October 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 30, 2009

Oct. 30, 2009

Today the 3 days of off line negotiations and reaching out to the ALAC and NCSG on the issue of the IRT Report and the RPMs were successful. 3 hours of discussion (with the help of the ALAC- Alan and Cheryl) on Monday with NCSG reps (Kathryn Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis) followed by discussions through yesterday were successful in providing background and a context to the BC position on the IRT Report. Initially on the Council list the NCSG had indicated and unwillingness of the IRT being available as a resource. Summary of points for discussion that were discussed were (subject to them being taken back to the NCSG): Welcome the IRT and other resources being available to the GNSO Working Group working on the Board's letter regarding the RPMs (ie. STI review team). At the session on Thursday (today) express the willingness that NCSG had for reaching out constructively to the GNSO community (language discussed included reaching common ground). The GNSO passed a Resolution today with the support of the NCSG stating: The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions that may arise; I believe that possibly a more integral part than the discussion with Kathy in achieving this was the efforts of members from other Constituency(s) that may have helped mediate this resolution through. In today's session on Trademark Protection and new gTLDs (transcript attached): Kathy responded positively and at the end of her first intervention stated: '....we in the NCUC want to work with you. We want to establish common ground, and we wish the best of luck for all of us in this expedited process.' She even went as far as saying in regards the IRT URS recommendation for Appeal: '.....and I have to say it, and I guess I'm on the record, the IRT kind of got this one right and let's go back to that.' This was met with equal good will by CSG members: J. Scott, now President of the IPC said: 'I worked with Kathy Kleiman, and we drafted the UDRP final version with Louis Touton and a group of other talented people, many of whom are here today................We just want to solve a problem. That's what we're here to do. We want to work with registries, registrars, NCUC. That's what we're here for. We're problem solvers. We want to solve the problem. Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working together in the near future. Zahid Jamil BC Councillor said: 'First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank Kathy for the NCUC's constructive invitation to work with goodwill. We look forward to the sentiment continuing in the GNSO. So thank you for that..........' With respect to several aspects of the IRT Solutions it seems that NCSG and BC may be able to find common ground. I am sure there must have been much discussion in the NCSG itself about taking these positions after discussing matters with the BC and other individuals. So Kudos to Kathy and Kostantino for achieving success for not letting down our discussions from Monday for which I have thanked them. Efforts of Alan and Cheryl to set up some of the atmosphere for the interaction also helped. Also in other private discussions this evening with some ALAC reps it seems that there may be even more common ground possible with the BC positions. This sentiment seems to have created an atmosphere which may enable some parties with divergent views reaching consensus on some aspects at least. I hope this interaction will also help BC, NCSG and ALAC collaborating on other issues in the future. Through private meetings tomorrow leading up to the STI session I hope this sentiment continues. Will report back after tomorrows STI meeting. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

8 11

FW: [gnso-sti] Brainstorming Notes
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 30, 2009

Oct. 30, 2009

FYI Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 9:17 AM To: gnso-sti(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-sti] Brainstorming Notes Dear All, Please find attached the Brainstorming Notes developed during our meeting yesterday. Best Regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

GNSO Participation Study
by BC Secretariat Oct. 30, 2009

Oct. 30, 2009

Dear Members Please see below from Denise Michel. I'm having problems opening the attached Word document. If members have similar problems I'll ask Denise to repost Gary --------------------- Dear GNSO Community Members: Policy Staff has done a high level analysis of constituency participation and attendance in GNSO working groups using recorded data for 11 groups from the beginning of 2008 to early September 2009. We looked at 5 gTLD-related working groups and 6 GNSO improvements-related working groups underway during this period. The attached report and related spreadsheets is intended as an inquiry to encourage further community investigation and discussion about GNSO workload and prioritization of tasks, as well as future work processes and structures. It does not purport to be a scientific or rigorous statistical examination nor does it attempt to identify hypotheses about specific underlying causes. We hope you find it useful and welcome any questions. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP Policy

4 3

BC meeting summary Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Dear Members Please find attached the notes of the BC meeting in Seoul Best wishes Gary

1 0

Registry/Registrar Separation
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

