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

IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
by George Kirikos 30 May '09

30 May '09

Hi folks, The IRT final report was published on the ICANN website a few hours ago. Here's a copy of our initial comments: ----- start of comments ---------- I was holding out hope that the IRT would actually take into account the public comments of the non-IP world and create a balanced report. We made extensive comments in good faith that reflected the needs of responsible registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html (the 3rd link in particular discussed a novel approach that would protect ALL registrants from new gTLD confusion at the top level in an elegant manner, and was superior to the rehash of old ideas produced by the IRT) I just finished reading the final report and frankly it is an abomination, showing total disregard for balanced solutions that protect the rights of legitimate registrants. Trademark trolls who wish to reverse hijack valuable domain names would be cheering at this report, if it was implemented without significant changes. The URS in particular is an extremist view of trademark rights, tilted in favour of IP interests compared to the UDRP and beyond what is protected or recognized by law and due process. It also obfuscates the dual requirement of BOTH bad faith use AND registration (there are lots of inconsistencies in the language that seek to weaken the standard to make it "OR" instead of "AND"). The level of defaults will be even higher than the UDRP simply because good faith registrants never receive actual notice of complaints. Even faxes were considered too expensive! A 1 page fax, using email-to-fax technology (so it can easily be automated by the URS provider) would cost less than $1 ANYWHERE in the world! The IRT team should try sending registered letters in a statistically valid sample size and measure how long it takes them to be delivered to different parts of the world -- it can be more than a week, even from the USA to Canada, let alone from Europe to Canada. And the URS was said to be a "higher burden" than the UDRP, yet no consideration was given to the creation date of the domain name! Restricting the URS to recently registered domains would have demonstrated that the IRT was showing balance, i.e. only wanting to cover "clear cut" cases of abuse. Frankly, the IRT team is demonstrating that their tactics and extreme positions can be even worse than those of the cybersquatters that they decry and detest. I will do a detailed deconstruction of the final report in the coming weeks (there are more pressing comments required by the NTIA first), however simply re-read the comments that I and others submitted previously. They were completely ignored. ---- end of comments ------------- Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

JPA/ICANN Oversight Hearing in DC next week
by George Kirikos 29 May '09

29 May '09

Hi folks, I forgot to mention, there's also a meeting on June 4, 2009 (next Thursday) at 10:00 am in Washington, DC, of the US House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extm… on the "Oversight of ICANN", and Paul Twomey will be there. If any BC members attend, they might want to provide summaries to the constituency. According to the minutes of the latest ICANN Board meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm "Staff reported that the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet scheduled a hearing on the Joint Project Agreement and other ICANN related issues including new gTLDs on 4 June 2009 and invited Dr. Twomey to appear as a witness." Given that our own BC conference call is currently scheduled just 1 hour after the start of the above meeting, if many BC members in the DC area (or flying in from outside DC) are planning to attend the hearing in person, perhaps it might be wise to adjust the timing of our own conference call.... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 2

US Cybersecurity
by George Kirikos 29 May '09

29 May '09

Hi folks, As BC members finalize their comments for the NTIA over the coming week: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00023.html they might wish to take into account the US Cybersecurity review. The Obama speech today is at: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/29/HP/R/19192/Pres+Obama+announce… (video) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Secu… (text transcript of speech) The cyberspace policy review is discussed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CyberReview/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.p… Have a great weekend. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Sydney
by BC Secretariat 29 May '09

29 May '09

Ask a Question Direct to the Board in Sydney 28 May 2009 An online question box where community members can ask questions directly to the ICANN Board and staff has opened today. The question box will take questions until Wednesday 17 June in preparation for the public forum at ICANN's international public meeting in Sydney on Thursday 25 June. Anyone can ask up to two questions or 50 words in length. The question can cover any topic related to ICANN and its work. Answers will be provided either during the public forum or emailed and published in the weeks following the meeting. You can find the form below as well as on the Sydney meeting website, the blog, and the public participation website. Mexico City experience The question box was attempted for the first time in Mexico City in March 2009 as a way to allow remote participants to ask questions directly of ICANN's Board and staff for the Sydney meeting. It was also open to those that were attending the meeting in person but felt uncomfortable asking a question at the public microphone. The box was very popular, eliciting 96 questions from 36 individuals. Answers to every question were then published on ICANN's main website, the blog and the Mexico City meeting site. Through the experience three changes have been made this time around: a.. Questions have been limited to two per person (the most that people in the physical public forum typically ask) b.. Permissible question length has been extended from 30 to 50 words to give people more room to frame a question c.. The deadline have been brought forward by a week to give staff and Board more time to go through the questions and prepare answers Related links Sydney question box: http://icann.wufoo.com/forms/sydney-question-box/ Full response to Mexico City question box: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/mexico-city-public-forum-response.htm Sydney question box Do you have a question you wish to ask at the public forum in Sydney on Thursday 25 June? Maybe you cannot physically attend ICANN's meeting in Mexico City meeting or you don't wish to queue up to a public microphone. Well in that case, please provide us with your question here before end of day Wednesday 17 June and we will make sure it is asked and that you receive an answer. Please fill in each of the boxes below and you will receive a confirmation that your question has been received. · Name * First Last · Email * We will email you with a summary of the overall public comment periods complete with answers to questions from the staff and/or Board within a few weeks of the end of the meeting. · Affiliation * Please tell us who you represent, whether an organization or as an individual · Which topic does your question or comment most closely relate to? * APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK / NEW gTLDs IDNs / Fast Track Independent Reviews DNSSEC Improving Institutional Confidence ICANN as an organization Public participation Registrars / RAA Other We will use this information to help group questions together during the meeting itself. · Please write your question or comment here. Only two questions allowed per person: * Must be between 5 and 50 words. Currently Used: 0 words. Please add your question and/or comment in this box and hit "Ask your question". The space is limited to 50 words in order to keep it concise and allow everyone the opportunity to comment. ·

