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

Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

FYI -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Hi, Since it does not appear that the 4 SGs managed to negotiate to a common acceptable position on the placement of the NCA appointees, and given that a week has passed since the meeting and the decision to give the council a week to try and find another acceptable solution to the lottery, I believe that we are now in the position of accepting the results of the lottery and allowing the 3 NCAs to start participating with their houses on the decisions concerning candidates for the chair position. Thus, the NCA are allocated according to the following list as determined by the lottery: Terry Davis - Contracted Parties House Olga Cavalli - Non Contracted Parties House Andrei Kolesnikov - Non Voting Seat

1 0

What is ICANN doing to make sure that the UDRP providers are truly neutral?
by George Kirikos Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Hi folks, There was a very good article in the Wall Street Journal today discussing the turmoil in the arbitration world, in particular with NAF: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125548128115183913.html?mod=googlenews_wsj "Banks "don't need the taint that comes with mandatory arbitration." "While telling consumers that it was an impartial arbitrator, NAF worked closely with creditors, the regulator claimed, including drafting claims against consumers." "Former arbitrators, a congressional subcommittee, consumers and government suits are now alleging that NAF has been systematically ruling against consumers for years." "A congressional subcommittee, which began an investigation last year to study the fairness of mandatory arbitration, concluded in July that the current arbitration system is "ripe for abuse." Arbitration, as "operated by NAF, does not provide protection for those consumers," the committee said." "Before that case, she had ruled in favor of credit-card companies 18 consecutive times, she told the committee. She says she finished several pending NAF cases after she ruled for the card holder, but then wasn't given more cases. The official reason the NAF gave for canceling more work was scheduling conflicts. But Ms. Bartholet said in an interview that an NAF manager told her she was likely removed because she ruled for the debtor." In light of this, what is ICANN doing to ensure that UDRP is conducted in a neutral manner? Ideally it should be optional, unless *both* parties agree to it (i.e. parties should be permitted to choose the courts, a superior method for complex matters, if they feel it is appropriate). We have had NAF openly admit (in their IRT comments) that: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00178.html "Panelists have taken the opportunity, over time, to agree with those complainants and broaden the scope of the UDRP, but it started out as a mechanism only for clear cut cases of cybersquatting." It's clearly in the financial interests of UDRP providers (and panelists) to continue to expand the scope of cases and tilt their decisions towards complainants in order to encourage more complaints overall, and more complaints that involve either themselves as panelists or their UDRP provider ("forum shopping"). This represents a perversion of the system of justice that domain registrants rely upon. ICANN staff and the GSNO should prepare an issues report, and perhaps fund independent scholarly research like that conducted by Professor Michael Geist in the past: http://www.udrpinfo.com/ Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

From BC to CSG
by Rick Anderson Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Sarah and I and others have asked - and I ask again - where is the migration path to a more integrated involvement with the CSG? Why are all our calls and discussions focussed on the legacy BC, and zero on the CSG? Why are we discussing GNSO officers in the BC silo rather than as a CSG matter? When will there be a discussion list set up for all CSG members where we can discuss CSG business? Is there a CSG session at Seoul and may we dial in to that? cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

3 2

Remote Participation, BC meeting Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear Members I now have the dial-in details for remote participation in the BC meeting in Seoul. Please contact me if you would like me to forward them to you Best wishes Gary

1 0

FW: GNSO Council chair elections?
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

I have to report Zahid is having second thoughts about this. For which I for one fully understand. Will keep the list posted as we hear of developments. _____ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:21 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: GNSO Council chair elections? There are two chair nominations to date: Stephan Van Gelder (registrar) - supported by the R&Rs, Olga Cavalli (non com) - supported by NCSG. We have proposed Zahid as vice chair of our House. BC members input most welcome. Philip

1 0

Ballot for a new BC Charter
by BC Secretariat Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers

