- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Both good. Thanks. Alan At 28/02/2013 09:35 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Alan, > >A suggestion to address Carlton's concern (not a full solution, but >a partial one): > >"We can foresee There may be innovative business models that might >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest." > >Also, another suggestion for the final sentence in last >paragraph: "Such uses should not be excluded as long as it can be >established that they serve the public interest." > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Carlton, Evan and I worked very hard to craft a statement that we >hoped a majority of the ALAC could support. Do you have any specific >wording recommendations to change it to make it clearer or >more self-consistent? > >In response to your comments, I would suggest that the opening >sentence read "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited >closed generics provide public benefit." > >Alan > >At 28/02/2013 07:50 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at > >the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement > >itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up > >the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. > > > >I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that > >closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, > >at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the > >existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! > > > >The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe > >that closed generics provide public benefit". > > > >Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative > >business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public > >interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names > >available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. > >This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites." > > > >This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". > >"Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence > >now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration > >of the fist paragraph. > > > >-Carlton > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > > > >On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg > ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create > >a new version. > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, > >and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > earlier versions. > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > ><<https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/ > x/Z4JwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > >Alan > > > >================================= > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > >would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might > >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > >be excluded. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: > <<http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com > mittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:39:02 -0500 >Subject: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation >Teleconference on Monday, > March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes > >Dear Councilors, > >I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from >your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and >the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open >consultation with the community. > > >**** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement >Modifications***** > >The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant >Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide >consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC. > >On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants >spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new >introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute >material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final >New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a >brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments >(PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry >agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed >the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a >host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes >document. >(<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…) > > >The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final >Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it >should be withdrawn in its entirety and the previously agreed-to >version in the Applicant Guidebook should be used. We oppose certain >proposed amendments, and believe that other provisions need further >thought and refinement. We are equally concerned about the timeline >ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of these >proposals, and the mechanism by which ICANN proposes to adopt and >implement the changes. > >The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve sufficient >time and consideration to ensure that new gTLDs are offered in a >secure and stable manner and are successful in fostering innovation >via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders >in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. > >The RySG's full public comments are available here: >(<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html) > >ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends >on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20, >2013. In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this >short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide >consultation to discuss the proposed agreement modifications. The >meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We >cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN >Board and the ICANN staff to attend this consultation. > >Please open the attachment to find the Adobe connect link and >teleconference details. > >Best regards, > >Jeffrey J. Neuman >Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs >46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 >Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: >+1.703.738.7965 / ><mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

1 0

Closed generic statement
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create a new version. I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions. The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you see here, please speak up quickly. This new statement is also posted on the wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. Alan ================================= On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable. Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated. In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded.

2 1

Comments of Transliteration Contact -WHOIS - Data
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 19, 2013

Feb. 19, 2013

We are totally dependent on our IDN experts to help us here. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

ALAC & At-Large involvement in GNSO activities
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 14, 2013

Feb. 14, 2013

This is a long message, but please take the time to read it. This is my seventh year as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. It has always been a challenge, and has at times been exciting, frustrating, productive, discouraging and often satisfying. And I have learnt far more on so many levels than I could even start to recount here. I take some pride at having initiated two PDPs on behalf of the ALAC, and seen them through to create new ICANN policy. One, domain tasting, was so successful at killing a distasteful practice that most people no longer even remember what it was. The other on post-expiration registrant rights was successful in that the resultant policy gives registrants some rights to renew gTLD accidentally expired domains where they previously had no rights at all, but the results were not quite at the level that we had hoped for, to some extent due to the limited involvement of At-Large throughout the process. I, along with Cheryl when her busy schedule has allowed, have been regular participants in quite a number of GNSO activities, both policy and administrative. Others such as Evan and Carlton have made their voices heard as well, and more recently we have seen a few others start to participate. This note is prompted by a number of issues. First, it hopefully will come as no surprise that I do not intend to hold the role of ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for Life. It is therefore increasingly important to have more people knowledgeable about the GNSO and active in its activities, so that when a new Liaison is required, the ALAC will have good options for my replacement. Second, for several years, the GNSO spent far more time than perhaps it should have on its re-organization and reformulation of all of its procedures and methodologies. These changes were mandated by the Board and the GNSO had little choice but to carry out the re-org, but that has now largely been completed. What was a slow trickle of policy work when the focus was on administration is now becoming a flood. There are currently several PDPs active and more coming down the pipe (I am participating in three of them, and I am a vice-chair of one). In addition, the GNSO is under increasing pressure to develop policy through other means, and neither the community nor the Board is comfortable with policy development taking years. The net effect is that the work going on at any time is growing, and there is pressure to get the work done faster. If At-Large is to be able to influence these efforts, it MUST get involved from the very start. And it will take a lot more than one or two people. Issuing comments and advice at the end of the process is simply not going to allow us to properly influence policy outcomes. Lastly, the overall character of many discussions in ICANN is changing. When I started, the "public interest" was a phrase that showed up in an obscure way in the ICANN Bylaws and was rarely mentioned. Users who did not register domain names were generally not considered to be a factor in decisions. With increased ALAC visibility and the Affirmation of Commitment, that has changed. A lot! As the one part of ICANN to have the interest of the billions of Internet users as its core mission, ALAC and At-Large have an opportunity to help drive ICANN in a direction that indeed serves the public interest. But we can only do that if we are actively and intensely involved in activities outside of our little corner of ICANN. We need to be out there, participating and helping to formulate the policies that we believe WILL benefit the public interest and Internet users. And we need to have the credibility so that when we do engage, people listen. I will soon put together a list of ongoing GNSO activities as well as those that may be starting soon. For a few ongoing activities, it is probably too late for new people to get involved. For others, getting involved now will be an interesting learning experience. And as new projects start up, there will be lots of new opportunities. I am prepared to work with anyone who has a true interest in becoming active in GNSO policy activities. Some of these topics are complex and will take work to understand and eventually to contribute. Others will be far easier. But in all cases, helping to formulate GOOD policy will be both satisfying and productive. Alan (also being sent to the At-Large list)

