July 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ICANN Durban Meeting: Travel Logistics
by Benedetta Rossi 09 Jul '13

09 Jul '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below some useful guidelines submitted by ICANN regarding traveling to Durban. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Dear Traveler: We look forward to another productive ICANN meeting in Durban, South Africa. If this is your first time to travel to South Africa, below are some helpful travel tips/guidelines to make sure that your travel to Durban is as smooth as possible. VIDEO INTRODUCTION Please watch this video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ROySGZ54cns> introduction to get yourself started with your travel to Durban. TRAVELLING TO DURBAN 1) Have your valid passport, South Africa visa (if necessary), and/or Yellow Fever card (if necessary) prior leaving for the airport. 2) Complete the South Africa landing card the best as you can PRIOR to landing. 3) If you are transiting through Cape Town or Johannesburg to get to Durban, please make sure to: A) Get your boarding pass from Cape Town or Johannesburg to Durban prior to arriving in Cape Town or Johannesburg to allow for a smooth transit. B) If you are checking in luggage(s): * You will need to collect your bags in Cape Town or Johannesburg; your luggage will not go straight to Durban. * You will also need to re-check them again at the main domestic departures. Please be mindful of your connecting flight to Durban. FOREIGN EXCHANGE & ATMS AT THE AIRPORT A bureau de change, on the ground floor of the international arrivals/departures terminal, is open when international flights arrive and depart. ABSA Bank, which is in the public concourse, opens 30 minutes before the first flight and closes 30 minutes after the last flight of the day. (tel +27 (0)31 408 1408) First National Bank, Nedbank, Standard Bank, and ABSA Bank have ATMs in the public concourse. TRAVELLING TO THE HOTEL TRANSPORTATION FROM KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Approx. travel time from airport to hotel: 30 minutes CAR SERVICE Airport transfers MUST be pre-arranged & pre-paid prior to arrival in Durban! The following providers are approved for booking transportation from the airport to your hotel. Terra Nova: Cost: R 330.00 (+ 4% surcharge for CC payments) * Book via email to: icanndurban2013(a)terra-nova.co.za (Contact Name: Inge) EZ Shuttle: Cost: R 365.00 (1-3 pax), and R 620,00 (4-9 pax) +5% discount for ICANN attendees * Book via email to: info(a)ezshuttle.co.za and enter "ICC Durban 2626" in the subject line * Book online at: http://www.ezshuttle.co.za/login_form2.php LOGIN DETAILS: USERNAME: iccdurban2626 PASSWORD: shuttles * All travelers MUST read their confirmation emails/SMS to confirm booking accuracy. TAXI Estimated cost: R 450.00 - R 580.00 ($44 - $57 USD) Official taxi companies operating from the King Shaka International Airport: * A Hassan Taxis +27 (0)31 564 0734 * Aussies Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 309 7888 * Boshoff Taxis +27 (0)31 306 6330 * Checkers Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 465 5573 * Eagle Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 337 2442 Accepted forms of payment may vary. If you plan to take a taxi, you should carry some local currency with you just in case. Use Official Taxi Services Only! Always establish price, & accepted form of payment with driver prior to taking a ride. HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS n View Map <https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204888582384296127799.0004e08d733775da 30951&msa=0&ll=-29.843771%2c31.033802&spn=0.021776%2c0.039053> HILTON DURBAN 12-14 Walnut Road, Durban 4001 Tel +27 31 336 8100 All guest rooms include Internet Access & Breakfast (served daily 06:00 - 10:00). SOUTHERN SUN ELANGENI & MAHARANI Elangeni or Maharani Tower 63 Snell Parade, Durban 4001 Tel +27 31 362 1300 All guest rooms include Internet Access & Breakfast (served daily 05:30-10:00). CHECK-IN: A credit card will be required at check-in. Expect to pay for all incidentals, including any meals charged to your room. These charges must be settled at check-out. CHECK-OUT: Check out is no later than 11:00 AM - NO LATE CHECK OUTS ARE AUTHORIZED. TRAVELLING TO CONVENTION CENTER n Shuttle Schedule <http://durban47.icann.org/files/meetings/durban2013/ICANN47-Shuttle-Schedul e-3Jul13.png> Shuttle transportation between the ICC Durban and supported hotels is arranged by ICANN for all attendees. Service will start on Friday, 12 July @ 7:30, and daily shuttles will run every 15min throughout the day for the duration of the meeting. Shuttle service routes do not include the Hilton, which is located just a few short steps away from the ICC. If your hotel is at the Southern Sun Elangeni & Maharani, we do not recommend that you walk to/from the hotel to the convention center. We highly urge you to take advantage of the shuttle service. If you do find yourself needing to go to/from the Southern Sun Elangeni & Maharani Hotel and convention center, please consider hiring a taxi. STREET SMARTS * Avoid an ostentatious display of expensive jewelry, cameras, mobile phones and other valuables. * Keep your handbag closed or zipped, and your wallet in an inside pocket and not in the rear pocket of your trousers. Do not leave them unattended. It is ill advised to carry large sums of money with you. * Do not walk around talking on your mobile phone in the street and do not leave your phone unattended. * Exchange your currency at a bank or at the hotel, not on the street. * At night, stay away from dark, isolated areas. It is always better to explore in groups and to stick to well-lit, busy streets. * Do not ask strangers to take group pictures, no matter how friendly they may seem. * Use the Bram Fischer Road only to/from the hotel/convention center. Best wishes, Joseph de Jesus Travel Support Coordinator Diane Schroeder, Joseph de Jesus, and Karen Lettner Constituency Travel Team ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 email: constituency-travel(a)icann.org