11 12

Orderly introduction of new TLDs
by Ron Andruff Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear fellow members, Prior to the close of the last round of comments on the DAG v2, RNA Partners submitted a comment that focused on the fact that ICANN is embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing some parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a definition. The logic in favor of defining the TLD is simple: Applicants should be encouraged to expand the name space, but should not be allowed to cannibalize other registries. A case in point was the round of 2004, when Tralliance Corporation received the right to manage .TRAVEL we were restricted from marketing to any travel entities that would fall under .AERO, i.e. airports, airlines, etc. In the discussions that I have had with ICANN community leadership over the last weeks it appears that all support the logic of including two questions in the final AG: (1) what community do you intend to serve? and (2) how does your TLD differentiate itself from others in the DNS? Answers to these two questions that demonstrate added value to the DNS would ensure that only those TLDs which act in harmony with one another are added to the root, rather than allowing applicants that meet the current criteria in DAG v3 irrespective of the fact that they may overlap or undercut another registry. With some 24 gTLDs today, one might say there is relatively little concern about this horizon issue; however, 5-10 years out, without the protections we are recommending, new applicant registry operators would have no impediment to undermining successful TLDs by selecting names that would diminish an established domain space. That would be anything but an orderly introduction of new TLDs to the DNS. We have reached out the GAC in this regard, as their recent communication with ICANN appears to be inline with our concerns. I have included my email to the Canadian GAC representative below for your information. In the interest of full disclosure, RNA Partners management is intending to apply to manage .SPORT on behalf of the global sport community. I look forward to furthering this dialogue with you on the list and in Seoul. Thank you for your consideration in bringing this issue to an appropriate resolution. 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:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 2009-10-09 18:24 To: 'Heather Dryden' Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; Cherian Mathai Subject: Orderly introduction of new TLDs Importance: High Dear Heather, I am contacting you at the suggestion of Marilyn Cade as I, like you, am Canadian ;o) and a colleague of Marilyn's for some 10-years in the Business Constituency. I also note, in the interest of full disclosure, that my company will be applying to manage the .sport domain for the global sporting community. Marilyn and I have been discussing how to enroll ICANN in the notion of an orderly introduction of new gTLDs and were considering the GAC correspondence to ICANN Chair, Peter Dengate-Thrush of August 18th, 2009, in light of our concerns. I note that much of the contents of that letter are consistent with the Business Constituency position on new TLDs, as well as our personally-held position. The BC set forth the following principles regarding expanding the name space following the round of 2000: Five principles to determine future expansion Name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be user demand. In this way expansion will enhance choice, competition and be in the public interest. In a global market economy added-value means differentiation and a practical way to achieve this is if all new names meet five principles: 1 Differentiation a gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other gTLDs 2 Certainty a gTLD must give the user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for 3 Good faith a gTLD must avoid increasing opportunities for bad faith entities who wish to defraud users 4 Competition a gTLD must create added-value competition 5 Diversity a gTLD must serve commercial or non-commercial users Amongst several comments on DAG v 2, the BC noted the following: Module 1 1.1.2.7 We agree with the standard for confusingly similar gTLD strings, which will not be allowed if they are deemed "so similar that they create a probability of detrimental user confusion if more than one is delegated." But more detail is needed as to how ICANN will make this determination. Module 2 2.1.1.1The Standard for String Confusion is inaccurately limited to "visually" similar. Instead string confusion should be deemed to exist where they are "so similar - in sight, sound or meaning - that they create a probability of detrimental user confusion if more than one is delegated." I contacting you today because we would like to get a sense from you as to how we should engage with the GAC to ensure that ICANN, in fact, introduces new TLDs in an orderly and managed manner rather than its current position of throwing open the door without consideration of the consequences of their actions further down the road. In July 2009 we submitted a comment to DAG v2 that focused on the fact that ICANN is embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing some parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a definition. The logic is simple: Applicants should be entitled to flesh out the name space, but should not be allowed to cannibalize other registries. Our comment is noted here: ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain' * To: <e-gtld-evaluation@xxxxxxxxx> * Subject: ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain' * From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:34:27 -0400 To avoid the useless squandering of time and financial resources of ICANN reviewers, staff and those of new TLD applicants, as well as to avoid the needless bogging down of the roll out of new TLDs with objections based upon (1) string confusion; (2) misappropriation of community; and (3) infringement on the rights of others, ICANN must define what a top-level domain is. We recommend that the definition should be "the apex of a well-defined human activity, a community or a sector"; the key word in that definition being "apex", which directly equates to the word "top" of "top-level domain". This area was well-addressed in the new TLD application process used in the last round of introductions of new TLDs, but is missing from the current Draft Applicant Guidebook ("DAG"). In the applications for the 2004 round of sponsored top-level domains, the first question [paraphrased] was: How does the proposed TLD add new value to the Internet? The second question was: How does an application differentiate from existing TLDs? And the third question asked: Which unmet needs does a proposed new TLD meet? ICANN staff cannot overlook or discard these core principles going forward unless it intends to unilaterally abandon the logical expansion of the domain name space that the ICANN community has worked so long and hard to establish from the outset of ICANN's existence. This would be tantamount to abandoning the bottom up principles upon which ICANN was built and stands today. Absent inclusion of this critical definition, ICANN would open the door to a proliferation of TLDs that would be miniature sub-segments of apex TLDs, which would lead to user confusion at best, and, without doubt, challenges from apex TLDs, unnecessary defensive registrations and pernicious compliance issues. A case in point would be that in the event .NYC is granted to a registry, and another five TLDs would be awarded for .BROOKLYN, .BRONX, .MANHATTAN, .STATENISLAND and .QUEENS (the five boroughs that comprise the City of New York), the cacophony of domain names for the same community would render the whole TLD process absurd. The second DAG is not clear on this issue and therefore we believe that this oversight needs to be rectified to ensure that these particular requirements from the 2004 introduction of new TLDs are included in the process guaranteeing that in all cases the anticipated TLD expansion first and foremost brings value to Internet users, and thus ICANN can avoid any circumstance where user confusion could arise. This issue can be addressed and clarified in the definition of "confusingly similar strings". The current definition should be expanded beyond the semantic equivalence to also address the diminution of a TLD. In rectifying this oversight in the third DAG, ICANN will not only avoid user confusion issues, but it will stop the loss of precious valuable resources that will undoubtedly be wasted on a myriad of objections that could have been clearly avoided from the start. We trust that ICANN appreciates that the logical expansion of the domain name space is at the heart of this process and that the critical issue we are raising is in the interest of all stakeholders in the new TLD process, but especially trademark holders, those with responsibility for Internet security and stability, ICANN compliance staff and, most importantly, Internet users both in the near term and those in the coming decades. In August, the .sport Policy Advisory Council ("PAC"), which represents the global sport community sent a letter <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baumann-to-dengate-thrush-20aug09-en.pd f> to ICANN CEO and Chair to advise ICANN of the support and concerns of the international sports family, particularly with regard to diminution of .sport. Sport is concerned that such diminution would gravely undermine sport solidarity, which enables stronger federations to support those with less resources and capabilities. In short, the PAC has very real concerns that ICANN would approve .sport as well as .volleyball, .basketball and the like. As I mentioned at the start of this email, we believe that the GAC letter supports a position that calls for applicants to define their intended community as well as what differentiation they bring to the DNS, as examples of defining themselves (as was required in previous rounds). I would be most grateful if you could advise us as to how we best bring this forward for GAC consideration. I believe that the IP and ISP constituencies, as well as the BC, support establishing clarity around this issue and ensuring new TLDs are meaningful additions to the DNS (rather than creating a free-for-all). GAC support would ensure a logical expansion. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this rather long mail (I apologize for that!) and for giving us direction as we look to Seoul to get consensus on this position. I look forward to your soonest response. FYI, as I will be traveling over the coming weeks leading up to Seoul, should you need to speak with me my cell is: +1 917 770 2693. 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