(for those of you not here in Seoul) Below is what I said (not on behalf of BC) today at the Public Forum, regarding Rr/Ry separation. I Listened to debate over separation. inconclusive (both sides passionate and articulate) > But I did learn about motivations for Registrars wanting to run Registries > > I learned about innovative methods for monetizing premium names. What I learned tells me ICANN should reset public expectations about benefits of new TLDs. > Let¹s start being more transparent about the way names will and won¹t be > available to the public. > > Let¹s limit disappointment when TLDs launch. > > And let¹s make it less likely that the review team on Competition , Consumer > Trust, and Choice will give ICANN a failing grade. For years, the Rhetoric of expectations has been: we need new TLDs to give registrants all those ³good names that are unavailable in current TLDs. That¹s the rhetoric. What¹s the reality? > Reality 1: new gTLD applicants will maximize profits on premium names, whether > by selling them at diff prices, or by having an affiliate park the domain with > advertising. That name is never going be available to a registrant that wants > to use it for content or commerce. > > Reality 2: will see Innovative ways to identify and control premium names at > launch, and then afterwards, when words and phrases suddenly acquire premium > value ( h1n1.whatever) There¹s Nothing illegal about that, and new Ry contracts allow uncapped and variable premium pricing. And you don¹t have to own a registrar to monetize your names I¹ve been educated about that. But let¹s stop kidding ourselves and the internet public about how new TLDs will let ordinary people register names they want but can¹t get today. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 2

GNSO Participation Study - pdf
by BC Secretariat Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Regarding my previous mail, please find attached the corrupted Word doc as a PDF file Gary

1 0

RE: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group
by Berry Cobb Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

CBUC, My mistake, PEDNR is a formal PDP, and not a Pre-PDP as I indicated below. My apologies for any confusion. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 From: Berry Cobb [mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:16 To: 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org' Subject: CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group CBUC, Attached is the DRAFT Position Statement for CBUC relative to the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group. (PEDNR-WG). All comments and suggestions are welcome. With the PEDNR being a Pre-PDP, it is my understanding a formal vote by the CBUC will not occur on this position statement. Rather, it will be reserved for a final CBUC Position statement based on PEDNR outcomes and recommendations. Please advise if you have questions or comments. I will be sure to incorporate all comments and changes to this statement. It is my desire to have this statement returned to the PEDNR - WG by COB 11/6/2009. Thank you. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891

