunia, P. phoenicea, has not yet been improved on in colour for a bed in that family, though we have several as good and many better ones with darker or lighter shades of purple; but we have nothing better than a petunia that will do for a bed to last out the season.
We do not, in these days, call a plant fit for a flower-garden because it is a beautiful mass of colour while it lasts, which may not be longer than from a month to six weeks, unless it has other properties equally valuable in the eyes of a flower-gardener. One of the most essential secondary qualities of a flower-garden plant is to have creeping or very numerous fibrous roots, so as to enable the planter to remove it from place to place, either in the reserve garden before a place is open for it in the flower-garden, or from the flower-bed after it has done flowering. People who know little of these things will sit down and write you a fine story about the "facilities in these our days" for keeping up a succession of bloom, for a whole season, anywhere; all that you have to do is to remove everything as fast as it gets out of bloom, and fill up its place with something else brought forward on purpose in pots, or in the reserve garden; and really on paper it does seem very easy to do all this. But having for the last ten years paid particular attention to this branch of gardening—as much so, indeed, as any gardener in this country, and having also as much money allowed for carrying out my plans as most gardeners—I can safely repeat that this is the most difficult branch of our art, and the least understood by all our writers on gardening, mysolf among the number. The most successful results at flower-gardening are to be obtained by the least number of plants, provided that as many are used as will give all the principal colours of scarlet, purple, pink, blue, yellow, lilac, and white.
The most dwarf purple-flowering plant for this kind of gardening is verbena Sabina; and though not a good purple, it is still a very useful plant for the smallest bed. The best contrast to it in another shade of purple is Lobelia unidentata, also a very low plant for little beds. Lantana Sellowii is a reddish purple plant, extremely rich in a bed; and the same plants may be taken up on the approach of frost, and used for four or five years in succession. It seeds freely, can be got by cuttings as easily as a verbena, and delights in the richest soil if it is light. There should be a bed or two of this Lantana in every good flower-garden. Phlox Drummondi—There are two or three good shades of purple to be had from this beautiful annual, which is as good as any perennial for the flower-garden, as it blooms on from the end of June until cut by the frost. Where great stress is laid on having the best shades of colour, a few of the desired tints of this phlox ought to be preserved in pots, and propagated in the spring from cuttings. Indeed, this is the best way to deal with all the best varieties of it; and some of them are extremely pretty. But, in general, a packet of seeds will furnish a good bed. I sow this about the first week in April, in a little heat, for the seedlings do not rise so freely in strong heat. The old Verbena venosa is a good purple, but, like some of the purple petunias, the plant itself is coarse. If it is not quite hardy, it is the next thing to it, and that is a great recommendation. The best way to manage it for the flower-garden, is to fork out the roots every spring when the beds are being dressed; to cut them into six-inch lengths; and, after trenching the bed, to plant these pieces rather thickly.
COMBINATION OF COLOURS.—This verbena exemplifies, in a high degree, what I said about the necessity of taking the tint of the leaves into account iu arranging colours in a flower-garden. Few would believe that a bright scarlet and a good purple would answer well together in the same bed, because the scarlet would be so apt to neutralise the purple. Thus, if you plant an equal quantity of the best scarlet verbena with Emma or Heloise, the best purple ones of the same creeping habit, you will find that two good colours are completely spoiled, or, at any rate, that the scarlet will carry the palm. If it were possible to mix a white verbena along with these, so that there would be one-third more white flowers than of scarlet and purple ones, an extremely pretty bed would be the result; but such arrangements can only be managed with cut flowers, and that is the easiest way to learn how to harmonise or contrast colours for beds. It is ten times easier and more safe than studying the colours from printed arrangements; and the way to do it is as follows:—Take the lid of an old box (the larger it is the better) and lay an inch of earth all over it of a darkish colour. I have used sand for this purpose, but it is treacherous; as the white or yellow sand gives the effect of its shade to the composition —dark brown loam is the best. Then, on a fine sunny day in summer, lay the board or lid on a plot of grass, or on a gravel walk, according as the flower-beds may be on the grass or surrounded by gravel. Take the flowers of two or more plants you wish to mix together, and some of the leaves of each plant; then make a flower-bed by sticking the flowers in the mould on the board, and a few leaves along with each flower or bunch of flowers. Now, about mid-day, step back three yards from your model bed, with the sun behind you, and if you see no fault in your composition, walk round to the opposite point, and look at it against the sun; if you are still satisfied, leave it till four, or half-past four, in the afternoon, and then look at it from the same points as before. The sun will then be striking sideways against the colours, and if there is any defect in the arrangement, it is sure to come out now. Yet be in no hurry to give it up—look at it next day from the same points between ten and eleven o'clock in the forenoon; and this should be repeated on a cloudy day before a final judgment is passed. It is unnecessary to observe that the colours may be arranged in any way one pleases on this board; but, in all cases, the leaves of the plants which produce the colours must be used, and why, I shall give an example next week.