2 2

Ballot for a new BC Charter
by Rick Anderson Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

This is a ridiculous provision, a clumsy attempt at stifling discussion. My company would never agree to have its own actions and statements bound by the charter of an association it belongs to, no seripus business could or would. Let's just disband the BC and get on with the new CSG. We have stalled on that long enough, and it is where we need to apply our energies and focus. It has been a very long time since the BC was an effective means for the provision of our input to the BC, it has become a private fiefdom of a very small number of individuals. We vote against the adoption of this charter. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Oct 13 07:59:15 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Hello, I, and other members, had been under the impression that there would be a set period to review the new updated draft charter, to allow for another round of comments and revisions, before going to a vote. Yet, now the officers seem to be calling for a vote on a seriously flawed charter. My company cannot support the draft charter, and will leave the constituency if it is adopted. While this will cause glee to certain members who seek to stifle free speech that counters their positions and who wish to use the BC as a mechanism to further their extremist positions that are not reflective of businesses, I think all should actually re-read what you're agreeing to if you accept the charter. I previously submitted comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html and many of the important concerns remain. In particular, referencing the latest draft: 1. Section 3.4.2 states membership can be reviewed if: "a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent, that contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency;" I said it before in my previous comments. This means that Constituency members would not be permitted to externally voice dissent or act against an adopted position of the BC. It's shocking that this provision survived a revision of the charter. Other constituencies do not have this provision, and for good reason. If a registrar or registry or IP holder feels strongly against something that their respective constituency votes for, they are not bound by that position as an organization --- they are free to submit their own comments to ICANN, or to the DOC/DOJ/NTIA, or to politicians, or in the courts if the matter is serious enough. The same holds for trade associations within the BC -- members of AIM, CADNA, ICA, ETNO, ICC, USCIB or WITSA are certainly not externally limited in their behaviour if they disagree with a position of their trade association. I don't see how *any* BC member can support 3.4.2, unless they are not actually reading the words that they're voting for, or they wish to engage in voluntary servitude. (2) There are so many other flaws in the charter, that one should simply re-read: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html most of which still ring true, despite the conference call we had. For example, positions all over the place are "appointed" instead of elected, use the "up to" language, deny an elected treasurer and secretary, is anti-free speech (truth is not important), etc. etc. Given the existing officers have failed to deliver an acceptable charter, I believe that the process going forward to create a new charter should consist of the formation of a committee of volunteer members (excluding the current officers) to draft a new charter. As a starting point, we (and I would volunteer to help take on the work) can use the City-Top Level Domain constituency charter, which was relatively balanced (although would need some modifications), see: http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-red… Of course, after a new draft is prepared, the existing officers and all other members would be free to comment on it, before another round (or rounds) of revisions and ultimately a vote. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM, BC Secretariat <secretariat(a)bizconst.org> wrote: > Dear Members > > Ballot on revised BC Charter > > At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I > have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. > > A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority > non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. > > A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote > should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation > or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your > ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. > > The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October > 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. > > Best wishes > Gary > ---------------------------------------------------- > > We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the > attached revised BC Charter. > A definitive PDF version is attached. > A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for > information. > > The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in > which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. > As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO > representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. > There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in > addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. > The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN > staff based on learning since the last Charter. > The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives > given the diversity of those perspectives. > The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by > Seoul. > > Zahid Jamil > Mike Rodenbaugh > Philip Sheppard > > BC Officers This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

1 0

Follow up from last week's conference call
by Liz Williams Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

All Further to our discussion last week about how to make the leap from the current structure to a new one, I have re-circulated a straw man proposal I sent around a couple of months ago. It suggests a way forward which is easy to do, low impact on our systems and gives clear results quite quickly. The only thing that would need to change in the document are the actual dates -- I proposed end of July to have a new slate of volunteers/elected people in place by Seoul. That's not going to happen but it could happen anytime shortly afterwards. Liz