1 0

Business Leadership South Africa
by john＠crediblecontext.com 09 Jul '13

09 Jul '13

All, In anticipation of my first trip to South Africa and as a GNSO Councillor representing the Commercial and Business Users Constituency, I have been paying closer attention to information about the business community in the country -- always on the look out for new members! I recently came across a story in a public relations industry magazine written by Thero Setilone, CEO of Business Leadership South Africa. Here is a link to the story: http://www.brunswickgroup.com/files/html/brunswickreviewIssue7/assets/pdf/m… I wonder if he or someone from the group will be in Durban for the ICANN meeting. And here is a link to the Business Leadership site: http://www.businessleadership.org.za/home/index.html On the site, I found an interesting Executive Director's report from 2010 that makes for, to me at least, interesting reading. Here is the link: http://www.businessleadership.org.za/gup/filez/Press_Release_SA_as_a_Develo… Cheers, John Berard

1 0

BC NomCom elections: Nominations now open
by Benedetta Rossi 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

From: BC Secretariat Date: July 8th, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery, Returning Officer Robert Hoggarth, Verifying Officer <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC NomCom Elections: Nominations now open Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for the two BC NomCom Delegates for 2014. The election process opens today, July 8th, 2013. The election will be conducted by myself, BC Secretariat, fulfilling the role of Voting Officer for the duration of the election process. For the election process, all communications regarding elections will go to this email address: <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com The attached election procedure covers: time-frames for the three stage process outlined in the BC Charter who is eligible to nominate, or accept a nomination candidate statements when the elections will be held, as exception: ties in any election Please note that the nomination period opens today, July the 8th, and will close in two weeks, on July 22nd, 2013. The detailed description of the Elections and Voting process is provided in the attached document so that all members are fully informed of the Elections Process and can avail themselves fully of the opportunity to nominate or stand for office, and vote, if eligible. Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election. Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi, serving as Voting Officer -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

FW: New ICA Webpost on EU Registrar Exemption from RAA Data Retention Requirements
by Phil Corwin 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