text:
Alhambra Guitars: reviews of the best Alhambra Guitars
Alhambra for beginners
Alhambra 2C
Alhambra for the initiated
Alhambra 5P CT E2
Alhambra for professionals
Alhambra 11 P
Luxury Alhambra
Alhambra Vilaplana Excellence
Which Alhambra guitar to buy? The best options for beginners, intermediate and advanced levels.
An Alhambra guitar evokes Francisco Tárrega and transports us to the city of Granada. Its hallmarks? Tradition and technology. Alhambra guitars, with more than fifty years of experience behind them, are still handcrafted with the best quality materials and following the highest manufacturing standards. For this reason, it is said that they are the duende of the classical, flamenco and acoustic guitar.
Buying an Alhambra guitar is a great decision. For this reason, we have selected the best Alhambra classical guitars with the best value for money. We will also take this opportunity to tell you a little bit of the history of this house and everything you need to know to make the right decision.
History of the Alhambra guitar
In the 1960s, the world saw the emergence of some of the greatest electric guitar players, such as Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Frank Zappa and many others. While this was happening, one of the best classical guitar brands was taking its first steps in Spain: Alhambra. From the association between Francisco Martínez Clavel, Ricardo Llorens and José María Vilaplana, the first prototype of an Alhambra Spanish guitar was born.
After having perfected this first model, the three partners created "Manufacturas Jachi". However, a few years later, in 1965, the company was re-founded with other members and with the name that we all recognize today: "Manufacturas Alhambra S.A.". Over the years, this company has earned a special place in the market of Spanish and classical guitars, thanks to its love for tradition and also to the use of the best woods in the world.
Woods used in Alhambra guitars
Traditionally, each company has sought to develop its own quality standards for the classification of its components in order to take full advantage of the virtues of the materials. This is an inescapable reality in the Alhambra family. Despite using the same types of wood as the rest of the luthiers, this brand has created its own classification method to use and enhance each of the materials in a sustainable way.
The classification system for Alhambra guitars is as follows:
Beginners: Class A and A+ woods
Intermediate level: Class AA and AA+ woods.
Advanced level: AA+, AAA and AAA+ woods.
Exotics: They use AAA, AAA+ class woods of Pacific red cedar, Canadian spruce, olive, white ebony, Indian rosewood, river rosewood, pink peroba, cocobolo, samanguila, among other exotic species. For this reason, they are the most expensive guitars and the most difficult to acquire.
The most common woods used in these Spanish guitars are:
Top: Solid cedar and spruce are the most used.
Back and sides: Sapelli, Indian rosewood, olive, white ebony, cocobolo, pink peroba, river rosewood.
Handle: Samanguila, cedar, ebony reinforcements.
Fingerboard: Rosewood, ebony.
Thanks to this classification, every user of an Alhambra guitar can be completely sure of the quality of its woods and also of the company's ecological commitment. The company has strict controls for the felling, reforestation and optimal sawing of the trees from which it obtains its raw material.
Alhambra Flamenco and Classical Guitars
The Spanish classical guitar is the specialty of the Alhambra brand. All their guitars are made with a solid top, but designs and materials vary depending on the needs of beginner (studio), intermediate (conservatory) and advanced (concert) guitarists.
Alhambra also has an extensive catalog of black and white flamenco guitars that provide the traditional sound that flamenco guitarists are looking for. To achieve this, they use the best quality woods, such as cypress, sycamore, Indian rosewood, olive and others, as well as cedar or German spruce for the top. In addition to its concert, conservatory and studio models, the catalog includes three Alhambra flamenco guitars made to the specifications of guitarist Carlos Piñana.
The firm's wide range of options also includes Alhambra acoustic guitars, cutaway models of classical and flamenco guitars, left-handed guitars and other stringed instruments such as bandurrias and lutes.
Alhambra competitions for guitarists
In 1990, to celebrate its 25th anniversary, Alhambra created a contest in which musicians from all over the world apply and compete to be recognized as the brand's number one for two years. In addition to the honor of this recognition, the winner receives a monetary prize of 14,000 euros, the production of a CD, concerts and exclusive artistic diffusion by Alhambra.
Currently the Alhambra Guitar Competition has fourteen dates celebrated, in which guitarists from all over the world have gathered in Spain to compete and demonstrate their skills as interpreters of the Spanish guitar. This universality of entries and winners reflects the fact that this house is known and praised all over the world.
The best Alhambra guitars for beginners:
Alhambra 3F Flamenco
The best Alhambra guitars for intermediate players:
Alhambra 7P Classic
The best Alhambra guitar for advanced musicians:
The best luxury Alhambra guitar:
The best Alhambra guitars for beginners
Every beginner guitarist needs to have an instrument that meets their most basic needs in terms of ergonomics, sound quality and ease of tuning. For this reason, we have selected what we consider to be the two best Spanish Alhambra guitars for beginners.