2 1

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Organizational Review: Extension of Three Public Comment Periods
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Good news that comment periods are extended a few weeks, re the reviews of Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), Nominating Committee (NomComm) and the Board of Directors. If anyone thinks the BC should speak up in response to any or all of these reports, please advise the list and volunteer to help draft comments. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 4:32 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Organizational Review: Extension of Three Public Comment Periods <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07oct09-en.htm _____ Organizational Review: Extension of Three Public Comment Periods 7 October 2009 As requested by Community Members, the deadlines of the three following public comment periods have been moved to the 22nd of November: SSAC review WG <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssac-review-2009> draft report; NomCom review <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009> WG draft report; and Board review <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#board-review-2009> draft final report. _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p… <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=26…> Manage your subscription http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=265793&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…

2 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 8 October 2009
by BC Secretariat Oct. 9, 2009

Oct. 9, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 8 October 2009. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20091008.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#oct Happy listening!

1 0

Invitation to attend Registry/Registrar Separation Models conference call on 19 October, 2009 at 14:00 UTC.
by BC Secretariat Oct. 9, 2009

Oct. 9, 2009

Title: Interactive Session on Registry/Registrar Separation Models When: Monday, 19 October, 2009 Time: 14:00 to 17:00 UTC Dear ICANN Community Member: You are cordially invited to participate in a public, interactive, conference call discussion on registry/registrar separation models. This session has been scheduled to provide ample opportunity for community input on registry-registrar separation requirements in new gTLDs, and to respond to several requests for more public sessions on this topic. If you are unable to attend this session, there will be another opportunity to discuss this topic at the "Registry/Registrar Separation Discussion" forum on Monday, 26 October, 15:00 - 16:30, at the ICANN Seoul meeting. Recordings and presentations from both of these events will be publicly posted. Alternatively, you may choose to send your comments on this issue to the version 3 Draft Applicant Guidebook public forum, which is open through 22 November 2009. Session Details: As space is limited, this is an invitation-only event. If you would like to attend, please RSVP via email to <rrseparationwebinar(a)icann.org> prior to COB on October 14, 2009 to secure your place. An email reminder will be sent to registered individuals before the event with all log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT reply to this email or RSVP to ICANN Staff members. IMPORTANT – call for additional presenters! If you or a community representative wish to present at this session, please email Carole Cornell <carole.cornell(a)icann.org> and Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>no later than 13 October 2009. Please include in this email a paragraph describing your proposed presentation, your (short) biography and, if possible, a photo. Each prospective presenter will be notified by 14 October whether their presentation can be accommodated, and presenters also will receive details on speaking time and other requirements. All presentations must be submitted to carole.cornell(a)icann.org by 16 October 2009. Since the conference call time is limited, presentation slots will be given to the Registrar and Registry Constituencies, and remaining slots will be offered first to representatives for the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, and the Commercial Stakeholder Group. After presenters are set, a detailed agenda and information on speakers will be distributed. The session is scheduled for three hours and will be conducted in English only. During the conference call, slides will be presented via Adobe Connect, a dial-in conference bridge will be provided for audio, and questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. All questions and answers received, as well as the audio recording of the session and materials used during the presentation, will be posted on ICANN’s website. Session Description: The initial agenda is included below. This session will focus on models for proposed structural/organizational separation requirements. Multiple models will be presented and discussed, and opportunities for Q&A will be provided. Interactive Session on Registry-Registrar Separation. Initial Agenda Moderator: Joe Sims Presenters: Steve Salop and others to be determined. ICANN is soliciting presentations that will be made according to the agenda and rules below. If there are more offers of presentations than there is time permitted than representatives from the registrar constituency, registry constituency and the community at-large will be given a preference. Agenda and conduct of the session will follow these lines: Dr. Steve Salop will make an introduction: briefly describing the subject matter and describing the results of recent consultations with certain registries and registrars. Joe Sims will describe the rules for participating in the session. A presenter will describe a model for proposed structural/organization separation requirement. Each presentation should include slides and last about 20 minutes. The model should: (1) define and address organizational separation requirements (co-ownership or affiliation); (2) structural separation requirements; (3) if the model proposes that co-ownership be permitted, describe what limits or restrictions should be placed on the affiliated parties; (4) also describe the benefits or harms avoided to registrants through the proposed model. After each presentation, the presenter will answer questions. The moderator or Steve Salop may ask clarifying questions. Session attendees can ask questions through the interactive format by typing in questions. All questions are actually posed by the moderator who will read the questions typed in by the participants and, depending on volume, select from them. Selection will be based on asking at least a representative sample of all questions. This will be followed by another presentation. It is anticipated that there will be 4-5 presentations. Initial Speaker Information: Joe Sims – Moderator is a Senior Antitrust Partner, Jones Day. Steve Salop – Professor of Law and Economics, Georgetown University Law Center; former Associate Director for Special Projects and Industry Analysis, Bureau of Economics, US Federal Trade Commission; former Economist at Civil Aeronautics Board/Federal Reserve Board; prolific author and speaker. We are looking forward to your participation. Regards, Denise Michel, Vice President, Policy Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Services

