[Npoc-discuss] GNSO PDP T&T has been approved by the ICANN board

[Klaus Stoll]

Dear Rudi

First of all: Congratulation for great and hard is in order. I want to 
encourage all NPOC members to get involved in implementing the 
recommendations. Maybe we could make this a topic for our next 
membership call.

Congratulations again

Yours

Klaus

On 10/1/2015 9:49 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> Dear NPOC members,
>
> During the period 2014-2015 all over about 16 months I have been 
> co-chair of the GNSO PDP working group on Translation and 
> Transliteration of Contact Information. The final report with 7 
> recommendations was approved and unanimous voted by the GNSO Council 
> during the Buenos Aires meeting. So we will enter into the last phase 
> of this PDP in a few weeks with the implementation of the proposed 
> recommendations. I welcome any NPOC member during the process of 
> putting together the WG team.
>
> *GNSO Council Recommendations Translation and Transliteration of 
> Contact Information*
>
> Whereas, on 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council launched a Policy 
> Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and 
> Transliteration, addressing two charter questions, set forth at 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-charter-20nov13-en.pdf [PDF, 185 
> KB].
>
> Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the 
> Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 12 June 2015.
>
> Whereas, the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information 
> Working Group (WG) reached consensus on its first recommendation and 
> full consensus on its remaining six recommendations.1
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed the recommendations 
> of the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information WG, and 
> adopted the Recommendations on 24 June 2015 by a unanimous vote 
> (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150624-3).
>
> Whereas, the GNSO Council vote met and exceeded the required voting 
> threshold (i.e. supermajority) to impose new obligations 
> on ICANN contracted parties; and
>
> Whereas, after the GNSO Council vote, a public comment period was held 
> on the approved recommendations, and the comments have been summarized 
> and considered 
> (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-recommendations-2015-06-29-en).
>
> Resolved (2015.09.28.02), the Board adopts the GNSO Council Policy 
> Recommendations concerning the translation and transliteration 
> of contact information as presented in the Final Report.
>
> Resolved (2015.09.28.03), the CEO, or his authorized designee(s), is 
> directed to develop and complete an implementation plan for 
> these Recommendations and continue communication and cooperation with 
> the GNSO Implementation Review Team and community on 
> the implementation work.
>
> Rationale for Resolutions 2015.09.28.02 – 2015.09.28.03
>
> Why the Board is addressing the issue now?
>
> The continued internationalization of the domain name systems means 
> that an ever-larger share of Internet users do not use (or are 
> not  even familiar) with US ASCII, the technical term for the 
> Latin-based script used in English and many other western European 
> languages.
>
> Accuracy and consistency of contact information data are crucial to 
> make it a useful source to those seeking information 
> regarding domain name registrants. This PDP WG has considered the 
> important issue of whether translated and/or transliterated data or 
> data submitted in the script best known to the registrant is more 
> likely to deliver these requirements, bearing also in mind the amount 
> of requests for such data and the costs associated with blanket 
> translation or transliteration.
>
> The Translation and Transliteration PDP Final Report received 
> consensus support on its first recommendation and full consensus on 
> the remaining six others. It also received unanimous support from 
> the GNSO Council.
>
> Following the closing of the public comment period, the next step as 
> outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws is consideration by 
> the ICANN Board of the recommendations.
>
> What is the proposal being considered?
>
> The following policy recommendations are being adopted:
>
> Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that it is not 
> desirable to make transformation of contact information mandatory. Any 
> parties requiring transformation are free to do so on an ad hoc basis 
> outside Whois or any replacement system, such as the Registration Data 
> Access Protocol (RDAP). If not undertaken voluntarily by 
> registrar/registry (see Recommendation #5), the burden 
> of transformation lies with the requesting party.
>
> Recommendation #2 Whilst noting that a Whois replacement system should 
> be capable of receiving input in the form of non-ASCII script contact 
> information, the Working Group recommends its data fields be stored 
> and displayed in a way that allows for easy identification of what the 
> different data entries represent and what language(s)/script(s) have 
> been used by the registered name holder.
>
> Recommendation #3 The Working Group recommends that the language(s) 
> and script(s) supported for registrants to submit their contact 
> information data may be chosen in accordance with gTLD- provider 
> business models.
>
> Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the 
> language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are 
> consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement 
> (RAA), relevant Consensus Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy 
> (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information 
> data are validated, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and 
> Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable.
>
> Recommendation #5 The Working Group recommends that if the 
> transformation of contact information is performed, and if the 
> Whois replacement system is capable of displaying more than one 
> data set per registered name holder entry, these data should be 
> presented as additional fields (in addition to the authoritative local 
> script fields provided by the registrant) and that these fields be 
> marked as transformed and their source(s) indicated.
>
> Recommendation #6 The Working Group recommends that any Whois 
