- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Thick Whois Initial Report - GNSO Policy Development Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21jun13-en.htm ________________________________ Thick Whois Initial Report – GNSO Policy Development Process 21 June 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 21 June 2013 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Thick Whois Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries has published its Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.21 MB] for public comment. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.… This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=91…>

1 0

Meeting invitation / next ALAC call
by At-Large Staff June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear All, Further to the Doodle poll, the June ALAC Monthly call will take place on Tuesday 2 July 2013 at 1400 UTC. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/jwo3fel The agenda (TO BE UPDATED) and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/RqFwAg Adobe Connect Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Friday, 14 June 2013 15:19 To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Reminder - DOODLE -rescheduling June's ALAC call ALAC Members - for those who have not yet responded, please do so as soon as possible. Thank you! Kind regards, Gisella *************** Dear All, Due to Olivier Crépin-Leblonds unavailability on Tuesday 25 June 2013 - as he will be attending the ISOC European Chapters Meeting in Turkey - we are looking to reschedule the ALAC call on either Monday 24 June or Tuesday 2 July, at the same time of 1400 UTC. Please complete the attached Doodle poll to find the most suitable time: http://www.doodle.com/8spagh9g6g8x3p6d This Doodle poll will close on Thursday 13 June 2013 at 1800 UTC - the date and time will be announced shortly thereafter. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Whois Registrant Identification Study Published
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm ________________________________ Whois Registrant Identification Study Published 19 June 2013 In response to requests from the GNSO Council to gather data to inform future WHOIS policy development activities, ICANN has commissioned a series of studies to evaluate different aspects of WHOIS. This study, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, uses Whois to classify entities that register gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service providers. Study findings are intended to provide raw data needed to understand how entities that register and use gTLD domain names identify themselves in Whois, including (but not limited to) domains registered Privacy/Proxy services and domains engaged in potentially commercial activity. This empirical data will not only enable Council to respond to GAC questions, but will also create a baseline for evaluating potential Whois policy changes. Using associated Internet content, the study classifies entities using those domains, and observed potentially commercial activities. These findings will help the community understand how Registrants identify themselves in Whois. NORC presented their results in a webinar on 6 March 2013<http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36867>. The Whois Registrant Identification Study Final Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-summary-23m…> [PDF, 535 KB] takes into account public comment received on the Draft Report (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm) For more information on the WHOIS Studies, please see: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies. This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=91…>

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: ALAC Statement on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear All, With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the "ALAC Statement on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget<https://community.icann.org/x/hR1-Ag>" we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget<https://community.icann.org/x/hR1-Ag>" for communication to the relevant parties? ALAC Statement on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget Rank Options Votes % Voters 1 Yes 14 100.00 Holly Raiche, Carlton Samuels, Eduardo Diaz, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Natalia Enciso, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Sandra Hoferichter, Evan Leibovitch, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Yaovi Atohoun, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Titi Akinsanmi, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 2 No 0 0.00 2 Abstain 0 0.00 We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: Alan Greenberg We can confirm that the following members abstained in this vote. For those that have abstained, would you like n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3210sztEdVrJJky25Wm2NEdj Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>a

1 0

VOTE RESULTS: ALAC Statement on the New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

Dear All, With 13 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted on the "ALAC Statement on the New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice<https://community.icann.org/x/NQp-Ag> " we can confirm that the result is quorate. ***** Question: Do you support the ratification of the "ALAC Statement on the New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice<https://community.icann.org/x/NQp-Ag>" for communication to the relevant parties? ALAC Statement on the New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice Rank Options Votes % Voters 1 Yes 13 100.00 Holly Raiche, Carlton Samuels, Eduardo Diaz, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Natalia Enciso, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Sandra Hoferichter, Evan Leibovitch, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Alan Greenberg, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Titi Akinsanmi, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 2 No 0 0.00 2 Abstain 0 0.00 We can confirm that the following members did not participate in this vote: Yaovi Atohoun, Jean-Jacques Subrenat We can confirm that the following members abstained in this vote. For those that have abstained, would you like to provide an explanation of why you abstained? n/a You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=32092aGuZw26jw8IsJ2wDhWN Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>a

1 0

ICANN / CENTR Briefing Event in Brussels on 25 June
by At-Large Staff June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