1 0

Members in Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 8, 2009

Oct. 8, 2009

Dear Members I currently have confirmation of attendance in Seoul from the following: Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard Liz Williams Marilyn Cade Jarkko Ruuska and Ritva Siren Steve DelBianco Martin Sutton Ron Andruff Phil Corwin Mike McKeehan Jim Baskin If any other members are planning to be in Seoul please let me know. I will draw up a final list next week. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Seoul agendas update
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 8, 2009

Oct. 8, 2009

The following have now been agreed with our CSG colleagues. A specific mailing on the outreach cocktail will follow. ---------------------------------------- Tuesday 27 October 08.00 - 10.00 CSG breakfast with Board Topic 1 - Unresolved issues for new gTLDs: outcome of IRT recommendations & anti-malicious conduct provisions (lead IPC) Topic 2 - Affirmation of Commitments - what it means (lead BC) CSG 10.30 - 12.30 1. Unresolved issues for new gTLDs: outcome of IRT recommendations, anti-malicious conduct provisions, economic studies Q&A Kurt Pritz and Doug Brent (lead IPC) 2. R&R separation and other competitive issues - do we have a joint view? (lead ISP) 3. Admin: How do we work towards policy and other coordination within the CSG? (lead BC) BC 14.00 - 16.30 Admin 1. New Charter and functioning of exec comm: do we have enough volunteers? 2. How to address the fact that larger BC members are not contributing to an archived e-mail list 3. New secretariat and possible ICANN services 4. Organisation of ICANN meetings: new ways of working Policy 5. Contractual compliance role in addressing malicious conduct as part of the new gTLD program - Q&A with David Giza, ICANN Compliance 6 . Progress on anti-abuse mechanisms 7 . Follow -up on CSG/Board topics ------------------------------------- Wednesday 28 October 18.00 - 19.00 BC outreach cocktail - Athenee room - members and friends

1 0

Webinar calling for comments on proposed redesign of GNSO.ICANN.ORG web site
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

Thank you to Berry A. Cobb, Zahid Jamil, Mike O'Connor, Ayesha HASSAN, and Marilyn Cade for expressing interest in this subject. If you or any other BC members would like to take part in the Webinar please RSVP to Gisella Gruber-White: Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org. Best regards, Chris Chaplow CCT member -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-gnso-osc-ccc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ccc@icann.org] En nombre de Glen de Saint Géry Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de octubre de 2009 20:39 Para: gnso-osc-ccc(a)icann.org Asunto: [gnso-osc-ccc] Webinar calling for commnets on proposed redesign of GNSO.ICANN.ORG web site Dear All, Please take part in the Webinar organized to call for Comments on the proposed redesign of GNSO.ICANN.ORG web site on Wednesday 14 October at 1300 UTC http://gnso.icann.org/announcement/announcement-07oct09-en.htm As part of the GNSO Improvements Project, one of the tasks given the Operations Steering Committee's (OSC's) Communications Coordination Team (CCT) was to make the GNSO web site "more usable." The CCT has expedited progress on this task and, after extensive research with GNSO users and the ICANN community, has developed a proposed re-design of gnso.icann.org. The CCT's research indicates that the three most common user tasks on the GNSO site are: trying to find a document; managing activities via the Master Calendar; and seeking to learn the latest regarding a policy issue. The CCT proposed redesign to GNSO.ICANN.ORG simplifies those three tasks, and also makes the site friendlier to newcomers. Scott Pinzon and Ken Bour, ICANN Staff supporting the CCT, are presenting an overview and some wireframe diagrams of the proposed redesign. The goal is to gain your input, advice, and suggestions on further refinements. The overview will describe: .What it means to move from a static website to a dynamic website .The reasoning behind the proposed changes .Whose input influenced the proposed changes .Proposed new features, such as the Acronym Helper .How non-English content could be handled .Where to send comments and suggestions The webinar will be held on Wednesday 14 October at 1300 UTC using Adobe Connect and the dial-in bridge. All are welcome to participate, but members of the GNSO are especially encouraged to participate. To make sure that there are enough lines, please RSVP to Gisella Gruber-White: Email: gisella.gruber-white(a)icann.org. Dial-in details and the Adobe Connect room details will then be forwarded to you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Organizational Review reports
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

For information Three Organizational Review reports have just been published for public comments and will be presented in Seoul; they are: The NomCom review WG draft report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#nomcom-review-2009) - the report presents the draft conclusions of the WG, and asks specific inputs on the key issue of the size and composition of the Committee. Public comments sent during the first two weeks of the consultation will be particularly appreciated because the WG expects to progress significantly in Seoul towards the finalization of the report. The Board review WG draft final report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#board-review-2009) - the report has concluded on all issues remaining outstanding in Sydney, and will be finalized after this very last round of consultation with the community. The SSAC review draft report (public comment box at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssac-review-2009) - the report presents the draft conclusions of the WG, and will be finalized after public comments.