3 4

Re: [bc-gnso] Update on TM Rights Protection Mechanisms Negotiations
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Great stuff Zahid - well doine. > Today the 3 days of off line negotiations and reaching out to the ALAC and > NCSG on the issue of the IRT Report and the RPMs were successful. > > 3 hours of discussion (with the help of the ALAC- Alan and Cheryl) on > Monday > with NCSG reps (Kathryn Kleiman and Konstantinos Komaitis) followed by > discussions through yesterday were successful in providing background and > a > context to the BC position on the IRT Report. > > Initially on the Council list the NCSG had indicated and unwillingness of > the IRT being available as a resource. > > Summary of points for discussion that were discussed were (subject to them > being taken back to the NCSG): > > Welcome the IRT and other resources being available to the GNSO Working > Group working on the Board's letter regarding the RPMs (ie. STI review > team). > > At the session on Thursday (today) express the willingness that NCSG had > for > reaching out constructively to the GNSO community (language discussed > included reaching common ground). > > The GNSO passed a Resolution today with the support of the NCSG stating: > The assistance of members of the IRT in answering questions about the IP > Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension System recommendations may be > useful to this work. The GNSO Council requests that members of the IRT who > worked on those recommendations be available to answer any such questions > that may arise; > > I believe that possibly a more integral part than the discussion with > Kathy > in achieving this was the efforts of members from other Constituency(s) > that > may have helped mediate this resolution through. > > > In today's session on Trademark Protection and new gTLDs (transcript > attached): > > Kathy responded positively and at the end of her first intervention > stated: > > '....we in the NCUC want to work with you. We want to establish common > ground, and we wish the best of luck for all of us in this expedited > process.' > > She even went as far as saying in regards the IRT URS recommendation for > Appeal: > > '.....and I have to say it, and I guess I'm on the record, the IRT kind of > got this one right and let's go back to that.' > > This was met with equal good will by CSG members: > > J. Scott, now President of the IPC said: > > 'I worked with Kathy Kleiman, and we drafted the UDRP final version with > Louis Touton and a group of other talented people, many of whom are here > today................We just want to solve a problem. That's what we're > here to do. We want to work with registries, registrars, NCUC. That's > what > we're here for. We're problem solvers. We want to solve the problem. > Thank you for the opportunity, and we look forward to working together in > the near future. > > Zahid Jamil BC Councillor said: > > 'First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank Kathy for the NCUC's > constructive invitation to work with goodwill. > We look forward to the sentiment continuing in the GNSO. So thank you for > that..........' > > With respect to several aspects of the IRT Solutions it seems that NCSG > and > BC may be able to find common ground. > > I am sure there must have been much discussion in the NCSG itself about > taking these positions after discussing matters with the BC and other > individuals. So Kudos to Kathy and Kostantino for achieving success for > not > letting down our discussions from Monday for which I have thanked them. > > Efforts of Alan and Cheryl to set up some of the atmosphere for the > interaction also helped. > > Also in other private discussions this evening with some ALAC reps it > seems > that there may be even more common ground possible with the BC positions. > > This sentiment seems to have created an atmosphere which may enable some > parties with divergent views reaching consensus on some aspects at least. > I > hope this interaction will also help BC, NCSG and ALAC collaborating on > other issues in the future. > > Through private meetings tomorrow leading up to the STI session I hope > this > sentiment continues. > > Will report back after tomorrows STI meeting. > > > > Sincerely, > > Zahid Jamil > Barrister-at-law > Jamil & Jamil > Barristers-at-law > 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe > Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan > Cell: +923008238230 > Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 > Fax: +92 21 5655026 > <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com > > Notice / Disclaimer > This message contains confidential information and its contents are being > communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the > intended > recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this > message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may > contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, > and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client > privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of > any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or > storing > it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or > incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior > written > permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. > >