It lacks harmonics, although all Alhambra studio guitars (entry-level) are deficient in harmonics.
Technical Characteristics:
Woods: solid cedar, sapelli, rosewood, type A.
Scale: 65 cm.
Sound: high volume and few harmonics.
The Alhambra 2C is one of the most popular student guitars of the brand. This is due to the middle ground in which it's located, both in performance and price. The 2C differs from the Z-Nature series and the Alhambra 1C in that it has a gentler feel on the fingers. It's also more appreciated than the Alhambra 3C series, because it uses the same woods and the feel is similar, but it's cheaper.
The Alhambra 2C, like all Alhambra studio guitars, uses both cedar and German spruce. These woods have a great resistance to fractures and an excellent sonorous capacity. Another type of wood used in this guitar is Sapelli in the sides, back and neck. This material has a bending strength of 1,150 kg per cm2, which provides a full guarantee of strength.
On the other hand, the fingerboard and bridge are made of a variety of rosewood known as albergia Latifolia. This is a wood from India and has the highest strength in its family.
This guitar has the standard size of a classical guitar. A scale, as a rule, should measure 650 mm, while the height of the strings varies from 4 to 5 mm. In the Alhambra C2, the height is 4 mm, unlike the Alhambra C1 which has 5 mm.
The tuning keys are basic, nickel-plated with white knobs. Its finish shows the natural color of the wood with a glossy polyurethane coating.
Ergonomics:
Also, this affordable Alhambra guitar has a softer and gentler feel than its sisters, the Alhambra Z-Nature and the Alhambra C1. The chords are no more demanding than other student guitars and the arpeggios at the top of the frets require little force. However, this becomes more difficult as you play frets five through ten.
Phrasing is no problem, whether you are playing from frets 1 to 5 or from 5 to 12. But as expected, everything is complicated from the 12th to the 19th fret and this is always the case with guitars that do not have a cutaway.
The sound is round, full-bodied and well balanced. The drones are expressed without being metallic and the transition between them and the middle/high notes has a good richness of nuances.
The strumming is very good and powerful, but reaching an optimal execution of compositions in the style of "Capricho Arabe" and "La Catedral" will be difficult because the volume, touch and especially the harmonics will not help much.
Regarding the latter, we must admit that this model (like all the inexpensive Alhambra guitars of this series) lacks harmonics, and the few that are perceived have little volume. However, this is common to all entry-level student guitars.
Otherwise, this guitar has a modern sound and is great for ballads. If your thing is not classical, but something more bluesy, the Alhambra C2 will also suit you very well.
From our perspective, this is the best guitar in the series for studio because it has superior characteristics to the Alhambra Z-Nature and C1. It also has a similar balance to the Alhambra C3 and C4, although it doesn't reach the level of the Iberia Ziricote, which features AA woods and is a transition to the conservatory series.
We recommend it for all beginners and intermediate students who need to buy an Alhambra guitar on a tight budget. Find the best price at thomann.
AA woods and MRF reinforcement, soft touch, good sound.
It lacks some volume.
Woods: solid German spruce, sycamore, sapele, rosewood, all class AA.
Scale: 650 mm.
Sound: powerful, balanced and with good ammonics.
The Alhambra 3F is in the first step of the Alhambra flamenco guitars. It's superior to the 2F in feel and sound, but reaches levels comparable to those of the conservatory type, albeit a bit more affordable. It's for this reason that we will describe it in this review.
The Alhambra 3F has a German spruce top, even though thomann's description states that it's spruce. This error may perhaps be due to the fact that Norway spruce is also known as false "spruce", although a "false" wood can never be considered as class AA.
One of the impressive features of this solid German spruce top is its ability to vibrate, with a modulus of elasticity of approximately 110,000 kg/cm2. Indeed, woods from Germany, a country with an average annual temperature of 9°C, become more elastic when moved to regions with warmer climates such as Spain.
The sides and back are made of sycamore (ficus sycomorus), an Egyptian wood that is of higher quality than European and Californian sycamore, more resistant and with better acoustic capacity. It was Paco de Lucia who popularized this wood when he realized its great sound potential.
The neck of this Alhambra guitar is made of sapele, a porous and very hard wood, which contributes to its durability and sound. It also incorporates the characteristic Indian rosewood (dalbergia latifolia). This material is traditionally used in the construction of guitars for its hardness and acoustic capacity.
This Alhambra flamenco guitar has a 650 mm scale, which is the typical measurement for both classical and flamenco guitars, and the same goes for the nut width, which is 52 mm. Nevertheless, as a flamenca, it has a soundboard with a width of 9.3 cm at the widest part, while at the neck part it has 9 cm. This means that the case is smaller compared to classical Spanish guitars.