> replacement system, for example RDAP, remains flexible so that contact 
> information in new scripts/languages can be added and expand its 
> linguistic/script capacity for receiving, storing 
> and displaying contact information data.
>
> Recommendation #7 The Working Group recommends that these 
> recommendations are coordinated with other Whois modifications where 
> necessary and are implemented and/or applied as soon as a Whois 
> replacement system that can receive, store and display non-ASCII 
> characters, becomes operational.
>
> Finding in relation to second Charter question Based on 
> recommendations #1-#7, the question of who should decide who 
> should bear the burden of translating or transliterating contact 
> information to a single common script is moot.
>
> Recommendation 1 was accompanied by a Minority Statement, reading as 
> follows: Working Group member Petter Rindforth, in line with the 
> position taken by his Constituency, the Intellectual 
> Property Constituency (ICP),2 recommends mandatory translation 
> and/or transliteration (transformation) of contact information in all 
> generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
>
> Although he agrees that there are situations where the 
> contact information in the local language of the registrant is the 
> primary version, such as to identify the registrant in preparation for 
> a local legal action, there are a number of situations where a 
> global WHOIS search, providing access to data in as uniform a fashion 
> as possible, is necessary for the data registration service to achieve 
> its goals of providing transparency and accountability in the DNS. See 
> also 5.1.1 [of the Final Report] explaining the Working 
> Group's arguments supporting mandatory transformation of contact 
> information in all generic top-level domains.
>
> Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
>
> Regular consultation with stakeholders took place during the lifetime 
> of this PDP, specifically during three ICANN meetings (ICANN 49, 
> 50 and 51), as well as public comment periods for the Preliminary 
> Issues Report, the Initial Report and prior to Board consideration.
>
> What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
>
> The main concern that was raised by the Community was that 
> a multi-script / multi-language database will lead to less 
> transparency because scripts other than Latin might be less 
> comprehensible for a majority of internet users. It would also reduce 
> the search-ability of data. It was also feared that fraudulent 
> registrants could hide their identity behind different scripts/languages.
>
> What significant materials did the Board review?
>
> The Board reviewed the Final Report, the GNSO Council Recommendations 
> Report to the Board, as well as the summary of public comments and 
> Staff's response to those comments.
>
> What factors did the Board find to be significant?
>
> The recommendations were developed following the GNSO Policy 
> Development Process as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws 
> and have received the unanimous support from the GNSO Council. As 
> outlined in the ICANN Bylaws, the Council's supermajority support 
> for the motion (the Council voted unanimously in favor) obligates the 
> Board to adopt the recommendation unless by a vote of more 
> than two-thirds, the Board determines that the policy is not in the 
> best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. In addition, 
> continuing the internationalization of the domain name system is an 
> important area of work for ICANN. The recommendations have the 
> potential to improve user-friendliness and accuracy of contact 
> information data throughout a truly globalized DNS.
>
> Are there positive or negative community impacts?
>
> Some of the positive impacts identified in the Final Report include 
> (but are not limited to):
>
> • Registrants not familiar with US-ASCII will be able to register 
> domain names using the script they are most familiar with;
> • Registrars are not forced to translate or transliterate data but 
> they have to validate data regardless of which script they support 
> –  the decision on which ones those are will be regulated by demand 
> and supply;
> • Registration costs will not increase because requiring registrars to 
> translate or transliterate all contact information data into 
> one script3 will inevitably lead to costs that could be passed on to 
> registrants;
> • Allowing registrants to use the language/script they are 
> most familiar with when registering domains will have a positive 
> impact on data accuracy.
> Some of the negative impacts identified in the Final Report are that:
>
> • Those seeking to search contact information data and operating in 
> US-ASCII might have to translate or transliterate data to be able 
> to contact registrants (though that is true for those seeking 
> information but not familiar with US-ASCII even if translation 
> or transliteration were mandatory).
> Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, 
> operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
>
> There are no fiscal impacts on ICANN. Those members of the community 
> and wider public might have to pay for professional translation or 
> transliteration of contact information. However, these costs stand in 
> stark contrast to the potential costs that would occur if under 
> a blanket requirement every contact that is provided in a script other 
> than US-ASCII would have to be translated or transliterated.
>
> Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to 
> the DNS?
> The current WHOIS protocol is not designed for scripts other than 
> US-ASCII. However, the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) 
> is currently being rolled out as the WHOIS replacement and it [the 
> RDAP] is fully compatible with different scripts. Once the RDAP 
> is implemented – or any another replacement that is capable of dealing 
> with scripts other than US-ASCII – there will be no 
> security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if the 
> Board approves the proposed recommendations.
>
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Npoc-discuss mailing list
> Npoc-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/npoc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-discuss/attachments/20151001/0447103e/attachment.html>