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
by Phil Corwin Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Chinese restaurant. 37th floor Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: Scott M. McCormick <scott(a)mccormickict.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; Liz Williams <lizawilliams(a)mac.com>; Jim Baskin <james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 28 23:23:14 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Hey guys. Where's our lunch today? -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:54 PM To: HASSAN Ayesha Cc: Scott M. McCormick; Marilyn Cade; Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Thanks Ayesha > Dear colleagues, > > > > I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to > offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and > frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes > irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and > exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me: > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding: > > "According to the Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful > to approved positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are > required to support such positions" It seems logical to me that > Counselors "are required to support such positions" equates to voting > with the consensus and direction of the BC" > > > > Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is > helpful in someway. > > > > Best regards, > > Ayesha > > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf > Of Scott M. McCormick > Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 > To: Marilyn Cade > Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I support Jim's suggestion as well. > > > > In response to Marilyn's comments below, > > > > 1.) I move to remove the limit's on daily posts. If we are to be > effective in our coordination, I see a limit on posts as a hinderance. > I realize we have call-ins to accomplish tasks, but as I have seen in > the last couple months (of which I have become a BC member) with a limit > of 3/day or 10/month. How does anyone expect to accomplish anything in > a timely manner? I would suggest we move to change the wording to state > something as such: > > > > "reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden > members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with > respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus > overburdening others with one particular point of view" > > > > 2.) I was not present at this mornings meeting. According to the > Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful to approved > positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are required to > support such positions" It seems logical to me that Counselors "are > required to support such positions" equates to voting with the consensus > and direction of the BC. Did I miss something? > > > > > > Scott M. McCormick > McCormick ICT International > mobile +1 443.691.2013 > scott(a)mccormickict.com > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > > > > > Actually, I'm on board with Jim's suggestion. I know that Sarah > Deutsch, his colleague had made several proposals for change, and > undoubtedly will want to ensure that they are all taken into account. > > > > Once we make changes, I'm skeptical that we will, in fact, have the time > or bandwidth to make further changes, so we need to get this right. > > > > On the needed additional changes, I find it unfortunate that we didn't > read on through the rest of the Charter, and do the final check to > ensure that stuff that has been controversial and objected to by several > members. Let me identify two problem areas that have been raised and I > have repeatedly asked to have two changes made and in writing. > > > > 1) remove the discussion on limits of number of posts. > > Explanation: the evidence of our need to work collaboratively, and in > real time, and to keep our remote members informed, we have all > collaborated on line to share information and to keep in touch. Every > member who has been helping to share information, including Mike R.; > Zahid; Marilyn and even Sarah, who isn't here can be 'sanctioned', or > even kicked off the mailing list according to that criteria/limitation > of only 3 per day/etc. > > > > I have asked repeatedly to have this changed. > > Thus, I consider this to be one of the things that should be changed. > It's a simple change. > > > > 2) the list management section needs to be cut out as well. Any > responsibility for an email list would belong in the :secretariat > service(s) which is addressed earlier. The IPC certainly took a VERY > high level approach without addressing this kind of detailed > intervention into the ability of the members to communicate. > > > > After what came out this morning in Council when one of our councilors > said that "according to the current BC Charter, councilors are not > required to vote as their constituency directs", I have one additional > change to the Charter. > > > > We need to add in a sentence that clearly states that the elected BC > Councilors are bound by the guidance of the BC membership. > > > > One more thing -- just an FYI for right now, but an important > consideration -- during the NomComm review and again in the Board > Review, there is a growing recognition of the need for recall > mechanisms. In fact, the ALAC is moving ahead with metrics for elected > reps, and even recall. > > > > Let's give serious consideration to adding that in, and getting this > charter right. CC: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > > > > From: lizawilliams(a)mac.com > To: james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Charter > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:05:51 +0000 > > Hi Jim > > > > I thought that we agreed (I asked Philip to clarify that at the end) > was that Philip would capture the few changes that were made during the > meeting; finalise version 20; send that to the list with a timetable of > moving towards a vote quite shortly, based on the timing included in the > charter itself. > > > > I urge us to move to a new structure soon so that we can stop talking > about process and get back to substantive policy work ASAP. > > > > Liz > > On 28 Oct 2009, at 04:01, Baskin, James F (Jim) wrote: > > > > Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off > discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we > still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final > vote. > > > > Jim Baskin > > Verizon > > > > > > > >

1 0

BC Charter
by Baskin, James F (Jim) Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final vote. Jim Baskin Verizon

8 9

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Phil Corwin Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Related question - Did we decide on the BC rep to the STI review team? And is the first STI meeting still scheduled for thursday, 5-6:30 in Astor on 36th floor? Thanks! Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; michael(a)palage.com <michael(a)palage.com>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Oct 27 22:56:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Indeed Marilyn. You are right. The members at the meeting agreed but the draft position will be posted to the list for input allowing members that were not in the meeting to also have the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:44 AM To: Zahid Jamil; michael(a)palage.com; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, just one clarification. Otherwise fully agree. We agreed, i think, that the members that we had to reach an agreement within the members who were in the room, and based on the emails that were being posted to the list. That's the going in position, right? We all realize that we are relying upon the earlier BC positions, but modified by the evolving situation, right? and realizing that we had to try to reach a 'rough' consensus within the meeting. ________________________________ From: zahid(a)dndrc.com To: michael(a)palage.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:35:13 +0900 Thanks for the query Michael, The BC meeting yesterday led to member’s developing a position. I would suggest that it is up to our membership which (minus one member) agreed to proposals that were discussed in the constructive session moderated by Mike R. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:21 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, Is it really constructive to advocate positions that go above and beyond the initial recommendations contained in the IRT? Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:13 PM To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here’s something helpful Mike R put together. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed “IP claims”) must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch – unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to ‘yahoo’, or ‘yahoomail’ or ‘yaho0’ or ‘yahhoo’?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS – mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML – VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

1 0

FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here's something helpful Mike R put together. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed "IP claims") must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch - unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to 'yahoo', or 'yahoomail' or 'yaho0' or 'yahhoo'?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS - mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML - VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