The height of the strings is also significantly different. They are 3.8 mm high, which produces that lisp that a flamenco guitar should have. However, the company includes two saddles with the instrument, for the guitarist to choose between 3.8 mm or 4 mm in height.
The hardware is silver colored and the tuning keys have white knobs. One feature that the manufacturers emphasize in this guitar is the "MRF" bracing. This refers to the arrangement of the bars under the soundboard, a detail that we do not give much importance to. In fact, laboratory sound tests have proven that the arrangement of the bars doesn't affect the sound at all.
This is a surprisingly smooth guitar, whether you use the 3.8 or 4 mm saddle. The phrases in the first few frets require almost no strength and are ideal for a beginner, but as we go down, more strength is required. However, this is not significant and the formation of typical calluses on the fingers will not affect you.
The same applies to chords: both in the first frets and in the frets closest to the soundboard, since they are very easy to play.
Weight is another factor we love: only 2.4 kg, which should make it comfortable to play whether you're sitting or standing.
Thanks to the German spruce, this guitar has a good brightness power. In addition, and thanks to the change in temperature, the vibration contributes to a greater reverb that is perceived more clearly on the bass strings.
Phrases anywhere on the frets are full-bodied and particularly beautiful from the 8th to the 19th fret, while the rasgueados have a volume that many flamenco guitars envy. Its vibration can be felt in each of the chords and frets.
We love the barbed wire pickup the most. In the bass you can feel that metallic sound that a flamenco guitar should have, the power of the sound helps a lot and every student will be grateful for it. The harmonics are a sonorous party and this is the most important thing in this type of instrument. You should always check that the harmonics work well on a guitar, and on the Alhambra 3F they all sound great.
This is a guitar for beginners but with mid-level features and of which price is the most affordable. The woods are AA type, with a beautiful color and grain, and the sound is powerful, with harmonics that we love.
For this reason we recommend it for all learning levels. If you are a beginner you will have a guitar that will be useful for the conservatory and if you are an intermediate, this guitar can continue to be useful when you are a professional, because its sound is well worth it. Find the best price at thomann.
The best Alhambra guitars for intermediate players
These intermediate level guitars are what Alhambra classifies as "conservatory" and are designed for musicians with aspirations to perfect their technique and become professionals. This is why they incorporate higher quality woods, a choice of two types of soundboards and more precise hardware.
Alhambra offers seven guitars in the conservatory range, but culturasonora has chosen two that, in our opinion, are the best.
The sides and back are made of Indian rosewood, very soft to the touch.
Expensive. Varnish coatings are not our favorite.
Woods: cedar or spruce, Indian rosewood, mahogany and ebony.
Sound: warm, sweet, powerful.
The Alhambra 5P CT guitar is one of the best rated guitars by guitar masters, as it has great value features. In this series, Alhambra offers a choice of two types of soundboards: cedar or solid spruce. It also offers a choice of two sizes: the standard size of 650 mm, and the lady size of 636 mm, which is ideal for children. Likewise, you can choose between amplified or unamplified.
The Alhambra 5P CT E2 guitar incorporates a solid cedar top type AA. As we have already mentioned, it's a wood with great resistance to fractures and also provides a great acoustic capacity.
The sides and back are made of rosewood or Indian rosewood. It's not at all common to find this type of wood in an intermediate level instrument, although its price justifies it. This wood is dense, one of the hardest woods that can be used for guitar construction, but it also provides impressive acoustic properties due to its vibratory capacity.
The neck is almost indestructible because it's made of mahogany and there are almost no woods that can compete with it in resistance. Likewise, both the fingerboard and the bridge are made of ebony, the only wood that can compete with mahogany in terms of hardness.
The rest of the materials used are: brass for the hardware and mother-of-pearl plastic for the knobs of the tuning keys.
This is not the typical classical guitar because it has a cutaway that facilitates access to the last frets. Not only that, but it also has a narrower, smaller and lighter body than other classical guitars. This aspect not only adds aesthetic beauty and modernity, but also gives a special nuance to its sound.
The chosen scale is the common 650 mm with a 50 mm saddle. The latter is smaller than the one typically used, as is the thickness of the body, which is only about 65 mm. But if the cutaway and the narrow body are modern, then the Fishman "Prefix Pro Blend" preamp is the icing on the cake, because it has the potential to bring jazz, folk and blues nuances to the sound.
Regarding the finish, this guitar has four coats of varnish. We are not very fond of paint on guitars and other types of instruments. But, because of the modernity of this model, we welcome it.
This guitar is soft, it's the softest and with the most delicate touch out of all Alhambra's guitars. The phrases in any part of the guitar are delicate, with an enviable touch, and the same happens with the chords. You'll never have a problem making chords with capo because it's a delight to the touch.