7 14

OOPS!: Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2013

Feb. 13, 2013

If you try to look at the new agreements pointed to bt the public comment form, they don't work. I am guessing that when the launched the "new improved" new gTLD Micro Site today, they broke those links. I have let a few people know. Alan At 12/02/2013 10:19 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The 2nd URL is missing a character. The correct one is: > >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm > >At 12/02/2013 10:11 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>>Dear Heather, >>> >>>On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up >>>on our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide >>>a report on our efforts to address one item of >>>advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué. >>> >>>Background >>> >>>In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a >>>written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how >>>ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by >>>[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a >>>result of any subsequent changes, will be >>>overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board >>>that, "it is necessary for all of these >>>statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into >>>binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." >>> >>>In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated >>>that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD >>>program to address the GAC's concerns. To >>>respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by >>>others in the community, staff was asked to >>>develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant >>>commitments (either as set forth within their >>>applications or arising from early warning discussions >>>between applicants and governments) into >>>contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board >>>considered the staff proposals at the Board >>>Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February >>>2013. >>> >>>I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken >>>specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1 >>>February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee >>>adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and >>>CEO to seek public comment on a proposed >>>"Public Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to >>>be added to each new gTLD registry agreement. >>> >>>(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13… >>>) >>> >>>On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public >>>comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the >>>New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec. >>> >>>(http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm ) >>> >>> >>>"Public Interest Commitments" >>> >>>The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which >>>applicants may incorporate additional commitments into >>>their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the >>>PIC Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional >>>provisions. It would require the Registry >>>Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013 >>>Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would >>>also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to >>>follow the commitments made in certain >>>sections of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be >>>selected by the Registry Operator). Finally, >>>it would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific >>>additional commitments - which could be even >>>broader than those undertaken in the application - that it >>>will follow in the operation of the registry. >>> >>>Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would >>>be posted for public review in advance of the Beijing >>>meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC >>>Spec would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The >>>Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed. >>> >>> >>>Enforcement >>> >>>The commitment to use only Registrars that >>>have signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the >>>regular contractual compliance process within >>>ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be >>>enforceable by third parties through a revised >>>Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process. >>> >>>Once the Registry Agreement is in operation, >>>third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry >>>Operator's alleged noncompliance with the >>>additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC >>>Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute >>>resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be >>>made part of the existing Registry Restriction >>>Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and >>>Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb . >>> >>>First, there would be a mandatory conciliation >>>phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator >>>are expected to try to informally resolve the >>>issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party >>>complainant will then proceed to a Public >>>Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP) >>>operated by a dispute resolution provider. >>> >>>If the provider issues findings and >>>recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec, >>>the matter would then proceed to ICANN's >>>Contractual Compliance for enforcement. >>> >>> >>>Timeframe >>> >>>As noted above, the PIC Spec and other >>>proposed revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for >>>public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants >>>were also invited to optionally designate which parts of >>>their application and which additional >>>promises they will agree to have included in their registry agreement. >>> >>>Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and >>>will be publicly posted for public and GAC review. >>> >>>I hope that you find the above responsive to >>>the GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant >>>commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Stephen D. Crocker, >>>Chair, ICANN Board

