June 2013 - council - lists.icann.org

Thick Whois PDP Initial Report posted for public comment
by Marika Konings June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

Dear All, For your information, please find attached the Thick Whois Initial Report which has been published for public comment today (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.h tm). With best regards, Marika

1 0

Agenda ICANN Board meeting - 27 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin June 21, 2013

June 21, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-27jun13-en.htm Agenda for ICANN Special Board Meeting 27 June 2013 Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes of the 18 May Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board Redelegation of .ID Redelegation of .EE Delegation of .мон Appointment of Ben Butler to the Security & Stability Advisory Committee Officer Appointment Recommendation Main Agenda: AROS Contract Agreement Approval (pending BFC approval) Approval of 2013 RAA Update to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation

1 0

Agenda for Board Governance Committee meeting on 25 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-bgc-25jun13-en.htm *Reconsideration Request 13-3

1 0

Agenda for new gTLD Program Committee meeting on 25 June 2013
by Bruce Tonkin June 20, 2013

June 20, 2013

From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-25jun13-en.h… Agenda | New gTLD Program Committee 25 June 2013 Consent Agenda: * Approval of Minutes of 4 June 2013 Main Agenda: * Safeguards Applicable to all New gTLDs * Category 2 Safeguard Advice re Exclusive Registry Access * Singular & Plural Versions of the Same String as a TLD * IGO Protection * ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants * AOB

1 0

Treatment of trademarks in different languages and language scripts in the trademark clearinghouse
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

Hello All, From: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars Attached is the presentation from the Trademark Clearinghouse & Internationalized Domain Names Webinar: Date/Time: 19 June 2013, 14:00 - 15:30 UTC Background information on TMCH and IDN processes, and responses to comments/questions about implementation of variant rules that arose during ICANN-46 Beijing. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Regarding pre-delegation testing
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

Hello All, From: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/atallah-to-drazek-13jun13-en.pdf Attached is a letter from Akram Atallah to the chair of the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) on pre-delegation testing. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Streamlining the New gTLD Delegation Process
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

From: http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/streamlining-the-new-gtld-delegation-process/ Streamlining the New gTLD Delegation Process by Elise Gerich on June 18, 2013 As we march closer to the launch of new generic top-level domains, focus has shifted to the process of how the approved gTLDs become active in the domain name system. Activating a top-level domain involves making changes to the DNS root zone - a process known as "delegation". The delegation process is managed by ICANN's Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA. The entire process of root zone management is a shared by ICANN with the National Telecommunications and Information Authority, and with Verisign. Each of us has a unique role to play in the processing of such requests. Over time we've evolved this process to better serve top-level domain managers and the broader community. The most notable step we've taken to improve and optimize our processing of requests was the deployment of new workflow automation systems in 2011. These systems improve processing accuracy and timeliness by automating many aspects of processing change requests that were previously performed manually. Recognizing that the new gTLD program introduces a large number of new TLDs, ICANN together with Verisign and NTIA collaborated to make improvements to our systems to best optimize the new gTLD delegation process. Our goal was to make the delegation process as simple as possible, while still providing the checks and balances expected of the root zone management function. We've done this by building upon the system we already had in place to add functionality specific to the creation of a large number of new top-level domains. After a period of development and testing, we are pleased to report these improvements came online as scheduled on May 1st 2013. After successfully completing the New gTLD process, applicants will receive a token which enables them to start the delegation process using the root zone workflow automation system. During the processing of their request, applicants can log on to the system at any time to get realtime feedback on the status of their request. The deployment of the streamlined process to delegate New gTLDs on May 1st is one of the steps taken by ICANN, along with our root management partners Verisign and NTIA, to ensure readiness to manage the introduction of new gTLDs into the DNS root zone.

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
by Glen de Saint Géry 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 http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN / CENTR Briefing Event in Brussels on 25 June
by Glen de Saint Géry June 19, 2013

June 19, 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Rationale for Reconsideration Request 13.3
by Jonathan Robinson June 19, 2013

June 19, 2013

All, I believe that the draft below reflects the position where we have got to so far. I do not feel we have consensus on specific requests, only that the BGC be aware of the current position. I trust you will be able to support this and recognise I have attempted to deal with this in as balanced and constructive a way as possible given the very tight timeline. Thanks, Jonathan Dear Bruce and Colleagues on the Board Governance Committee, I am writing to you in my capacity as chair of the GNSO Council. As you are no doubt aware, the rationale prepared for the reconsideration request 13.3 has been the subject of significant Council and broader community discussion. Concerns with the rationale, expressed by a number of Councillors, revolve around the extent to which the rationale may effectively set precedent and the associated impact on the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In other words, there is a view that the implications of the rationale go beyond the scope of dealing with the reconsideration request to which they pertain. In the short time available since the Council first discussed this at our 13 June 2013 meeting, we have not yet formed a consensus or agreed GNSO Council position. Nevertheless, I feel it is appropriate to flag with you the strength of views of on this this subject. I trust that you will take this input to your business in the constructive spirit in which it is intended. Yours sincerely, Jonathan Robinson Chair, ICANN GNSO Council

7 6