The 65 mm wide body makes this Alhambra guitar completely comfortable to play standing up. It's easy to hold and not very heavy. However, you have the option to order it in "miss" size, which is smaller, more comfortable and lighter, while the sound quality is the same.
As we have said, this Alhambra guitar is modern and all its potential is projected in the sound. Thanks to its woods, the response in the mids is rich in nuances, with a great balance. The transitions between low and high frequencies are what a jazz guitarist is looking for.
The Fishman preamp comes equipped with three knobs: one for volume, one for frequency leveling and the third is a filter to avoid unwanted feedbacks. It also has four sliders: one for mixing, one for brightness, one for bass and the fourth for stabilizing sound frequencies.
This guitar by itself has a good sustain, but when you connect it to a sound amplifier, with the help of equalizers, you can improve it exponentially and its versatility is greater. Finally, the harmonics on this guitar are very good, just what an instrument in this price range should offer.
There are really few guitars that meet our expectations in terms of build quality, design, sound and versatility, at least few have surprised us as much as this Alhambra 5P CT E2. It's a great instrument that has delighted us visually and aurally. Although it's a "conservatory" guitar, we recommend it for all levels of learning because its quality is unpraralleled on the market. Interested? Find the best price at thomann.
All wood is solid.
Somewhat expensive, the touch is not so soft.
Woods: cedar, rosewood, sapele, ebony.
Sound: beautiful, classic, traditional, wonderful.
The Alhambra 7P Spanish guitar has a design inspired by the past and is made in the old style, but has been designed for the future. In many ways it's what almost every expert guitarist would have wished to have in their early days, and in this review you can learn about all its features.
The top of this guitar is solid cedar, with beautiful, uniform grain and a 1 mm space between each one. The sides and back are a pleasant surprise as they are made of solid rosewood, a wood that is almost reserved for the higher ranges, but which Alhambra has incorporated in a "conservatory" guitar. It's undoubtedly AAA grade.
The neck is made of sapelli, known as false mahogany, but it's the only wood that comes close to mahogany in hardness. It differs in that it has better vibration and acoustic stability. The manufacturers have reinforced the neck with ebony wood, the only wood superior to mahogany in terms of resistance. This wood is just about the most anyone can aspire to have in their guitar neck. The fingerboard and bridge are made of ebony, which we like.
This Alhambra guitar is designed with the 1970s in mind, and is just what a master of that golden era would consider a guitar for professionals. The body is aesthetic, measuring 102 mm at the widest part of the soundboard and 95 mm near the neck, just like a classic guitar of that era.
The scale is 650 mm and the nut width is 52 mm, as traditional as can be expected. However, the rosette has a design that has caught our attention because it reminds us of the guitars of the great Sabicas.
The tuning keys are precision gold-plated with white knobs, easy to move and maintain the tuning for a long time. The design of this guitar is a journey through time.
Regarding the feel, it's a tribute to the guitars of the 70s, since the string height is 4.2 mm at the 12th fret. This is a little high, but thanks to the factory medium tension strings, it overcomes any hardness issues.
The feel in the phrases is friendly, not as smooth as in others, but it's good. The capo chords are a bit hard, but as this is an intermediate level guitar it should not be a problem for the player.
The weight is a bit uncomfortable as it's as heavy as a concert guitar. But this is due to the high quality of its woods and is totally natural in an instrument with these materials.
The sound has great volume and projection. You can play in a good medium sized auditorium completely full without amplification. The sustain is enveloping and lets you hear all the nuances of the woods, especially the harmonics, which are of a high level. This guitar has a distance to height ratio that is top notch and that's where the good sound comes from.
The phrases sound great, have a good volume when played on the first frets and increases when used from the 10th fret onwards. As far as the bass frequencies are concerned, they present a balanced transition towards the middle notes and the brightness is powerful. But that's not all, as it can be ordered with a Fishman preamp.
We recommend keeping the same type of strings whenever you need to replace them. Although you can also read our article about guitar strings, where we recommend you some Savarez Alliance HT 540J strings that would be great for you.
This guitar is a jewel camouflaged as a conservatory guitar. We love it for its traditional design and construction, its woods and the great sound it has. We recommend it for intermediate and professional guitarists because it lacks nothing compared to the high ranges of the competition. It's a dream instrument. Follow this link for the best price at thomann.
Editor's recommendation:
We have no hesitation in recommending both guitars because they are worlds apart. While the 5P is modern in its design and sound, the 7P is traditional in the purest old school style. If you are looking for an instrument for your jazz sessions, the 5P is ideal, but if you want to buy an Alhambra guitar that evokes the greats of the 70's, then the 7P is the instrument par excellence.