1 0

Member call notes
by BC Secretariat Oct. 7, 2009

Oct. 7, 2009

Dear Members The notes of the member call on Monday 5 October can be found at the website www.bizconst.org I am aware that some members may have joined the call after discussions had started. Please let me know if your name needs to be added to the attendance list Best wishes Gary

1 0

gTLD Registry Price Increase - Proposed Changes in new DAG
by Michael D. Palage Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Hello All: ICANN staff continues to make progress toward a final DAG, and their continued efforts should acknowledged. There is a lot to digest in this latest DAG, however, one thing did jump out at me that I wanted to raise with the broader constituency. Under the current unsponsored registry agreements, registries are required to provide registrants six months notice prior to raising price. This six month notice/safeguard was first proposed in connection the .COM registry agreement. It appears that DAG 3.0 is proposing to change this requirement to 30 days notice in connection with "new" registrations and 180 days notice for "existing" registrations. (See full text below) The explanatory memorandum to the DAG states "This provision was modified to shorten the notification period for price increases related to initial registrations as suggested by community comments." There are two questions which I think we need to raise with staff. First, can ICANN staff point to the community comments that they reference in connection with initial/new registrations. I was not aware of these comments and could not find any reference to them after conducting a quick search this morning. However, given the sheer volume of public comments it is possible that I missed this comment(s). Does anyone else recall this proposed change; George this is an issue which you always closely. Second, can anyone point to the basis for staff's proposed change in connection with existing registration pricing. Given that this safeguard was a hot topic in connection with the .COM registry agreement, I think it would benefit the community to have a broader discussion on this topic, and to understand the underlying basis of ICANN Staff recommendation. Is this something that the broader membership agrees with? Best regards, Michael D. Palage 2.10 Pricing for Registry Services. Except as set forth in this Section 2.10, Registry Operator shall provide each ICANN accredited registrar that has executed Registry Operator's registry registrar agreement advance notice of any price increase [(net of refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs)] of no less than thirty (30) calendar days with respect to initial domain name registrations and one hundred eighty (180) calendar days with respect to renewal of domain name registrations, and shall offer registrars the option to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price (i.e. the price in place prior to any noticed increase) for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to renewal of domain name registrations, Registry Operator need only provide thirty (30) calendar days notice of any price increase if the resulting price is less than or equal to a price for which Registry Operator provided notice within that past twelve (12) months, and need not provide any notice of any price increase for the imposition of the Variable Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section 6.3. [Registry Operator shall offer all domain registration renewals at the same price, unless the registrant agrees to a higher price at the time of the initial registration of the domain name following clear and conspicuous disclosure of such renewal price by Registry Operator.] Registry Operator shall provide public querybased DNS lookup service for the TLD at its sole expense.

2 1

FW: [council] Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Fyi. 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: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 2:09 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Invitation to attend ICANN Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 15 October at 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). Dear Sir or Madam: You are cordially invited to participate in a ICANN Policy Update webinar. ICANNs Policy Department will be providing an update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO Activities. Title: ICANN Policy Update Webinar When: Thursday 15 October Time: 12.00 UTC and 18.00 UTC Brief Session Description: This webinar will provide update on ongoing GNSO and ccNSO activities, including an update on the restructuring of the GNSO, ongoing policy development processes and other working group activities. The duration of the webinar is one hour and will be conducted in English only at this time. The format will be presented in PowerPoint along with dial-in conference bridge for audio. There will be time at the end of the session for Q&A. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the Q&A function of Adobe Connect. Should we run out of time or if you have additional questions after the session, please send them via email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Meeting Details: As space is limited, this is an invitation-only event. If you would like to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to secure your place. Please indicate which call you would like to join (12.00 UTC or 18.00 UTC). We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Member call today
by BC Secretariat Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

Dear members A reminder that there is a member call today: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00460.html If you need dial-in details again please contact me at the secretariat address Gary

1 0

ICANN Announces Important Milestones in Making the Internet More Accessible to All
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