For those of you in or near Brussels, please note that ICANN in partnership with CENTR is holding a Briefing Event in Brussels on 25th June to discuss with the Brussels (and the broader European) Community recent developments in ICANN including the gTLD Programme, the 5 year Strategic Plan and in the broader Internet Governance approach. Fadi Chehade (CEO) will give an opening keynote address and will take questions. You will find the programme and details concerning registration attached. ------------- Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Introduction At its meeting on 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact information. (See https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013) Accordingly a group of volunteers will now be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Those interested to join this effort are encouraged to contact the GNSO Secretariat by 05 July 2013 at gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on the translation and transliteration of contact information. The WG is expected to address the following issues: 1. Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. 2. Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. These issues arise from recommendations in the Final Report provided by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf. Further background on the issues and related questions is described below. In addition, the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf) Working Group identification; Mission; Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization; and Rules of Engagement. The proposed Charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval. Volunteers If you wish to participate in the Drafting Team, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) by 05 July 2013. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate. Background Information on the Issues The translation and transliteration of contact information were but two issues addressed by the IRD-WG in its Final Report. That Report recommended that the GNSO Council should request an issue report on the translation and transliteration of contact information. In the context of these issues, “contact information” is a subset of Domain Name Registration Data. It is the information that enables someone using a Domain Name Registration Data Directory Service (such as WHOIS) to contact the domain name registration holder. It includes the name, organization, and postal address of the registered name holder, technical contact, as well as administrative contact. Domain Name Registration Data is accessible to the public via a Directory Service (also known as the WHOIS service). The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA 3.3.1) specifies the data elements that must be provided by registrars (via Port 43 and via web-based services) in response to a query, but it does not require that data elements, such as contact information, must be translated or transliterated. The IRD-WG identified internationalized domain name registration data requirements in addition to the translation and transliteration of contact information. It recommended that ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards for internationalizing various registration data elements. Accordingly, in its 08 November 2012 resolution and Action Plan (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12…) the ICANN Board directed staff to: 1) task a working group to determine the appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements, evaluating any relevant recommendations from the SSAC or GNSO; 2) produce a data model that includes (any) requirements for the translation or transliteration of the registration data, taking into account the results of any PDP initiated by the GNSO on translation/ transliteration, and the standardized replacement protocol under development in the IETF’s Webbased Extensible Internet Registration Data Working Group; 3) evaluate available solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs). Thus, the results of the PDP on translation and transliteration of contact information will be considered by the working group described above for which a separate Call for Volunteers will be issued. With respect to the two issues identified above concerning the translation and transliteration of contact information, the following additional background may be useful. On the first issue, whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script, the IRD-WG noted that, “[t]o balance the needs and capabilities of the local registrant with the need of the (potential) global user of this data, one of the key questions … is whether DNRD-DS [Domain Name Registration Data Directory Services] should support multiple representations of the same registration data in different languages or scripts.” In particular, the IRD-WG members discussed whether it is desirable to adopt a “must be present” representation of contact data, in conjunction with local script support for the convenience of local users. By “must be present” the IRD-WG meant that contact data must be made available in a common script. In general, the IRD-WG recognized that, “the internationalized contact data can be translated or transliterated into the ‘must be present’ representation. As noted above, in this context, Translation is the process of conveying the meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it can be expressed equivalently in another language. Transliteration is the process of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of a conversion alphabet.” Based on this definition, and consistent with the current state of domain name registration data, the IRD-WG noted that if transliteration were desired, then the “must be present” script would be the Latin script. If translation were desired, then the “must be present” language would be English. The IRD-WG did note that many language translation systems are inexact and cannot be applied repeatedly to translate from one language to another. Thus the IRD-WG noted that there will likely be problems with both consistency and accuracy, such as: • Translation/transliteration may vary significantly across languages using the same script. • Two people may translate/transliterate differently even within a language and the same person may translate/transliterate differently at different times for the same language. • How would a registrar determine which particular spellings to use for a particular registrant? How would a registrant ever verify the correctness of a translation or transliteration, even if presented such data by the registrar or by a third organization that does the translation/transliteration? Furthermore, the IRD-WG noted that for a given script, there may exist multiple systems for transliteration into Latin scripts. In the case of Chinese, the multiple transliteration systems are not only quite different from each other, but most of the systems use particular Latin characters to represent phonemes that are quite different from the most common phoneme-character pairings in European languages. Finally, it is unclear whether translation or transliteration would serve the needs of the users of contact data. For example it is unclear that translating the name of the registrant and city would be useful. Would one have to translate "Los Angeles" into " City of the Angels" and translate “Beijing” into "Northern Capital"? The PDP should explore whether such translations facilitate or hinder the ability to contact the registrant. The second issue, who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script, relates to the concern expressed by the IRD-WG in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a PDP determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. The IRD-WG considered several alternatives to address translation and transliteration of contact information as follows: • The registrant submits the localized information as well the translated or transliterated information. • The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registrar translates and transliterates all internationalized contact information on behalf of the registrant. • The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registrars provide a point of contact at a service that could provide translation or transliteration upon request for a fee to be paid by the requester. • The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registry provides translation or transliteration. • The end users of the registration data translate and transliterate the contact information. During their deliberations the members of the IRD-WG recognized that many registrants will need to access domain names in their local scripts and languages, which is the one of the primary reasons for the expansion of internationalized domain names. Therefore, the IRD-WG determined that it is unreasonable to assume all registrants – wherever they happen to be located – will be able to enter the registration data in scripts or languages other than their local script or language. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to address the three issues that were identified by the IRD-WG: • Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. • Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. • Whether to start a PDP to address these questions. The Final Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 and on 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on the translation and transliteration of contact information. The GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. Recommended Reading for Volunteers • Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…) • Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf) • GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Webinar: TMCH & IDNs Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013