7 11

FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
by Ron Andruff Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Sorry for the double posting should this email pop up twice. Important information noted below. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@dotsportllc.com] Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly introduction of domain names prior to the Seoul meeting for the benefit of membership review. While here, we have had many discussions with the leadership and membership of the IP, ISP, ALAC, and GAC and we are finding significant support for our argument. The GAC are moving toward 'categorization', which would be a much too narrow approach, so concerned ICANN community members appear to be coalescing around our argument for 'differentiation'. This morning at the CSG meeting, I recommended that we start the process with differentiation and then, if found to be not necessary, we could then remove such a restriction. We cannot do this the other way around because once the genie is out of the bottle there is no getting her back in. Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to the gathering support for what they call 'categorization', is "not necessary" or "too late". This is extremely discomfiting. On the other hand, Board member Thomas Narten stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure which way to go on this. I read this to mean that senior staff is standing at the barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community's input. Our argument is based completely on existing 'policy'. That is to say, we are noting (1) that the GNSO Final Report is not being properly implemented; (2) the Scaling the Root Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC's long-standing (9-years) position on the introduction of new gTLDs. Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has now been circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers in the community. In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the new gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet. We can be certain that there are those within our ICANN community - let alone those outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can be gamed - who will take advantage of a 'no rules' names introduction. As such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue serious consideration and post comments in support of 'differentiation' language being added to the DAG v4. We are not married to the language suggested in the document, so any amendments you have in that regard are also welcome. If I can be of further assistance please contact me. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff dotSport LLC 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 <mailto:ra@dotSportLLC.com> ra(a)dotSportLLC.com <http://www.dotsportllc.com> www.dotsportllc.com

3 3

BC Business Stream Cocktail
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

BC members, colleagues from the CSG, new Council appointees are reminded they are all welcome to attend the cocktail tonight from 18.00 - 19.00 in Athenee Lounge, level 3, Lotte Hotel, Seoul. Philip

1 0

New Blog Entry on Seoul Meeting
by Phil Corwin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Fellow BC members -- my latest post on the Seoul meeting is now up at http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN-Seoul_Mixed_Messages_on_New_gTLD . Hope you find it useful. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Excellent! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:42:52 To: <mike(a)haven2.com>; <DFares(a)newscorp.com> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Sounds good to me as well and it should address the original concern that led to this proposed language. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ---------------- From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:04 AM To: Fares, David Cc: Zahid Jamil; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 i'm with David on this one. His sentence seems like what we need, instead of all the prose; "When a member is representing the BC, they should remain faithful to approved BC positions" end of story. mikey On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Fares, David wrote: Colleagues, I am still working through the Charter. Regarding solidarity though, I suggest that we rephrase the language to ensure that when a member is representing the BC that they are faithful to approved BC positions.. I am not sure that we need the more in-depth language. Thanks, David From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:54 PM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 7.5. Solidarity Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position. As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s). This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position. Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 10. Privacy of personal data The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected. Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. [Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well. I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal information. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Philip, thanks. a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to me. I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in this version. However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course. A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers. That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN. I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on that one. I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient communications. We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. Marilyn > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be> > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > > > I attach the latest version for discussion. > I believe we are nearly there. > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was > to date unaltered. > > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. > > Philip > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

BC charter v19
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I attach the latest version for discussion. I believe we are nearly there. It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was to date unaltered. I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. Philip

7 9

Small edit to v19 Charter
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I believe our Membership description may have a typo in second sentence: > 3.1 Members of the Business Constituency use the Internet to conduct business > related to electronic commerce in its broad sense. The Business Constituency > is a constituency representing customers of other companies, who provide > connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and related services who > are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. I think the second sentence should read: > The Business Constituency is a constituency representing customers of > companies who provide connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and > related services who are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 3

test
by Christopher Martin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Sorry for the email test, but we're having issues here forwarding docs to members from the meeting. Christopher G. Martin Manager - Marketing & Advertising, ICT, Banking, Emerging Markets United States Council for International Business 1212 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (t)+1 212 703 5061 (m)+1 917 238 0902 (f)+1 212 575 0327 cgmartin(a)uscib.org<mailto:cgmartin@uscib.org> www.uscib.org<http://www.uscib.org/> View our new issue ad campaign on CNN International: www.YouTube.com/USCIB<http://www.YouTube.com/USCIB>

