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

Request for volunteers for Expert Advisory Groups
by Philip Sheppard Nov. 27, 2009

Nov. 27, 2009

I believe this is a request for individuals in their individual expert capacity. If it is of interest suggest a direct reply and cc the BC. Philip Dear Community Members, As part of ICANN's work on the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs and the Board's direction to resolve the potential for malicious conduct over-arching issue, ICANN Staff is soliciting knowledgeable volunteers to serve on two temporary, expert advisory groups to study and develop proposed solutions for: 1. Enhancing access to zone file information; and 2. Establishing a high security TLD verification program. Attached are briefing papers on these topics that will be used for each group's kick-off call that is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, 8 December (attached in both Word and PDF format). The call time, dial-in information and any associated materials will be provided next week. Additional information about these groups and their activities will be posted via a link on ICANN's new gTLD webpage (<http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm>). Recordings or minutes from the groups' conference calls will be publicly archived, and their outputs will be publicly posted and considered as part of ongoing Applicant Guidebook work. ICANN Staff invites the participation of experts from GNSO Stakeholder Groups, constituencies, advisory committees, and other interested parties. We look forward to your participation in this work. If you are interested in participating in either or both groups or have any questions, please email me at <craig.schwartz(a)icann.org> by Thursday, 3 December. Thank you. Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison

1 0

final reminder -- Proposed draft for IRTP-B working group
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 26, 2009

Nov. 26, 2009

hi all, this is a last call for comments on the draft constituency statement that Berry, Chris and i prepared for the IRTP-B working group. i haven't gotten any comments so far, so i thought i'd give it one last go before pushing this along to the working group. my hope is to fold any comments you might have into the draft by late tomorrow, push that revised version (if there is one) back out to you all for final reactions over the weekend and push it to the working group early next week. if there aren't any comments today (loosely defined), this is the draft that i'll send. thanks! mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

7 11

Re: [bc-gnso] status of elections?
by Marilyn Cade Nov. 25, 2009

Nov. 25, 2009

Sounds pratical and achievable Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:47:31 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] status of elections? Yes nominations would probably be wef 4 January. Exact election cycle will be advised in due course. Philip

2 1

BC IRTP-B constituency statement
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 23, 2009

Nov. 23, 2009

hi Marika, here (better late than never) is the BC constituency statement for the IRTP-B working group. could you push this along to the right people? thanks, mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

BC Comments on DAG v.3
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 23, 2009

Nov. 23, 2009

Attached comments respectfully submitted by the BC. 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/>

1 0

FW: DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 21, 2009

Nov. 21, 2009

I believe there has not been a single comment on this since posting on the 12th, but Ron has sought to clarify one point as requested. I have tried to clarify further, and will submit the attached v.2 as the BC's adopted position by the deadline this Sunday, the 22d. I will try to consider and incorporate any comments that come in before 5pm PST on Sunday. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:51 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3 Hi all, With many thanks to Ron Andruff, David Fares and Zahid Jamil for their inputs thus far, here is a DRAFT of BC comments to be submitted by the comment deadline of Nov. 22 if possible. Please indicate any objections, questions, suggested edits or adds, etc. ASAP. 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 =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
by Marilyn Cade Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