Trademark Clearinghouse & Internationalized Domain Names Webinar Date: 19 June 2013 Time: 14:00 15:30 UTC (7:00am 8:30am PDT) Background information on TMCH and IDN processes, and responses to comments/questions about implementation of variant rules that arose during ICANN46 Beijing. * Web Conference: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/tmch/ * Teleconference Dial-in Information: > * US Toll-free: 1-877-941-2059 > * US Toll: 1-480-629-9654 > * International Dial-In Numbers > <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars/dial-in-19jun… > -en.pdf> [PDF, 23 KB] https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun13-en.htm Webinar: TMCH & IDNs 6 June 2013 Webinar Details Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 Time: 14:00-15:30 UTC Adobe Connect: TBD You are invited to a webinar intended to address questions and provide a background around Internationalized Domain Names and the Trademark Clearinghouse processes, including the comments in Beijing about implementation of variant rules. As we have prioritized the applications so that the first new gTLDs will be IDNs, this is an opportunity to learn more about the TMCH and IDNs and provide more background to those interested on how things are working. Please join this webinar on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 14:00 UTC (duration 90 minutes). The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation. Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, these may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Signs an Exchange of Letters with ccTLD Manager for Montenegro (.ME)
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 17, 2013

June 17, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17jun13-en.htm ________________________________ ICANN Signs an Exchange of Letters with ccTLD Manager for Montenegro (.ME) 17 June 2013 ICANN has announced today that it has signed an Accountability Framework with the country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) manager for .ME (Montenegro), the Ministry for Information Society and Telecommunications of Montenegro, on 13 May 2013. The Accountability Framework program provides two mechanisms by which ccTLD managers can formalise their relationship with ICANN. The first is an Accountability Framework document that sets out the obligations of a ccTLD manager and ICANN. It also covers dispute resolution and termination and is designed for ccTLD managers requiring a formal document with ICANN. The second mechanism is an Exchange of Letters between ICANN and the ccTLD manager designed for those for whom a statement of commitments is more appropriate. Signed accountability framework and exchange of letters documents can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/agreements.html. This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=91…>

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 14, 2013

June 14, 2013

[http://www.icann.org/images/gradlogo_bow.jpg]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14jun13-en.htm ________________________________ NGPC Progress on Addressing GAC Beijing Advice on New gTLDs 14 June 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 11 June 2013 to discuss the GAC Beijing advice regarding singular and plural versions of the same string as a New gTLD. The discussion followed the NGPC's decision on 4 June 2013 to accept the GAC's advice to consider this issue. The NGPC made considerable progress toward reaching consensus on a way forward and expects to reach a conclusion at its 25 June 2013 meeting. The NGPC also considered how it might respond to the ALAC Statement on IDN Variants. Finally, it began in-depth discussion of the GAC's Safeguard Advice applicable to all strings. The next two meetings of the NGPC on 18 and 25 June 2013 will focus on items within the GAC's Annex 1 Safeguard advice. Below please find an updated NGPC work plan: Item Resp. Start Date Compl. Date Status 1. Publish GAC Communiqué to solicit input on how the New gTLD Board Committee should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings Staff 23 April Complete 2. Public comment period on how NGPC should address GAC Advice re: Safeguards Public 23 April Comment 14 May; Reply 4 June Complete 3. Summarize and analyze public comments on GAC Advice re: Safeguards Staff 5 June 12 June Complete 4. Meeting to review and consider staff proposals for addressing overarching Safeguard advice (Annex 1, 1-6) and Restricted & Exclusive Registry policies (Category 2) NGPC 18 June Not Started 5. Meeting to review and consider staff proposals on Category 1, Items 1-5, and Singular vs. Plural NGPC 25 June Not Started The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing Advice. This message was sent to matt.ashtiani(a)icann.org<mailto:matt.ashtiani@icann.org> from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [http://app.icontact.com/images/icontact_tryFree.gif] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=24564788&l=6333&s=BCA3&m=91…>

1 0