1 0

Really Brief RPM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Possible short phrases to characterise some of the Staff Proposals for RPMs: IP Clearing House - Won't work if domain name's being cybersquatted using hyphens (spaces, hyphens, punctuation, special characters etc.) URS - We are moving from an age where cars used to go 10 miles an hour to where they can go 100 miles an hour but for car manufacturers to include seat belts remains optional/best practice. Post Delegation - Registry can turn 'blind eye' to systemic TM infringement. GPML - Gone - Businesses will HAVE TO undertake Defensive Registrations - basically PAY for unwanted domains in EVERY new gTLD. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

3 3

Acronyms by the score
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Hi there, Following remotely, I am tripping across Acronyms by the score. The buster has 210 in it now. Anybody know? RDT NCA http://www.andalucia.com/icann/ Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

The privacy requirements shld not exceed ICANN's own requirements. Members can decide to display their contact details, or not, in the membership list. However, elected and appointed officers or councilors, nomcomm appointees, credentials committee reps, etc., cannot choose to fail to provide contact information to members. The BC can provide a BC email address if the elected officers/appointed officers/reps prefer to do that, as the Bd does... Finally, the BC charter is MUCH more detailed than other groups charters and goes into prescription on many things others do not address. Why are we not looking at the other charters as I have asked numerous times to try to have a streamlined charter, and then move contentious items off to a post election process? Secondly, we really cannot move to 25 per cent on raising objections - let's do the math. 41 members-25 % = 10 members. there are 18 attending people/but not 18 unique entities at Seoul and three active parties following remotely and posting - David Fares, Sarah Deustch/with her company here as well, and Mikey. You must assume that that "we" are the most active of the members. So, according to V19's proposal, by moving to 25% to raise objections that would trigger a vote, we are asking for too high a threshhold to at least get an opportunity to consider a change in a draft position or ensure that the full membership considers and acclaims support, or opposition to positions. Let's keep 10% for now and debate whether to raise that at a next stage. But I will reask the question again- is the charter v19 too detailed? I would venture that the mere fact that we got up to v16 before any discussion and are even AT a v19 is a very bad "indicator". I spoke to a member of the BC recently who might be expected to have read the Charter - because that person is with an association member. That person asked me to explain the charter to them, and acknowledged that they didn't have time to study it..... I say that with the interest of supporting members needs, not to be critical. We need to try to make this a transitional charter-- if we have details that are raising the degree of concern across this number of members, then remove those areas, have a streamlined charter. Hold the elections, and creat a charter redrafting team. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Zahid Jamil <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:53:57 To: <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 1024x768 Clean false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 7.5. Solidarity Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position. As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s). This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position. Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 10. Privacy of personal data The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected. Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. [Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well. I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal information. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Philip, thanks. a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to me. I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in this version. However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course. A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers. That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN. I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on that one. I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient communications. We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. Marilyn > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > I attach the latest version for discussion. > I believe we are nearly there. > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was > to date unaltered. > > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. > > Philip >

1 0

IMPORTANT - Decision BC has to make on new gTLD TM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