IDNs DAG3 IRT http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04oct09-en.htm العربية 中文 English Français Español Русский 日本語 Deutsch Português 한국어 Italiano ICANN Announces Important Milestones in Making the Internet More Accessible to All 4 October 2009 In the past several days, ICANN has announced recent milestones regarding changes in how the Internet community will use the Internet in the near future. These important developments include the plan for deployment of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in the next few months and significant progress in developing the model for delegating new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). Proposed Final Implementation Plan: IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan… ICANN is pleased to announce the public posting of the Proposed Final Implementation Plan for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is an important step at making the Internet equally accessible for everyone. It will enable the introduction of a limited number of internationalized country-code top level domain names (IDN ccTLDs). As noted by ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom, once implemented, this will be the first time that users can obtain a domain name with the entire string in characters other than ASCII (or Latin) characters, "this is one of the most exciting developments for the users of the Internet globally in years. IDNs will enable the people the world over to use domain name addresses in their own language." The process will be available to all countries and territories where the official language is based on scripts other than the Latin (extended) script. IDNs, like the Affirmation of Commitments announced last week (www.icann.org ) are another step towards making the Internet more truly global to achieve our goal of "one world, one Internet, everyone connected." The proposed final plan is scheduled for ICANN Board consideration at the ICANN meeting in Seoul, Korea, 26-30 October 2009. The proposed launch date for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process is 16 November 2009. ICANN is looking forward to feedback on the final plan in the public comment forum designated for that purpose. The proposed final plan has been developed based on responses to community comments and discussions. See the latest status update at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09sep09-en.htm. Responding to Public Comment: Version 3 of New gTLD Applicant Guidebook A Work In Progress http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-3-en.htm The latest draft of the Applicant Guidebook that describes the process of applying for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) was released today. New gTLDs are expected to bring innovative services and greater choice to Internet users through increased competition and engender broad participation through the introduction of IDNs and community-based TLDs into the Domain Name System. In the last three months, the community has joined in extensive collaborative efforts on technical, intellectual property, potential for malicious conduct, and other matters, with global consultations in New York, Sydney, London, Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. The Guidebook has been changed significantly. As indicated by ICANN Chief Operating Officer, Doug Brent, "this third version of draft guidebook represents months of outstanding effort by many in the ICANN community - working to resolve the few, challenging remaining issues. This version is being released with materials that describe how public comment has influenced the changes presented in it." In all, there are over 50 areas of change, clearly indicated in the "redline" version of the Guidebook. In addition to specific trademark protections (described below) the new Guidebook includes: •Measures to prevent or mitigate potential for malicious conduct including a proposal to create high-security zones; •Enhanced stability / security measures, requiring DNSSEC deployment and prohibiting use of wildcards; •Protecting registrants by taking step to ensure registry viability: defining a financial instrument that will ensure ongoing registry operations in the event of failure, and specifying certain pre-delegation registry tests; and •Enhanced contractual tools through the development of post-delegation dispute procedures including one to ensure that community-based TLDs adhere to their self-described purpose. Like all previous versions, this draft is posted for public comment. It has been released prior to the ICANN meeting to be held in Seoul from October 25-30. During the Seoul meeting ICANN will conduct several sessions to facilitate discussion of this version of the Applicant Guidebook and finding solutions to the outstanding issues. Information about additional events will be available on the Seoul Meeting schedule at: http://sel.icann.org/full-sched. Trademark Protection Measures – Where to next? http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm Specific trademark protection mechanisms are still to be decided upon by the Board. After receiving trademark protection recommendations from the Implementation Recommendation Team and others, taking extensive comment and conducting consultation with the broad community, ICANN has drafted a set of implementation recommendations related to intellectual property protections for the new gTLD program. Additional rights protection included in the Guidebook are the: •requirement to maintain a "thick" Whois database, and •specification of a post-delegation dispute procedure so that trademark holders can lodge complaints of abusive behavior against registries when merited. For other proposed rights protection mechanisms, the Board is providing the Generic Names Supporting Organization (the policy organization that developed the new gTLDs policy) with the opportunity to offer focused input on this specific area of the proposed implementation plan that is being published now. Those proposed rights protection mechanisms are: •The creation of an IP Clearinghouse, which is a database of validated trademarks to be utilized by new gTLD registry operators in implementing either an IP Claims service or Sunrise process during TLD launch; and •The creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension process for use in clear-cut, blatant cases of trademark infringement. The community at-large may also comment on these specific issues, and of course, any other new gTLD issues through comment fora found on the new gTLD pages. The public comment period on these trademark protection solutions will be open until 22 November 2009. Please continue checking the New gTLD program webpage for updates. Prior to implementation, ICANN will work with the community to address remaining issues including: competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection. Related links New gTLD program webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Seoul meeting: http://sel.icann.org/ Media Contact: Michele Jourdan Corporate Affairs ICANN Ph: +1-310-301-5831 E: michele.jourdan(a)icann.org

1 0

two topics: thanking Gary and organization of the ICANN meetings
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 4, 2009

Oct. 4, 2009

I join others in thanking Gary Hills for his contribution to the BC and the ICANN community over the last 9 years. WOW, Gary, I didn't realize it was already nine years! Many many thanks. I have always regretted that we were not bringing you, as our secretariat to more of the face to face meetings, and appreciate that you changed your other business commitments many times to participate with us when possible ' in person'. Second topic: I would like to propose that we discuss a major change in how the meetings at ICANN are organized. Consider it a "food for thought" proposal, that means: let's discuss it, as one option, taking into consideration the changes that are upcoming as we merge into the CSG, and also have to have productive interactions with the other non contracted house. We could start with a constituency meeting on Sunday afternoon/the day before ICANN starts; hold the present Cross Constituency meeting, but spend the afternoon Tuesday in meetings and dialogue with other constituencies or the At Large; ensure that all are available to attend the full meeting of the Bd/GAC as it is now open. I think that many of our members don't actually feel that we are devoting enough time to working through positions. Face to face meetings are challenging for us, because we need to have our meetings ahead of time by phone and develop the basis for positions then. We will need to factor into our thinking that we will have to have the meeting of the two non contracted parties on site, as well, and that may eat up some of the Tuesday p.m. time. It might be an excellent idea to invite the three newly appointed non commercial reps into a small get acquainted setting, as well.