The best Alhambra guitar for advanced musicians
Alhambra has four options at the advanced level, which are classified as "concert" type guitars. The woods of these instruments are AA+, AAA and AAA+ grade, all solid and with certain luxurious aspects. However, we have selected the one that seemed the best to us, for several reasons that we will specify below.
All woods are solid.
Expensive, its sound is not very versatile.
Woods: Cedar, Indian rosewood, ebony.
Sound: Beautiful, bright, with great volume, ideal for chamber music.
The Alhambra 11P is the last of its sisters in the "concert" series, and in it we find the best of the three previous models, but with advances in design and sound improvements. It's undoubtedly a high-end instrument that also represents the last barrier to advance towards the Alhambra signature range. With its design and sound, it has everything to be among the best Alhambra guitars and the market in general.
The top of the Alhambra 11 P is made of Pacific red cedar (thuja plicata), an AA+ solid wood. It's less dense than other types of cedar as its breaking strength is about 310 kg/cm2. So why is this wood type AA+? The answer lies in the veins. These grains are more uniform than in other woods and this characteristic gives it better acoustic properties than other more resistant woods.
Don't worry about the strength of the red cedar, because it's strong enough to have a harmonic top for years. In addition, this is a high-end guitar, for professionals who already know the importance of taking care of an instrument and the value of a better acoustic response.
The sides and back are made of solid AA+ Indian rosewood for superior strength and maximum acoustics. One of the pleasant variants in this guitar is the neck made of cedar, a high-end material reserved for making the best necks. It's the only wood that surpasses mahogany in strength and of course is superior in acoustic quality.
The fretboard is designed in ebony wood (diospyros crassiora) which represents a significant improvement over the traditional Indian rosewood used in this part of the guitar. In short, we are dealing with a guitar whose woods are of high-end classification.
The frets are made of alpaca, one of the most resistant materials. The tuning keys (tuning pegs) are handmade nickel silver with riveted knobs for better grip and durability.
This Alhambra guitar has a traditional design. It's a concert guitar with a 650 mm scale and the nut width is 52 mm, as traditional as you can expect from a classical guitar.
In terms of color, the manufacturer has opted for the natural color of the woods and with a glossy nitrocellulose finish, which is very elegant and distinguished.
On the tuning keys, the designers have decided to continue with the black color of the knobs that is characteristic of high-end guitars. This time they are riveted, a very nice detail that is appreciated not only for aesthetics but also for durability. The manufacturers include a hard case with a custom design by Alhambra.
The Alhambra 11 P has a traditional 650 mm scale with a string height of 4 mm. It also incorporates another capo so that the player can go up to 4.2 mm and have more options.
The touch does feel comfortable, although there are other brands that have a better feel in ranges of this type. But, being a concert guitar, it's just what it should be and so it delivers. Capo chords are the ones that are usually difficult if you are a beginner. But this is a guitar for professionals and therefore you should have no problems with the fingering.
Its weight is also normal for this type of guitars that are used seated. That is why the professional will have no problem, since the ergonomic characteristics of this guitar are the common denominator within this range.
This is the real novelty in the Alhambra 11P guitar, because its sound is round and everything in it's balanced.
In our article on acoustic guitars we mentioned that one of the biggest problems in guitar construction is the G string. This string presents a natural imbalance in the sound and is very difficult to harmonize. But in this Alhambra guitar there is no such problem.
Also, as is to be expected in a guitar of this type, the distance to height ratio is ideal and the harmonics are evidence of this. We can say that each note is a rain of beautiful harmonics that delight our auditory sense.
The volume is ideal, it has power but without being too loud. It has a reverb that few guitars can reach, even in the higher ranges.
Now, we can't say it's a versatile guitar because it's not. Its sound is for chamber music, it's not modern, it doesn't have punch and you won't feel sparkles when bending. But it does cover all the sound requirements that chamber music demands. Great volume, balance in the transition of notes, rich sustain and very stable harmonics. This is the classic sound of the Alhambra 11P guitar.
This manufacturer has four models in this range, but we believe that the Alhambra 11P is the best because its woods are excellent and its sound is superior in several aspects. We recommend it for professional musicians dedicated to chamber music and who want one of the richest sounds in harmonics and sustain that can be found on the professional guitar market,
The best part? it has a much lower price than other similar guitars such as the Bros and Felipe Conde. Find it at thomann.
The best luxury Alhambra guitar
The Alhambra company has not been satisfied with manufacturing high-end guitars, but also ventures into custom guitars in order to cover all the possible demand in the market. These instruments stand out for having the most exotic woods you can find in the world, and therefore their sound is different, sublime in several aspects, reason that leads us to consider one of their models.
AAA class woods, totally exotic, excellent and versatile sound, soft touch.
Expensive.
Woods: cedar, pink peroba, rosewood, cedar and ebony.
