[APAC-Discuss] Report back from Beijing

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Everyone

My notes on some of the meetings at Beijing are below.  I don't have more notes since I was in the Chair for many of the meetings.

First, a reminder of elections for APRALO - dates are below and Matt - could you please send a link so that people can nominate whomever and acceptances of the nominations can be recorded.

Next, at this stage, the only matter out for comment is the list of questions from the ATRT2 - the link is on the policy page.

For those following the Whois issue, there is a webinar in the next couple of days - check the ICANN site.

There will also be a discussion later in the week on the ALAC/RALOs budget for FY2014.  We have already applied for funding to attend the IGF in Bali - and after initial discussion, the request for funding for 3 will go ahead - for a panel on IDN variants.  We will also put in a smaller application to attend the regional IGF in Korea - again on IDN variants.

And one issue that caused a lot of discussion in Beijing was on individual membership.  This should be an item for discussion at our next APRALO meeting. ( I am checking with Silvia but think we cancelled the April meeting since we had one in Beijing)

What we can also discuss at the next meeting is some feedback on Beijing - what worked, what didn't, what else should we be doing.

Holly

ICANN 46

 

Monday 8 April

 

Thick Whois GNSO Working Group (providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation on universal ‘thick’ Whois) looking at the following elements: response consistency, stability, accessibility, impact on privacy and data protection, cost implications, synchronization and migration, authoritativeness, competition in Registry services, existing WHOIS applications, data escrow and Registrar Part 43 WHOIS requirements.

 

Began with a brief explanation of what  ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ whois means. For thick, registrar collects data on the registrant, the domain and various contacts, and provides the information to the registry. For thin registries, only the domain data published – but all three data types retained.  The WG has reached consensus on most issues – but not all.

 

The issue for this session: privacy.  Specifically, looking at the privacy implications for the Registrants who have registered their information in the thin model with the expectation that only domain data would be captured at the Registry during a transitional period where they’ve registered their name in a jurisdiction where there are strong privacy protections in local law? And now that data is going to be published in a Registry where the local law is different.  The issue for registrants may arise if they deal with a registrar in a ‘privacy-friendly’ country with strong privacy laws, but the registry is in a jurisdiction with far less stringent privacy laws and registrant data is then made publicly available when all registries are ‘thick’.

 

Middle East Strategy : The meeting talked to strategies that are being worked on to improve achieve three goals:

·       Foster two-way engagement between ICANN and the broader Internet community in the region;

·       Build strong and competitive domain name industry in the region;

·       Promote multistakeholder Internet governance mechanisms in the region.

Strategic Focus areas are:

·       DNS security and stability

·       Domain name industry

·       Internet governance ecosystem

In comments, the CEO of AusRegistry made suggestions including the need for metrics (such as number/percentage of registrations per population, registrations for businesses, number of gTLDs, ccTLDs, and talked of the need to promote local content as a driver.

 

Multi-Stakeholder Roundtable:

First session was on the new gTLDs.  Speakers included Jeremy Malcolm, Consumers International, Peter Nettlefold, ViceChair, GAC, Zahid Jamil, Business Constituency, GNSO, Maguy Serad, ICANN Compliance.

Malcolm: Focus on end users- names they use, not have. Issues for consumers include the possibility of phishing, software incompatibilities, unclear expectations from the new names.  Overall, the impact is likely to be relatively minor – a don’t know, don’t care attitude.

Nettlefold: Taken the view that they aren’t keen to object outright, but concerns include issues of defensive registrations, whether there is an implied level of trust with strings.  On PICS, there was a need to identify the goal of commitments made in applications. 

On compliance, there are issues of enforceability, who can raise concerns, who is notified, and what are the enforcement mechanisms.

Jamil: Are three stakeholders: the end user, the registrant and the trademark holder. All three should be protected.  It is important that confusion is avoided, includingwhether there are IP risks attached to the name. What about scripts other than ASCII, and what about words that are similar? – is nothing in the Trade Mark clearing house to deal with those issues. On PICS, the current obligations are on registries – but what about registrars. Further, the RAA akkiws a oattern of abuse, with no mechanism to deal with it. Finally, developing countries do not have mechanisms to deal with the issues and maya become soft targets.

Serad: Compliance has been identifying the gaps in PICS and are building a readiness plan.  There will be proactive monitoring for compliance.  On enforceability, there is a lack of clarity on whether they are contractual obligations.

 

Wednesday 10 April

 

Whois Working Group

Review of documents published

Since then, have been additional negotiations, and has been agreement in principle to additional issues

Cautions:

·       Has been a 4year process and there is a level of anxiety about the final text

·       The specification on privacy/proxy has been condensed

·       What about verification of the true registrant using a privacy/proxy service

 

Thursday 11 April

 

APRALO Meeting

·       Engagement with RIRs – especially APNIC – be aware of events involving RIRs

·       New groups, including new gTLD outreach

·       Need for feedback on ATRT2

·       Is survey on ICANN image

·       Is a need for a youth session or youth forum as a bridge between users and ICANN

·       Needfor briefing sessions

·       Issue of individual membership

·       Elections: (for APRALO Chair – Holly’s term ends 30 June, for APRALO Vice Chair (YJ’s term ends 30 June) and for Secretariat – Edmon and Pavan – term ends 30 June)

o   Nominations are from 9 April to 3 May

o   4 May – 10 May – acceptances by nominees

o   17 May – 7 June: Elections

o   1 July – Newly elected leaders’ terms begin