March 2018 - EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

EuroDIG - call for volunteers for CROP travel - deadline: Friday 13th April 2018
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond April 23, 2018

April 23, 2018

Dear colleagues, this year's European Dialogue in Internet Governance (EuroDIG) takes place in Tbilisi from from 5-6 June 2018. More information is available on https://www.eurodig.org/index.php?id=76 EuroDIG is widely known as the European IGF. Last year, EURALO used its five Community Regional Outreach Program (CROP) slots on EuroDIG in Tallinn, Estonia. This year, we have *two *slots available for EuroDIG, which includes travel plus hotel paid for 4 days / 3 nights. Full Details of CROP can be found on: https://community.icann.org/x/7wXfAw If you would like to benefit from this CROP program to go to Tbilisi *please email silvia.vivanco(a)icann.org and me directly*. We will pass this application on to the EURALO Board and a decision will be made based on the material provided in the application. In your application, please answer the following questions: 1. Are you available for travel between 4 to 7 June 2018 (included)? 2. Are you a member of a EURALO At-Large Structure (If yes, which one?) or an Individual Member from the EURALO Individuals Association? 3. Are you currently based in the EURALO region? 4. Are you ready to produce an assessment report after returning from your trip to EuroDIG? If any of the above questions 1-4 is NO, your application will not be considered. 5. What topic(s) are you interested in taking part in EuroDIG? 6. Are you part of a EuroDIG workshop organising Team? If yes, which one? 7. Are you ready to spent a minimum of 2 x 1 hour each day at the EURALO/ICANN booth at EuroDIG? 8. How do you suggest engaging new participants for EURALO when participating at EuroDIG? Whilst shared with the EURALO Board, all applications will be treated in confidentiality and not be published. Looking forward to receiving your applications. The deadline for applications is: Friday 13th April 2018. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Chair

1 2

ICANN/WHOIS: ICANN Session With European Data Protection Representatives
by Olawale Bakare March 31, 2018

March 31, 2018

Dear Colleagues, In case you are yet to see/read this - a blog by Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN about the discussions ICANN had with the European Union's Data Protection Advisory body, the Article 29 Working Party <http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/news.cfm?item_type=1358&tpa_id=6936> . https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-discu… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-issues-update-discu…> With regards, Wale

1 0

EU domain + Brexit
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight March 30, 2018

March 30, 2018

This is rather disturbing: https://www.internetnews.me/2018/03/29/european-commission-wants-to-kill-of… -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

6 7

Stéphane Van Gelder: ICANN Board's Condolences
by Olawale Bakare March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

Dear colleagues, Here is the Chair's blog expressing the condolences on behalf of the ICANN Board on the sudden demise of Stéphane Van Gelder - https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chair-s-blog-our-sympathies With regards, Wale

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments
by cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018