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

Hi all, Interesting study re WHOIS proxy/privacy services. The summary: The main objective of this study was to establish baseline information to inform the community on the prevalence of the use of privacy and proxy services when registering domain names. The preliminary results from the initial coding of a random sample of two thousand four hundred domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs reveal that anywhere from approximately 15 to 25 percent are likely to have been registered using a privacy or proxy service. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:55 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-01oct09-en.htm _____ Public Comment: Draft Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service 1 October 2009 ICANN, assisted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), recently completed a draft of its study of the percentage of domain names registered using a privacy or proxy service. Today, that draft report is being posted for review and comment through 6 November 2009. The findings in the report identify a percentage range of domain names that appear to have been registered using a privacy or proxy service. To inform this study, ICANN relied on a random sample of 2400 domain names drawn in March 2009 from the universe of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info). Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. Document Links: The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/privacy-proxy-registration-servi… [PDF, 124K] The Process From Here: At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public comment, from 2 October through 6 November 2009, and invites community comments on this matter. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200911.html#proxy To submit comments: privacy-proxy-study(a)icann.org To view comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/privacy-proxy-study/ Staff Responsible: William A. McKelligott _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=26…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=264713&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

ICANN has announced a new process for registries to request contract exemptions, which apparently has not been discussed by anyone that is not an ICANN registry or staff. While it has good intentions arising out of the Conficker attack, and apparently necessary if registries are not to breach their contracts in some cases. But it could be abused, and must be transparent eventually if not immediately. And so they are asking for public comment now that it is implemented. Is this something the BC wants to comment on? And if so, does anyone care to lead with draft BC comments on this? Deadline is November 1. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:30 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01oct09-en.htm _____ Expedited Registry Security Request Process Posted 1 October 2009 Introduction The Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) is the result of a collaborative effort between ICANN and gTLD registries to develop a process for quick action in cases where gTLD registries: * inform ICANN of a present or imminent security incident to their TLD and/or the DNS and * request a contractual waiver for actions they might take or have taken to mitigate or eliminate the incident. A contractual waiver is an exemption from compliance with a specific provision of the Registry Agreement for the time period necessary to respond to the Incident. The ERSR web-based submission procedure is now available and can be accessed at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/ersr/. This new process is to be employed by gTLD registries exclusively for incidents that require immediate action by the registry in order to avoid deleterious effects to DNS stability or security. This process is not intended to replace requests that should be made through the Registry Services <http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html> Evaluation Process (RSEP). For the sake of DNS stability, this process is going into effect immediately. ICANN welcomes comments on it in order to improve its effectiveness and to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place. Comments should be made to ersr(a)icann.org and can be seen at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ersr/. The comment period will close on 1 November 2009. Background In late 2008, Internet security researchers, operating system and antivirus software vendors discovered the Conficker worm. Further, it was understood that the worm could infect millions of computers by using tens of thousands of domain names that would be auto-generated by the Conficker infection during a period of several months. The operational response to containing Conficker was for registries to preemptively block or register the domains that had been identified as targets of the worm. The response to Conficker however posed a unique contractual issue for ICANN and gTLD registries as registries are restricted in their ability to register names to themselves other than through an ICANN-accredited registrar. Additionally, a waiver of ICANN fees was appropriate. Given the severity of the Conficker threat, ICANN provided verbal approval to registries to facilitate the registrations of targeted domains and agreed to waive all fees associated with these transactions. As a result of Conficker, ICANN and the gTLD registries worked to develop a process that would enable registries to share information and take action in urgent security situations – actions that might not be covered by their Registry Agreements. ICANN then developed a draft ERSR and conducted consultations on the process with gTLD registries, the gTLD Registry Constituency and ICANN-accredited registrars that had been involved in the early stages of the community response to Conficker. The product of this community effort is the Expedited Registry Security Request. _____ Sign up for <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> ICANN's Monthly Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=26…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=264706&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

1 0

BC call next week
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 2, 2009

Oct. 2, 2009

Regarding part 1 of the BC call next week we plan to start the discussion with some broader principles / practicalities on these points. A few members provided personal comments already on list which has been helpful. If we can come to agreement on these, it will help inform some of the broader shaping questions raised in the new Charter. Issue 1 - the balance between doers and members What is the right balance between the number of annually elected positions and the membership size ? Today (and for the last 10 years) it is 3/41 members. Draft charter changes it to 5/41 members. The draft charter also envisages other admin committees totalling with the elected positions 13/41. Do we have one-third of the BC membership ready to step into one of these volunteer positions? What is the right balance between elected, appointed and ad hoc ? Is there sufficient motivation to be a member volunteer for mostly non-policy work? Should we scale this back ? Issue 2 - election sequencing and time for discussion Is there a hierarchy of posts in the new charter for which we would want to have sequential elections? Should we attempt to elect reps and exec comm all at the same time and make them mutually exclusive? Or should we hold the reps election, then BC chair, then each vice chair? If the latter what nomination / discussion / election period is practical? If we followed one member proposal for 2 weeks of each and assume 7 separate elections we could be conducting elections for 42 weeks! What is the right balance? Issue 3 - balance of independence As ICANN starts to offer more services what degree of independence do we want as a constituency? Do members wish to authorise the release of their private data to enable ICANN staff for instance in the future to run BC elections? Do members wish to entrust ICANN with the funds in the BC bank account? Or should the ICANN toolbox be a basket of services that the exec comm can choose from? Issues 4 - other points members wish to raise.

3 3