1 0

Correction: Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2013

Feb. 13, 2013

The 2nd URL is missing a character. The correct one is: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm At 12/02/2013 10:11 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>Dear Heather, >> >>On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up on >>our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide >>a report on our efforts to address one item of >>advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué. >> >>Background >> >>In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a >>written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how >>ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by >>[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a >>result of any subsequent changes, will be >>overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board >>that, "it is necessary for all of these >>statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into >>binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." >> >>In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated >>that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD >>program to address the GAC's concerns. To >>respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by >>others in the community, staff was asked to >>develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant >>commitments (either as set forth within their >>applications or arising from early warning discussions >>between applicants and governments) into >>contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board >>considered the staff proposals at the Board >>Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February >>2013. >> >>I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken >>specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1 >>February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee >>adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and >>CEO to seek public comment on a proposed >>"Public Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to >>be added to each new gTLD registry agreement. >> >>(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13… >>) >> >>On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public >>comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the >>New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec. >> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm ) >> >> >>"Public Interest Commitments" >> >>The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which >>applicants may incorporate additional commitments into >>their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the >>PIC Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional >>provisions. It would require the Registry >>Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013 >>Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would >>also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to >>follow the commitments made in certain sections >>of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be >>selected by the Registry Operator). Finally, >>it would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific >>additional commitments - which could be even >>broader than those undertaken in the application - that it >>will follow in the operation of the registry. >> >>Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would >>be posted for public review in advance of the Beijing >>meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC >>Spec would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The >>Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed. >> >> >>Enforcement >> >>The commitment to use only Registrars that have >>signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the >>regular contractual compliance process within >>ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be >>enforceable by third parties through a revised >>Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process. >> >>Once the Registry Agreement is in operation, >>third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry >>Operator's alleged noncompliance with the >>additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC >>Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute >>resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be >>made part of the existing Registry Restriction >>Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and >>Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb . >> >>First, there would be a mandatory conciliation >>phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator >>are expected to try to informally resolve the >>issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party >>complainant will then proceed to a Public >>Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP) >>operated by a dispute resolution provider. >> >>If the provider issues findings and >>recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec, >>the matter would then proceed to ICANN's >>Contractual Compliance for enforcement. >> >> >>Timeframe >> >>As noted above, the PIC Spec and other proposed >>revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for >>public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants >>were also invited to optionally designate which parts of >>their application and which additional promises >>they will agree to have included in their registry agreement. >> >>Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and >>will be publicly posted for public and GAC review. >> >>I hope that you find the above responsive to >>the GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant >>commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject. >> >>Best regards, >>Stephen D. Crocker, >>Chair, ICANN Board

1 0

Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2013

Feb. 13, 2013

>Dear Heather, > >On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up on >our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide >a report on our efforts to address one item of >advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué. > >Background > >In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a >written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how >ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by >[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a >result of any subsequent changes, will be >overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board >that, "it is necessary for all of these >statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into >binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." > >In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated >that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD >program to address the GAC's concerns. To >respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by >others in the community, staff was asked to >develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant >commitments (either as set forth within their >applications or arising from early warning discussions >between applicants and governments) into >contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board >considered the staff proposals at the Board >Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February >2013. > >I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken >specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1 >February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee >adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and >CEO to seek public comment on a proposed "Public >Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to >be added to each new gTLD registry agreement. > >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-01feb13… >) > >On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public >comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the >New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec. > (http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm ) > > >"Public Interest Commitments" > >The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which >applicants may incorporate additional commitments into >their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the PIC >Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional >provisions. It would require the Registry >Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013 >Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would >also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to >follow the commitments made in certain sections >of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be >selected by the Registry Operator). Finally, it >would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific >additional commitments - which could be even >broader than those undertaken in the application - that it >will follow in the operation of the registry. > >Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would be >posted for public review in advance of the Beijing >meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC Spec >would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The >Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed. > > >Enforcement > >The commitment to use only Registrars that have >signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the >regular contractual compliance process within >ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be >enforceable by third parties through a revised >Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process. > >Once the Registry Agreement is in operation, >third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry >Operator's alleged noncompliance with the >additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC >Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute >resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be >made part of the existing Registry Restriction >Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and >Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb . > >First, there would be a mandatory conciliation >phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator >are expected to try to informally resolve the >issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party >complainant will then proceed to a Public >Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP) >operated by a dispute resolution provider. > >If the provider issues findings and >recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec, >the matter would then proceed to ICANN's >Contractual Compliance for enforcement. > > >Timeframe > >As noted above, the PIC Spec and other proposed >revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for >public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants >were also invited to optionally designate which parts of >their application and which additional promises >they will agree to have included in their registry agreement. > >Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and >will be publicly posted for public and GAC review. > >I hope that you find the above responsive to the >GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant >commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject. > >Best regards, >Stephen D. Crocker, >Chair, ICANN Board >

1 0

Fwd: Registrar SG Input on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 11, 2013

Feb. 11, 2013

Perhaps of interest. Pretty strong Registrar support for universal thick whois. Alan

2 1

US Introduces New Cyber Security Bill in Senate
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 9, 2013

Feb. 9, 2013

Dear All, The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_i… To see the Bill, visit: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540… This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. This Bill affects ICANN's operations as well hence the relevance. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 5