FYI, just posted this at the ICA website... http://internetcommerce.org/RAA_data_retention_loophole EU Registrars Empowered to Seek New RAA Data Retention Exemption ICANN's Board approved the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) on June 27th, and its Resolution doing so noted that "the Board has accepted the GAC Advice in the Beijing Communiqué that the "the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement should be finalized before any new gTLD contracts are approved."" -- and cited as a "highlight" that "The 12 Law Enforcement Recommendations that served as the impetus for these negotiations are all addressed" including "new data retention obligations"[1]. However, a newly disclosed June 6th letter reveals that ICANN was already aware that EU-based registrars would have solid grounds to seek an exemption from those very data retention obligations. That letter[2], sent to CEO Fadi Chehade and Board Chairman Steve Crocker, was signed by Jacob Kohnstamm, Chairman of The Article 29 Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data, is composed of representatives from the national data protection authorities of the EU Member States, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission. The letter unequivocally states that "the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe" and therefore "relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" would violate data privacy law in 27 EU nations if they complied with it. These findings were based on two major factors: * "The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe... Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data." * "[T]he Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement...The fact that these personal data can be useful for law enforcement does not legitimise the retention of these personal data after termination of the contract. Because there is no legal ground for the data processing, the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe." The letter also makes this observation: "The Working Party notes that ICANN has included a procedure for registrars to request a waiver from these requirements if necessary to avoid a violation of applicable data protection law. Such a waiver request can be based on written guidance from a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data retention requirements violates applicable law. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe." The Data Retention Specification (DRS) of the new RAA did not change in any material way between the June 6th transmittal of the Article 29 WP letter and the Board's approval of the RAA three weeks later, so the letter appears to provide EU-based registrars with solid grounds for seeking an exemption from the requirements. The DRS authorizes a registrar to provide written notice to ICANN and request a waiver with a specific term or condition upon: "receipt of either (i) a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized law firm in the applicable jurisdiction that states that the collection and/or retention of any data element specified herein by Registrar is reasonably likely to violate applicable law (the "Opinion") or (ii) a ruling of, or written guidance from, a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data collection and/or retention requirements of this Specification violates applicable law." The Article 29 WP letter fits squarely within the second provision and we expect EU-based registrars to seek exemptions soon after the sign the new RAA. The DRS specifies that after receipt of the waiver request a good faith discussion, ICANN's General Counsel may grant a temporary or permanent waiver. Once ICANN has granted such a waiver to a registrar based in a particular "jurisdiction" (which may well be interpreted to constitute the entire EU, rather than a particular member nation) ICANN is generally obliged to grant a similar waiver to any other registrar in the jurisdiction. It is also possible that registrars outside the EU may seek a similar waiver, probably based upon a legal opinion obtained from an EU-based law firm. As noted above, the letter states that compliance would be unlawful for "relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" (emphasis added), and an argument could be made that if a registrar based outside the EU markets extensively to EU registrants, and they comprise some meaningful portion of its customers, it must likewise seek a waiver or risk legal violation - as well as the loss of its EU customers. It also remains to be seen whether, in a world increasingly concerned about cyber-privacy, EU-based registrars will gain a competitive advantage with registrants through their ability to seek waivers - and what the reaction will be from their overseas counterparts, including those in the U.S. The new RAA will be required for all registrars that wish to sell domains in new gTLDs. In addition, many renewing registry agreements require that they only utilize registrars who have entered into the new RAA once a threshold based upon registrars serving a specified percentage of their registrants is reached. The dialogue within the GAC, and between it and ICANN's Board, is already likely to be crowded in the upcoming Durban meeting, given recent actions by ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee that have frozen hundreds of new gTLD applications - primarily for "closed generics" and for strings involving regulated industries and/or with restricted registration policies - so it remains to be seen whether the possibility of EU-based registrars waiving out of the data retention provisions of the DRS will be added to the lengthy list of agenda matters requiring discussion. The most ironic portion of the Article 29 WP letter is its objection to "the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement". ICANN is indeed a private, non-profit corporation and, lacking sovereign or intergovernmental agency authority, must rely solely on contracts to enforce compliance by registries and registrars. And those data retention provisions were inserted at the insistence of law enforcement officials -- many of them from EU member nations -- and were accepted by ICANN under strong urging from nation states participating in the GAC. Indeed, had ICANN failed to include them in the final RAA it would undoubtedly have faced strong criticism from the GAC. But now EU registrars can readily arbitrage the differing viewpoints of law enforcement officials and data protection authorities and obtain a waiver from those requirements. [1] See https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm#… and also http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/board-approves-raa/ 2 Full text available at http://www.internetnews.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130606_Letter_to_IC… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ [1] See https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm#… and also http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/board-approves-raa/ [2] Full text available at http://www.internetnews.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130606_Letter_to_IC…

1 0

July NomCom report card
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com 08 Jul '13

08 Jul '13

Colleagues, Please find attached the latest NomCom report card. As usual, these are also archived here (this latest one hasn't been uploaded yet): http://nomcom.icann.org/report-cards-2012-2013.htm Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

2 2

FW: U.S. Statement on Geographic Names in Advance of Durban Meeting | NTIA
by Phil Corwin 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/us-statement-geographic-name… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: Article 29 WP To ICANN - EU Registrars Exempt From New RAA Data Retention Requirements
by Phil Corwin 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