Scale: 650 mm
Sound: sublime.
The luthier José María Vilaplana is the creator of this guitar, which shares a place of honor with ten other models, but which, in our opinion, is the one that best describes the years of experience and innovation of a company like Alhambra. Villaplana Excellence is perhaps the seal of excellence of this company with more than fifty years of experience.
The first thing we notice in this guitar is a very common wood: solid cedar. The novelty in this guitar is that the cedar is not only high-end, but also AAA class. The reason for this classification is that the best part of the tree is used to create this harmonic top. It has the most uniform grain, has fewer nodules or imperfections, is more resistant to breakage and therefore offers the best acoustic response.
The sides are made of pink peroba and the back of rosewood . Pink peroba is often confused with dalbergia latifolia and both are part of the same class, but not of the same family or species. The hardness of pink peroba is twice that of its distant cousins, it has fewer imperfections, the range of shades in its color is more varied and it has the best acoustic response. The river rosewood is also of the same class as the Indian peroba and palorosa, but of a different species, with different hardness and acoustic response.
The neck of the Alhambra Vilaplana Excellence is made of cedar reinforced with ebony, something reserved for high-end guitars. The hardware is made of nickel silver and the tuning keys have white knobs.
Its measurements follow the traditional characteristics: a 650 mm scale, a nut with a neck width of 52 mm, and a body of 10.6 cm at the widest part and 10 cm at the narrowest and closest to the neck. These aspects make it an instrument for chamber music.
In terms of appearance, this Alhambra classical guitar has very beautiful aesthetic elements. For example, the carvings on the blade and bridge are very nice and give it an air of modernity. Also the rosette and the lines that run through the guitar have an unusual shape and we love them, they are beautiful.
The headstock is the Alhambra white and gold series, with engravings that stand out for their delicacy and beauty.
Despite having a traditional scale and measurements, this instrument has a different, soft touch, is elegant and this gives it a certain air of modernity. The fingering in the phrases is very fluid, capo chords feel smooth from the first to the last fret. The strumming has excellent response and is sensitive to force. For this reason, if you press too hard, the pitch may vary slightly.
This guitar is heavy, the heaviest of all the guitars on our list. But that is normal in a guitar with solid wood, AAA class, signature and exotic.
The sound on this guitar is completely different. It's novel, warm and modern, in short: a delight. The Class AAA red cedar top provides high frequencies that are exquisite and give the harmonics a lot of body and brilliance.
The river rosewood back produces a bass that is powerful and enhances the sound of the bass strings. You can feel that metallic sound that sounds like flamenco. On the other hand, the pink peroba provides the necessary balance in the sound frequencies of the top and bottom.
As for the volume, it's impressive in both phrases and rasgueados. You can feel the wood vibrating and it feels like a lion marking its territory. The sustain pads all the notes this guitar emits and the reverb floods everything around it.
The versatility of this guitar is unquestionable. Due to its design and woods, it can be said that it's a classical guitar. But it would be a mistake to pigeonhole its sound, because it can be great for playing flamenco and it's very similar to Tomatito's jazz-like playing.
The Alhambra Vilaplana Excellence guitar is an instrument of the highest category, with woods that have a whole story to tell. They are rugged yet flexible, exotic and have an exquisite acoustic response. Its sound is the result of the experience of the luthier José María Vilaplana, but even more of the configuration of its woods. These are the Alhambra footprints, with an indisputable Spanish stamp.
We recommend you check our culturasonora page. There you will find articles about the best instruments on the market and any kind of accessories, such as guitar strings, guitar straps, capos, etc.
Technical Characteristics of Alhambra Guitars
Alhambra 2C 2.08 kg Solid Cedar, Sapelli, Rosewood 65cm High volume and few harmonics
Alhambra 3F Flamenco 2.4 kg Solid German Spruce, Sycamore, Sapele, Rosewood, Cedar or Spruce, Indian Rosewood, Mahogany and Ebony. 65cm Powerful, balanced and with good ammonics
Alhambra 5P CT E2 2.17 kg Cedar or spruce, Indian rosewood, mahogany, ebony 65cm Warm, sweet, powerful
Alhambra 7P Classic 2.6 kg Cedar, Rosewood, Sapele, Ebony 65cm Beautiful, classic, traditional, wonderful
Alhambra 11 P 2.6 kg Cedar, Indian rosewood, ebony, mahogany, mahogany and ebony 65cm Brilliant, with great volume, ideal for chamber music
Alhambra Vilaplana Excellence 2.8 kg Cedar, pink peroba, river rosewood, cedar and ebony 65cm Sublime
Fender Guitar
Epiphone Guitar
Ibanez Guitar
Yamaha Guitars
Best Guitar Strings
Best Guitar Tuners
Best guitar picks
Hung Pan


text:
Облога Плевена — епізод Російсько-турецької війни 1877—1878 рр., військова операція російсько-румунських військ проти турецьких військ Османа-паші, що укріпились на той час у Плевені. Запекла оборона турецьких військ затримала просування російської армії та дозволила османському урядові укріпити Стамбул та Адріанополь, однак через невмілі дії вищого турецького командування, гарнізон Плевена був змушений здійснити капітуляцію.