Dear All, Have spent a good 3 hours discussing these issues with the far right on the Non-Commercial SG (will update in the BC meeting tomorrow). In the meantime, as promised in the Huddle here is, a short brief to help with discussion on BC strategy in tomorrow’s meeting: Not part of the GNSO work requested in the Board letter: 1. GPML: This has been rejected by the Board and so the Board has not sent this to the GNSO for any consensus. There has been much opposition within the ICANN community to this and was the main target of criticism. It seems there also may be some opposition from the GAC. However, this leaves open the problem of defensive registration. BC has to decide what its position is to be going forward. This would not be an issue we need to decide on with respect to the GNSO working group to work on URSS and IP Clearing House as this is not part of the work assigned by the Board to the GNSO in its letter. But a general position in this regard to be communicated so that the Board is aware of our view may be an idea. 2. Post Delegation: This too has not been sent by the Board to the GNSO for any work on reaching consensus. It is currently open for public comment and the BC can make comments in this regard. The Post Delegation is not in line with the IRT Report (many reasons mentioned in earlier posts so will not repeat here). The Staff Proposal would put the interests of both TM holders and Communities at risk since once the delegation is made they would not have any recourse or rights to institute Post Delegation Disputes under this policy based on: ・ breach of representations in the gTLD application ・ breach of Registry Agreements ・ systemic breach of TMs in the gTLD as a result of omissions or lacunas in Registry Operations or where the Registry can simply turn ‘a blind eye’ to the infringements This is what the Post Delegation was initially designed for and so not having this in the Staff proposal makes the Solution effectively irrelevant. The BC needs to decide on its response to the Staff Proposal for posting of comments Work Board has asked GNSO to work/decide on: 1. IP Clearing House Staff Proposal is not as problematic as other proposals. There are a few important issues though. Here the object of the IRT was to allow IP Rights holders to voluntarily sign up their IP rights (not just TM) with a centralised database (Clearing house to validate rights). It would be mandatory for New gTLD Registries Operators to connect with the Clearing house. In case of a Sunrise the New gTLD Operator would have to provide a Sunrise registration process verified by Clearinghouse data, and incorporates a Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP). In case of a Claims Service, if a registrant applies for a domain name matches with a TM ‘identical’ to one in the IP Clearing house this will prompt a notification to the registrant of the TM and require registrant to make warranties as to the domain name being registered. IRT had recommended that ‘identical match’ mean: In this regard: (a) spaces contained within a trademark that are replaced by hyphens (and vice versa), (b) spaces, hyphens, punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are spelt out with appropriate words describing it (Including but not limited to ~ @ # ! § % ^ (c) and &.), and (c) punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are omitted or replaced by spaces or hyphens will be considered identical matches. In the Staff Proposal identical match’ means: ‘“identical” is defined to mean that the domain name consists of the complete and identical textual element of the trademark.’ As can be seen the Staff definition of identical match is very narrow. BC needs to decide whether to advocate IRT definition or also seek inclusion of Typosquatting and/or extend match to visual, aural? In the Staff Proposal Pre‐registration complaint process in URS is not included. BC needs to decide whether such pre-registration for use in URS is necessary. Not clear whether IP Clearing house connectivity with New gTLD Registry Operators is mandatory or not. 2. URS: The Staff proposal (different from the IRT) only recommends this as a ‘best practice’ and not mandatory for a New gTLD. Staff suggest this is only an interim solution “until and if policy development work in this area is undertaken by the GNSO which may adopt this or a similar system for use by all registries”. The link of the URS of pre-registration in the IP Clearing house have been removed. The IRT had suggested a fee be imposed on registrant to file an answer if more than 26 domains are at issue. Staff Proposal removes this requirement. Notification under IRT of URS was supposed to be by email. Staff Proposal includes the requirement of paper as well as fax notification in addition to email. Only remedy: “that domain name shall be suspended for the balance of the registration period. It will point to a site with a standardized post stating that it was suspended as a result of a URS proceeding. The Whois record shall be revised to reflect that the domain name is on hold and cannot be transferred for the life of the registration.” This may lead to the same domain name being put back into the pool and snapped up by cybersquatters. BC needs to decide whether transfer of the domain name to the Complainant (for a fee and/or other conditions) is to be advocated. Also should BC advocate this be a mandatory and permanent Rights Protection Mechanism. It may also be an idea to advocate that all these RPMs be reviewed periodically. Once new gTLDs are launched there will be more data to enable revisiting these RPMs for improvement and possibly addressing problems not earlier foreseeable. Getting late now so will post more if necessary in morning. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

2 1

Webpost on GNSO Process for Trademark Issues
by Phil Corwin Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

FYI, I have written about the task facing the GNSO on TM protection issues at http://www.internetcommerce.org/GNSO_ICANN_Board_Charge_Trademark_Protectio… Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 1

IMPORTANT - Decision BC has to make on new gTLD TM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