FYI-- full text of letter attached--while the letter was sent prior to the adoption of the final RAA, I am told that the relevant provisions are materially unchanged. The letter states that " the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe" and therefore " relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" would violate data privacy law in 27 EU nations if they complied with it. The finding was based on two major factors: -"The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe... Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data." -"the Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement." As the new RAA permits any registrar to seek an exemption from ICANN if provisions of the RAA conflict with local law we can assume that all EU-based registrars will do so. While not an unintended loophole, this sure creates an unlevel playing field between EU-based registrars and those in other jurisdictions. http://www.internetnews.me/2013/07/04/article-29-working-party-to-icann-eu-… Domain Industry & Internet NewsDomain Name Industry News Article 29 Working Party To ICANN - EU Registrars Exempt From Data Retention Requirements By Michele Neylon on July 4, 2013 in icann, policy, privacy, registrars The 2013 RAA was approved by ICANN's board of directors less than a week ago. The new contract introduces a number of new obligations on ICANN accredited registrars, among them are several related to data validation, verification and retention. The Article 29 Working Party, however, has written to ICANN and made it very clear that it views these requirements to be unlawful. While the letter dates from earlier this month the text of the contract was not changed drastically prior to its acceptance by ICANN's board. The letter makes reference to the new exemption process that ICANN introduced with this version of the contract, which allows registrars to gain exemptions if contractual obligations conflict with local law. And what is sure to be welcomed by EU based registrars is the letter's aim - to avoid duplication of work by data protection authorities (and registrars): In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe Here's the letter's full text: Subject: Statement on the data protection impact of the revision of the ICANN RAA Dear Mr Crocker and Mr Chehadé, In the context of ICANN' s revision of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the final RAA Proposal1, the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (Article 29 WP)2 wishes to provide a harmonised statement concerning compliance with European data protection law. Following up on our letter of 27 September 20123 and previous contributions to the process of collecting and disclosing WHOIS data4, this statement specifically addresses the legitimacy of the data retention obligation for registrars, contained in the new RAA. The Working Party notes that ICANN has included a procedure for registrars to request a waiver from these requirements if necessary to avoid a violation of applicable data protection law. Such a waiver request can be based on written guidance from a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data retention requirements violates applicable law. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe. The final proposed Data Retention specification roughly distinguishes between name and contact details for the domain name holder (specified in 1.1.1 to 1.1.7) and all other types of data a registrar might collect (specified in 1.2.1 to 1.2.3), such as logfiles and billing records containing the 'means and source of payment', logfiles about the communication with the registrar including source IP address, telephone number, e-mail address, Skype handle or instant messaging identifier, as well as the date, time and time zones of communications. Registrars are required to keep the first category of personal data for a period of two years after the contract for the domain has been ended. The second category of personal data must be retained for six months after the contract has ended. The first category of data includes payment data, defined as: 'card on file', current period third party transaction number, or other recurring payment data. The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe.5 It entails the extended processing of personal data such as credit card and communication data by a very large number of registrars. The fact that these data may be useful for law enforcement (including copyright enforcement by private parties) does not equal a necessity to retain these data after termination of the contract. Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data. Secondly, the Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement. If there is a pressing social need for specific collections of personal data to be available for law enforcement, and the proposed data retention is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is up to national governments to introduce legislation that meets the demands of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. The fact that these personal data can be useful for law enforcement does not legitimise the retention of these personal data after termination of the contract. Because there is no legal ground for the data processing, the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe. In general, we repeat that the problem of inaccurate contact details in the WHOIS database cannot be solved without addressing the root of the problem: the unlimited public accessibility of private contact details in the WHOIS database. In that light, the Working Party welcomes the growing number of registries in Europe that are offering layered access to the WHOIS data. Yours sincerely, On behalf of the Article 29 Working Party About Michele Neylon Michele is founder and managing director of domain registrar and hosting company Blacknight. He also co-hosts the Technology.ie podcast. Site hosted in Ireland by Blacknight © 2013 Domain Industry & Internet News. All Rights Reserved. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Reminder: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
by Benedetta Rossi 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below a call for volunteers for the Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm> 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+201 3> 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 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)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> 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> 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 ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)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 -en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12- en.pdf) 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 IETFs 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 -en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13- en.pdf). Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> 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> http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Benedetta Rossi 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

Dear BC Members, Please see below a call for volunteers volunteers for a drafting team to develop a Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting and encourage them to join this group so that all constituencies and stakeholder groups are represented in the policy development. process. http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04jun13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team (DT) that will develop a charter for a new Working Group (WG). The GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG will be tasked with exploring opportunities with respect to reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. The Drafting Team is expected to submit the proposed Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. What This Team Will Do The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines taking into account the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting, which recommended that such a Working Group should review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. Such a Working Group could also investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that may aid in GNSO policy development efforts. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this DT will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Drafting Team will be archived publicly. Drafting Team members are expected to submit Statements of Interest ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. How to Join The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The DT will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Uniform ity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports'. The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'. The GNSO in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to better aid the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await any further action regarding Contractual Compliance metrics and reporting until the conclusion of their three-year plan towards the end of 2013. At such time the GNSO Council will consider other actions, if any. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to be performed to help inform the deliberations of the WG. More information can be found on the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/uofr> GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG page. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Minutes, transcript & recording: BC members call on July 1st, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi 05 Jul '13

05 Jul '13

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes & transcript from the BC Members call which took place on Monday, July 1st, 2013 at 11 am EST. The MP3 recording can be found here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/9jc2vbx68n8plsbjgdr5.mp3 Please note that all of this information can also be found on the BC Wiki teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0