FYI - CW > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu" <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments > Date: 29 March 2018 at 09:16:19 GMT+2 > To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org> > Cc: GREG SHATAN <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > > Good morning: > Allow me to respond briefly to Greg Shatan's comments, which evidently reflect his long experience with these matters: > I think that the reference to RFC 3071 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3071.txt> is not particularly helpful at this stage. At that time, 17 years ago, John Klensin submitted this 'informational' text as 'reflexions' in his 'personal capacity'. In the interim, ICANN has taken several decisions which - for better or worse – depart from the advice of RFC 3071. We have move on. > Granted that there are sometimes several meanings for certain words in English, and probably in other languages as well, but this fact does not justify ignoring relevant prior rights, not least for brands and geographical names. Bearing in mind that the latter have usually been present long before the former’s associated usage of the same same string. > > In any event, ICANN would, as before, have to deal with potential conflicts between strings with more than one meaning, including several geographical names among themselves. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of geographical names do not experience multiple uses – even in English. > > I am sure that the question of multiple uses can be resolved and need not become a 'driver' of the eventual policy for geographical names. > Regarding GNSO and gTLDs, it is indeed instructive to learn that all sorts of 'purpose specific' TLDs have been subsumed into the G* concept within GNSO. > > For present purposes, so be it. > > But in that case, I would also argue - by analogy with brands – that geographical names should benefit from protection in the interest of predictability and transparency for individual users, in the locations, economies and communities concerned. > Regards to you all > CW >>> >>> >>> 2018-03-26 6:54 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: >>> With regard to point 3 ("Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names."): >>> >>> We should avoid getting drawn into a policy conflict disguised as a semantic argument. The term "generic" as used in "generic TLDs" has long since departed from any "semantic" meaning of generic. Even as far back as 2001, RFC 3071 recognized that "generic" was ambiguous when applied to gTLDs, whic could be "generic" as in "purpose neutral" or "unbranded and open for use in any way" or "generic" as in "purpose-specific" or "related to a particular genus of registrants." As a result of the 2012 New gTLD round, we now have hundreds of gTLDs that are .Brands. Brands are conceptually and semantically the opposite of generic. We have dozens of TLDs being used as "geo-names." We also have many that are "purpose specific" and many that are open to use by all without any type of "genus" implied or expressed. I'm sure there are other types and distinctions to be made, but ultimately these are all gTLDs. >>> >>> The same word or string can have multiple meanings. In numerous cases, the same string could be delegated and used as a generic, purpose-specific, .Brand or geo-name gTLD, depending on the applicant's plans. We need to be conservative with the idea that a string or word is inherently one thing or another. For instance, "tours" could be a .brand, a geo-name, a purpose-specific gTLD or even a purpose-neutral gTLD. >>> >>> The GNSO's role here is not one where it has "taken the lead" as a free-floating "fact" but one where it has that responsibility as a matter of ICANN policy. In that vein, this is not "PDP WT5"; this is a "work track" within a GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group. The GNSO is a task-based entity, with that task being to manage the process of developing the policy recommendations for gTLDs. Anyone can participate in that process. It is irrelevant whether they are a member of (or a stakeholder represented by) any GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency. >>> >>> That is not to say this is the only possible way in which ICANN could have been or could be constituted. Before there was a GNSO and a ccNSO, there was a DNSO, which "advise[d] the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the domain name system (DNS) -- the system of names commonly used to identify Internet locations and resources." Some body could decide to re-imagine this structure yet -- reconsider what is a gTLD and what is a ccTLD (perhaps based on use and purpose than on the ISO 3166 two-letter list), and whether other categories should be recognized aside from these two. But this body is not that body. And this body has enough complexities and distractions to complicate and delay our work without getting into existential debates -- especially those that are firmly outside our remit. >>> >>> It might be interesting to establish an unchartered discussion group to have those existential debates. However, it is the farthest thing from interesting (not to mention, productive) to turn this Work Track into that discussion group. I strongly encourage us not to get drawn down that rabbit-hole, which is in fact a rabbit-warren with a multitude of holes. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Thanks Christopher. >>> >>> Javier Rúa-Jovet >>> >>> +1-787-396-6511 <tel:(787)%20396-6511> >>> twitter: @javrua >>> skype: javier.rua1 >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, "lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>" <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear WT5 Participants: >>>>> >>>>> Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion. >>>>> >>>>> 1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant. >>>>> >>>>> 2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard. >>>>> >>>>> 3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned. >>>>> >>>>> In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. >>>>> The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names. >>>>> >>>>> The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Wilkinson >>>> >>>> PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>_______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>

1 0

Multistakeholder Ethos Award Submission
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear colleagues, With only positive responses and no opposition or abstentions, the 24H consensus call asking our community whether EURALO should Nominate Stéphane van Gelder for the ICANN Multistakeholder Ethos Award, has ended in full support. Please be so kind to find the Nomination for Stéphane van Gelder which I have just filed with the Multistakeholder Ethos Award Committee on behalf of EURALO. Best, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond --- cut here --- 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANN Stakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; /Stéphane was an inspiration for ICANN"s multi-stakeholder model. From being a commercial, contracted party in the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups, Stéphane chaired the GNSO Council in a neutral manner and using great communication and consensus building skills. He then went on to spend several years in the leadership team of the ICANN Nominating Committee, a position that again requires great communication skills across an even wider range of stakeholders. Unusually, but to his credit, he was also active as an individual end user in the work of EURALO - where his aim was to help the At-Large Community improve the quality of its output. He was one of the earliest and a key member of the EURALO Individuals Association./ 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; /He Chaired the GNSO Council and he Chaired the NomCom. It takes great skills and investment to achieve success in these committees without being accused of all sins. // / 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. /At the SO/AC Chairs dinner in San José, Costa Rica, the then CEO Rod Beckstrom asked each of us how much we took of our time to devote pro-bono assuming our SO/AC Chairing duties. Stéphane answered that he spent well in excess of 20-25 hours per week on GNSO work. Not content of having spent two years Chairing the GNSO Council, he went on to Chair the ICANN Nominating Committee. Not only did his involvement in ICANN last for a long time, it was also intense and an integral part of his life./ Please provide any further information in support of your nomination for panelists to review during the deliberation process as appropriate: /I am submitting this nomination both on behalf of EURALO and on my behalf. After calls to nominate Stéphane echoed in our community, EURALO underwent a 24 hour consensus call to confirm EURALO consensus for Stéphane's nomination. With dozens of messages of support and no objection, I am honoured to be able to submit this nomination.// //Should panellists decide that a posthumous Multistakeholder Ethos award is not possible, EURALO would suggest the creation of a special award for Stéphane, such is the resolve of our community to honour him./

2 1

24H Consensus Call - Nomination for Ethos Award
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 28, 2018