Dear All, Have spent a good 3 hours discussing these issues with the far right on the Non-Commercial SG (will update in the BC meeting tomorrow). In the meantime, as promised in the Huddle here is, a short brief to help with discussion on BC strategy in tomorrow’s meeting: Not part of the GNSO work requested in the Board letter: 1. GPML: This has been rejected by the Board and so the Board has not sent this to the GNSO for any consensus. There has been much opposition within the ICANN community to this and was the main target of criticism. It seems there also may be some opposition from the GAC. However, this leaves open the problem of defensive registration. BC has to decide what its position is to be going forward. This would not be an issue we need to decide on with respect to the GNSO working group to work on URSS and IP Clearing House as this is not part of the work assigned by the Board to the GNSO in its letter. But a general position in this regard to be communicated so that the Board is aware of our view may be an idea. 2. Post Delegation: This too has not been sent by the Board to the GNSO for any work on reaching consensus. It is currently open for public comment and the BC can make comments in this regard. The Post Delegation is not in line with the IRT Report (many reasons mentioned in earlier posts so will not repeat here). The Staff Proposal would put the interests of both TM holders and Communities at risk since once the delegation is made they would not have any recourse or rights to institute Post Delegation Disputes under this policy based on: ・ breach of representations in the gTLD application ・ breach of Registry Agreements ・ systemic breach of TMs in the gTLD as a result of omissions or lacunas in Registry Operations or where the Registry can simply turn ‘a blind eye’ to the infringements This is what the Post Delegation was initially designed for and so not having this in the Staff proposal makes the Solution effectively irrelevant. The BC needs to decide on its response to the Staff Proposal for posting of comments Work Board has asked GNSO to work/decide on: 1. IP Clearing House Staff Proposal is not as problematic as other proposals. There are a few important issues though. Here the object of the IRT was to allow IP Rights holders to voluntarily sign up their IP rights (not just TM) with a centralised database (Clearing house to validate rights). It would be mandatory for New gTLD Registries Operators to connect with the Clearing house. In case of a Sunrise the New gTLD Operator would have to provide a Sunrise registration process verified by Clearinghouse data, and incorporates a Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP). In case of a Claims Service, if a registrant applies for a domain name matches with a TM ‘identical’ to one in the IP Clearing house this will prompt a notification to the registrant of the TM and require registrant to make warranties as to the domain name being registered. IRT had recommended that ‘identical match’ mean: In this regard: (a) spaces contained within a trademark that are replaced by hyphens (and vice versa), (b) spaces, hyphens, punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are spelt out with appropriate words describing it (Including but not limited to ~ @ # ! § % ^ (c) and &.), and (c) punctuation or special characters contained within a trademark that are omitted or replaced by spaces or hyphens will be considered identical matches. In the Staff Proposal identical match’ means: ‘“identical” is defined to mean that the domain name consists of the complete and identical textual element of the trademark.’ As can be seen the Staff definition of identical match is very narrow. BC needs to decide whether to advocate IRT definition or also seek inclusion of Typosquatting and/or extend match to visual, aural? In the Staff Proposal Pre‐registration complaint process in URS is not included. BC needs to decide whether such pre-registration for use in URS is necessary. Not clear whether IP Clearing house connectivity with New gTLD Registry Operators is mandatory or not. 2. URS: The Staff proposal (different from the IRT) only recommends this as a ‘best practice’ and not mandatory for a New gTLD. Staff suggest this is only an interim solution “until and if policy development work in this area is undertaken by the GNSO which may adopt this or a similar system for use by all registries”. The link of the URS of pre-registration in the IP Clearing house have been removed. The IRT had suggested a fee be imposed on registrant to file an answer if more than 26 domains are at issue. Staff Proposal removes this requirement. Notification under IRT of URS was supposed to be by email. Staff Proposal includes the requirement of paper as well as fax notification in addition to email. Only remedy: “that domain name shall be suspended for the balance of the registration period. It will point to a site with a standardized post stating that it was suspended as a result of a URS proceeding. The Whois record shall be revised to reflect that the domain name is on hold and cannot be transferred for the life of the registration.” This may lead to the same domain name being put back into the pool and snapped up by cybersquatters. BC needs to decide whether transfer of the domain name to the Complainant (for a fee and/or other conditions) is to be advocated. Also should BC advocate this be a mandatory and permanent Rights Protection Mechanism. It may also be an idea to advocate that all these RPMs be reviewed periodically. Once new gTLDs are launched there will be more data to enable revisiting these RPMs for improvement and possibly addressing problems not earlier foreseeable. Getting late now so will post more if necessary in morning. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

1 0