I support posting individual comments. Mine will say: no fees/no preferential treatment, and that there are "insider" issues with ICANN declaring the ad hoc "rump" group a formal process. But there is a precedent that can be followed. Without prejudice to whether ICANN has addressed the 4 overarching issues, and the implications of the root scaling study, which are serious. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:32:01 To: <michael(a)palage.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum Dear colleagues, In response to Mike Palage's email below and EOI article, I believe that he has put forward some good critical thinking for us all. However, contrary to his assertion that his comments are at the polar opposite of my EOI posting, I am of like mind with regard to much that Mike has said. I take issue with the use of the terms "front runners" and "insiders" for the simple reason that using such names are a cheap shot. They are insulting to many of us who put in the hours and hours of volunteer work within ICANN (in my case, participating on the GNSO Operations Work Team and the OSC, along with responding to BC issues). It poses the question: Does the fact that a regular participant in the debates and dialogues within the BC and/or the greater ICANN community for the last decade earn one such titles simply because they are also party to the new gTLD process? If so, I fear Mike may have tarred himself with his own brush. But, at the end of the day, all of that is of no relevance. The bigger issue is this: With ICANN having belabored the issue of introducing new TLDs for years on end - virtually from its inception until now - is it possible that anyone, any company, or any other entity interested in this process doesn't know about it? For my part, I find that hard to believe. I believe that those who choose to hide behind this strawman argument rather than engaging in a dialogue on ways forward, e.g., running processes in parallel, as is suggested by the very existence of the EOI, are being obstructionist. In closing, I would like to reiterate two things. First, I am in agreement with Mike that a principled way forward vis-à-vis the EOI is the ONLY way to go. I fully support that in whatever shape or form it should take. Second, I, too, am recommending that you post your comments! Comments need to be posted on both the EOI and DAG v3 changes/amendments. I sense people are tiring of the process and thus are becoming more willing to let things go that they may have held strong feelings about. This is tantamount to abandoning our bottom up process, so I, like Mike, strongly encourage you to post your positions to make sure that staff hears enough voices to draw appropriate conclusions from, rather than having them make judgment calls. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: 2009-11-18 20:03 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum Hello All, Listed below is an article that I wrote in connection with ICANN's proposed new gTLD Expression of Interest initiative. While I think there is some good that could come of this proposal, as I have tried to articulate in this article there is potentially a lot of bad, especially when you look at the public forum which has basically been flooded by prospective TLD applicants. There is less than 10 days before ICANN staff summarizes the public forum input for consideration by the ICANN Board at its early December meeting. As Mike Rodenbaugh previously noted there is probably not enough time for the constituency to reach an opinion, and Ron Andruff has already taken a position in line with the prospective TLD applicants which is kind of the polar opposite to the position advocated in my paper. This is kind of a big issue which appears to be getting lost in the DAG 3.0 comment period and the upcoming holiday season. I really do believe individual BC members should weigh in on this important issue one way or another. Best regards, Michael FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 18, 2009 New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution Palage Offers Suggestions to Ensure Useful Insight is Gathered in Process WASHINGTON D.C. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) should look to precedents if it chooses to move forward with soliciting Expressions of Interests for new Generic Top Level Domains, states Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage in "New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> ," released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Previous EOIs were successful in helping ICANN gather pertinent data to judge likely gTLD demand and make fact-based decisions. In the paper <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> , Palage, a former ICANN board member, states that the Expression of Interest, if well executed, could help to address a number of the remaining issues with implementation of new gTLDs. If executed improperly, however, the initiative will likely erode confidence in the new gTLD process and negatively impact ICANN's evaluation in the upcoming reviews under ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments. Palage warns against proposals to make participation in the EOI a condition for participating in the first new gTLD round. He also warns against instituting substantial fees to file, stating that both proposals deviate from established precedent. Palage explains that such actions would transform a fact-based gathering EOI into a "front-running scheme for insiders to reserve their space at the front of the new gTLD line." The proposal would fail to create a level playing field for potential applicants. Moreover, this proposed front-running approach would likely only increase ICANN's litigation risks by appearing to grant a license or privilege in a process which may ultimately diverge from present expectations. "The path forward for ICANN is a road that it has previously traveled - and one which has served it well," concludes Palage. "There is little benefit to deviating from these established precedents to benefit the narrow interests of a small number of TLD applicants whose business plans have been jeopardized because of ICANN's decision to listen to the global community by slowing down and getting things right." "New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> " is available on the PFF website <http://www.pff.org/> . The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a 501(c)(3) research & educational organization.

1 0

FW: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 17, 2009

Nov. 17, 2009

Fyi from the Operations Steering Committee. Philip has been representing on this, so he may have some comments, and of course comments are welcome from anyone interested. Apparently these will come to a Council vote in December. 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 Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:10 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations Please find attached the first set of recommendations for GNSO improvements from the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) related to Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations. Please forward these recommendations to your respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting. In the meantime, questions and comments are encouraged on this list and a brief opportunity will be provided for discussion of this in our meeting on 23 Nov. I encourage all groups (SGs, constituencies and ACs to consult with your representative(s) on the OSC; the OSC members are provided here: Primary Team Members * Olga Cavalli - Alternate Chair (NomCom Appointee) * Chuck Gomes - Chair (GNSO Council Vice-Chair) * Robin Gross (Non Commercial Users Constituency) * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * Vanda Scartezini (ALAC) * Philip Sheppard (Business Constituency) * Ken Stubbs (Registries Constituency) * Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Constituency) * Stéphane Van Gelder (Registrar Constituency) * Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Policy Staff) * Julie Hedland (ICANN Policy Staff) * Glen De Saint Géry (GNSO Secretariat) Alternate Team Members * Ron Andruff (Business Constituency) * Mason Cole (Registrar Constituency) * Tony Holmes (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * David Maher (Registries Constituency) Thanks, Chuck (OSC Chair)

2 1

Final BC Position on RPMs & Update on STI
by Zahid Jamil Nov. 17, 2009

Nov. 17, 2009

Dear All, Had been holding out for comments or approvals to be received from many who wished time to add their support or comments. Here is the final draft. Please let me know if I have left any important inclusion that may have reached consensus out. I plan to post this by midday EST. Here are a few highlights of the Special Trademark Issues working group set up by the GNSO to respond to the Board's letter: Registrar and Registry are vehemently against: Post Launch IP Claims: (Registrar and Registry are vehemently against, IPC probably don't want to rock the boat with Ry/Rr, NCSG want to ensure that doesn't lead to 'chilling effect' for individual registrants) - looking tough! Domain Name Transfer in case of successful URS by complainant: Ry/Rr dislike Domain Name Suspension/Block especially without fee in case of a successful URS complaint. They would rather just agree to a simple transfer since it doesn't 'mess' with their protocols. NCSG against Transfer - they want a mechanism where even though a name is subject to a URS, a registrant who can demonstrate legitimate interest should be able to get that domain name. IPC agree to transfer but willing to agree to suspension subject to fee based renewal by Complainant (TM holder) URS-Mandatory?: NCSG the only ones against making it mandatory but seem to be open to it if the URS process incorporates more due process protections. 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 2

BC Charter Ballot
by BC Secretariat Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

Dear Members Voting for the new BC Charter closed at midnight on Sunday. With weighted voting, the results are: 23 approved 2 not approved 14 members voted which represents a 34% turn out. The Officers will be in contact regarding a timetable for the Executive Committee elections. Best wishes Gary

1 0