Передумови
Плевен перебував на перетині доріг, які йшли на Рущук, Софію через Орханійський перевал, та до Ловче, звідки ще дві дороги вели через Сельві, Габрово, Шипкинський перевал до Казанлика та до Трояну.

Після форсування Дунаю поблизу Зімніци російська Дунайська армія розгорнула успішний наступ на Тирново 4-го (16-го) липня. Західний загін генерала барона М. П. Кріденера, взявши Никополь, розгорнув таким чином плацдарм на правому березі Дунаю до 60 кілометрів. Російський головнокомандувач вважав, що з втратою Никополя турки на західній ділянці фронту більше не зможуть вжити активних дій і обмежаться обороною західної Болгарії. Однак, командуючий у Видині мушир (маршал) Осман-паша запропонував головнокомандувачу Абдул-Керім-паші змінити початковий план воєнних дій, який зводився до зосередження сил на флангах оборонної лінії Дунаю — в чотирикутнику фортець та поблизу Видина, він був створений виключно для потреб оборони. Осман-паша пропонував, залишивши необхідну кількість військ у Видині, з рештою рушити до Плевена, з'єднатися в Тирнові з корпусом Ахмет-Еюб-паші з Шумлі та перейти в рішучий наступ у напрямку на Систово. У випадку, якщо б останньому з'єднанню не вдалося — зайняти Ловчу, яка, на думку Османа, представляла великі вигоди для оборони Балканських проходів. Під тиском успіхів росіян і побоювань, що ті перейдуть Балканський хребет і атакують слабо захищені Адріанополь та Софію, турецьке командування з деякими змінами прийняло пропозицію Османа.

У Плевені ще 26-го червня (8-го липня) була півсотня осавула Афанасьєва з передового загону І. Ф. Гурко, вислана для зв'язку з козачою бригадою І. Ф. Тутолміна, але вона була витіснена звідти 27-го загоном Атуф-паші (3 батальйони і 4 гармати), спрямованим комендантом Нікополя для забезпечення своїх повідомлень.

Вранці 1-го (13-го) липня Осман-паша виступив з Видина з 19-ма батальйонами, 5-ма ескадронами і 9-ма батареями (16 тис. осіб, 58 гармат), і на світанку 7-го (19-го) вступив у Плевен, пройшовши форсованим маршем за 6 діб близько двохсот кілометрів. Росіяни, які знехтували військовою розвідкою, не змогли виявити рух військ Осман-паші, а тому спізнилися із заняттям Плевена. Відповідне розпорядження було віддано Кріденеру ще 4-го (16-го) липня, але чи то через несправності телеграфного зв'язку, чи то через нерозпорядливість барона, тільки вранці 6-го (18-го), після категоричного наказу головнокомандуючого, частина його військ під командуванням генерала Ю. І. Шільдера-Шульднера виступила до Плевена.

Перший штурм
Першим російським з'єднанням, які досягли Плевена, виявилася дивізія Ю. І. Шильдера-Шульднера, підлеглі йому війська дісталися до міста увечері 19 липня і застали приготування турків до оборони. Впродовж чотирьох годин російські та турецькі батареї обстрілювали один одного. Наступного дня російська армія перейшла до рішучого штурму турецьких позицій. Атака швидко вичерпала російські резерви, але завдяки підтримці артилерії росіяни змогли подолати 3 лінії окопів і вступили в місто, викликавши замішання в стані противника. В ході запеклих зіткнень турецькі війська змогли вибити росіян з міста й захопили при цьому безліч покинутих боєприпасів та обмундирування. Турецькі втрати в цій битві склали приблизно 2000 чоловік, росіян — 2800 чоловік.

1877 у Європі
Битви в Болгарії
Битви Румунії
Битви 1877
Російсько-турецька війна (1877—1878)
Плевен
П
Облоги за містом

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Download "2017 Multifamily Executive Awards"
Entry Requirements All entry requirements must be fulfilled. Failure to do so will result in disqualification of submission(s).
Take the Money Stuff Challenge!
Time is of the essence, and any proposal received after the announced time and date for submittal will not be considered.
OFFICIAL RULES. Presented by the Sports Video Group & the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics.
Large or small, every Crime Stoppers program across the country is highly encouraged to submit entries for the 2017 Crime Stoppers USA Awards.
The contest is open to all ACI-NA members, regardless of whether you work for an airport, concessions operator or service provider.