March 28, 2018

Dear colleagues, the European At-Large Organisation (EURALO) has held its monthly call earlier this evening and after holding a 1 minute silence in memory of Stéphane van Gelder who has left us in tragic circumstances, participants on the call fully supported the proposal of a motion to be made by an ALAC member, for the ALAC to decide to nominate Stéphane van Gelder for the ICANN Ethos Award. As you have seen in my previous email, I have transmitted this request to the ALAC. In a consensus call that just happened, the ALAC unanimously endorsed this motion. Since Stéphane was an individual member of EURALO, I have also been asked by those present on the call, to issue a 24H consensus call on the following motion: "EURALO to support the nomination of Stéphane van Gelder (SVG) for the Multistakeholder Ethos Award to be announced in June 2018 at ICANN62 Panama City." The Ethos Award nomination period has been extended to 28 March 2018 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-20-en ), thus there isn't enough time to hold a full vote of our At-Large Structures (ALSes). But a 24H consensus call is possible. If I do NOT receive any OBJECTIONS by tomorrow Wednesday 28 March 2018, 20:00 UTC, I will submit a nomination on behalf of EURALO to the Multistakeholder Ethos Award. Kindest regards, Olivier

10 10

WITH ZOOM DETAILS /// Meeting Invitation: EURALO Monthly Call on Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 18:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

*** Please note that instead of Adobe Connect, we’ll be using Zoom for this meeting. Please see details below *** Dear All, The next EURALO Monthly Call is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 18:00 UTC for 60 minutes. The agenda and call details are available at: https://community.icann.org/x/5i68B Conference ID: English: 1638 Dial-in numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__adigo.com_icann_&d=DwMG…> EURALO Work space: https://community.icann.org/x/K5Qi If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org ***** Zoom Details: Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://icann.zoom.us/j/8443017675 Or iPhone one-tap: US: +19294362866,,8443017675# or +16699006833,,8443017675# Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 929 436 2866 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 877 853 5247 (Toll Free) or +1 877 369 0926 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 844 301 7675 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=YkwSan5xYpiu7Ap7O3f0xPNuUJth1VT1 Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/@ICANNAtLarge> [cid:image001.png@01D3C5E2.3B935B30]

2 1

Fwd: URGENT: Proposal for a motion for the ALAC
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

FYI - I trust that our EURALO ALAC representatives Sébastien Bachollet, Bastiaan Goslings and Andrei Kolesnikov will propose and second this motion to the ALAC in less than an hour. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: URGENT: Proposal for a motion for the ALAC Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:35:02 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear Alan, the European At-Large Organisation (EURALO) has held its call a moment ago and after holding a 1 minute silence in memory of Stéphane van Gelder who has left us in tragic circumstances, participants on the call fully supported the proposal of a motion to be made by an ALAC member, for the ALAC to decide to nominate Stéphane van Gelder for the ICANN Ethos Award. The Ethos Award nomination period has been extended to 28 March 2018, so any vote of support should take place today. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-20-en In the meantime, I am also sending a 24H consensus call for support of this motion to the EURALO mailing list. Stéphane was a EURALO individual member and will be greatly missed. Please be so kind to consider this motion even though it is arriving at such short notice before the ALAC call. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Chair

1 0

Fwd: The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments
by cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu March 27, 2018

March 27, 2018

Good evening: Further to this evening’s conference call, these are the main points that I have made, so far, to the WT5 on geo-names. Regards CW > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu" <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: Re: The WT5 meeting in San Juan - CW comments > Date: 25 March 2018 at 21:12:56 GMT+2 > >> >> >> Dear WT5 Participants: >> >> Further to the Wt5 meeting in San Juan on 14 March, this is just to recall the main points that I made during that discussion. >> >> 1. For the new gTLD PDP to move forward with a reasonable delay, we need a new geo-TLD policy now. It would not be a good idea to wait for, or to out-source to other external entities, although in due course, external contributions may become relevant. >> >> 2. I suggested that WT5 would save time by discontinuing discussion about ISO 3166. That is an international standard for codes and names representing countries and their subdivisions. As such, it is a well codified sub-set of the generality of geographical names. The bottom line is that within the scope of ISO 3166, ICANN is bound to respect the international standard. >> >> 3. It is also not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) definition of geo-names is a relevant ‘default’. That text failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around. That should be corrected for the next round, as unambiguously as possible, in the interests of transparency and predictability for the individual users in the locations concerned. >> >> In that context, I regret that the WT5 Terms of Reference do not address those issues explicitly. They will now have to be addressed by WT5. >> >> 3. Geographical names are not Generic in the usual semantic or, indeed, ICANN sense. Nearly all of those names are specific to places, cultures, regions, communities and their local economies. >> The fact that GNSO has taken the lead in the PDP WT5, does not diminish in any way the specific characteristics of geo-names. >> >> The approach to geographical names requires a tailored approach to the evaluation and implementation of such applications, to which I shall return in due course as the WT5 agenda evolves. >> >> Regards >> >> Christopher Wilkinson > > PS: Resending, because the original message was sent from a non-WT5 registered address. Apologies for any duplication.

2 1