1 0

GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
by BC Secretariat 29 May '09

29 May '09

GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names 28 May 2009 On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF, 72K] http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability to implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC Principles regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The letter recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in three internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the second level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However, other issues relating to geographic names at the top level and the potential misuse of the respective names at the second level requires further discussion. The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March, 2009 seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve the outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection of geographic names at the second level (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08 and http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pdf) [PDF, 245K]. The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24 April 2009 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf [PDF, 95K]. On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the proposal outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009, http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf [PDF, 69K]. The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009 and which will now be published 29 May, 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

OSC-CCT Communications Work Team
by BC Secretariat 29 May '09

29 May '09

On behalf of Chris Chaplow. Dear All, I thought it was a good time just ahead of Sydney to update the constituency on our work team progress. As a reminder, our team goals were to develop proposals for Council consideration for increased communication effectiveness and efficiency within the GNSO and improved coordination with other ICANN structures - including members of the ICANN Board, other Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) This includes: . Develop New GNSO Website requirements (including Document Management) . Improve the GNSO's ability to solicit meaningful feedback . Improve GNSO's coordination with other ICANN structures. I was part of a Sub Team working on the first element above and we have posted the first revision of our draft 'website business requirements document' has been posted on the Team 'Social Text' for the full OSC-CCT consideration. I welcome any comment or suggestions the members of the constituency have, either by email, on this list, or at Sydney. Our "Social Text" Workspace can be seen at https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team Our mailing list at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-osc-ccc/ 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: chris(a)andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email

2 1

FW: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - PDP Part B
by Mike Rodenbaugh 28 May '09

28 May '09

The GNSO Council is considering whether to initiate a Policy Development Process to examine several more questions that have arisen under the existing IRTP. This would be the second of five PDP's recommended by an earlier GNSO team. The general issues are: a) Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed b) Whether additional provisions for undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near to the time of a change of registrar d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status e) Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock' status provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status More detail in Issues Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf And in a nice Powerpoint presentation by Marika Koenings of ICANN Staff: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-part-b-issues-report-28may09.pdf A few BC members have been involved in the previous PDP and I believe we all support this next PDP as well. The BC Councilors expect to vote in favor of this PDP when the Council votes in Sydney on June 24. Please reply with any questions, concerns, or comments. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com

2 1

BC members in Sydney - last call
by BC Secretariat 28 May '09

28 May '09

Dear members This is the last call for you to let me know if you plan to be in Sydney. This is so we can organise invitations for events and other planning. Please reply to the secretariat address. Many thanks to all those who have already responded. Gary

1 0

IRT Final Report Not Published by May 24, 2009
by George Kirikos 27 May '09

27 May '09

Hi folks, According to the ICANN Board resolution that created the IRT: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#07 it was tasked to: "produce a final report to be published no later than 24 May 2009" It is now May 27, 2009, and no final report has been made public either on ICANN's website, the comment forum, http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/ or on the IRT wiki: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protec… Assuming they have missed their deadline, while at the same time they imposed unrealistic deadlines upon companies and individuals not in the IRT to submit comments, I think it's safe to declare the entire process a complete and utter failure. As a consensus does not exist on how to solve these and other overarching issues related to new gTLDs, the entire new gTLD program should be shelved so that the community no longer wastes valuable time and resources on doomed projects. ICANN needs to admit failure and move on, in order to preserve any last scintilla of legitimacy it imagines itself to possess. The community focus should instead be placed upon important matters like DNSSEC and IPv6. The NTIA/DOC/DOJ should give more direct instructions to ICANN in this regard to reiterate its past letters on new gTLDs: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

Pre-Sydney call agenda
by BC Secretariat 27 May '09

27 May '09

Dear Members Please find below the agenda for the members call on Thursday 4 June. The call will be at the usual times: California, 8am Alberta, 9am NYC/DC/Ottawa, 11am London, 4pm Brussels/Paris/Geneva, 5pm Karachi, 9pm The dial-in details will be the same as our most recent calls with the new provider. I will send that info again closer to the time. Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------- 1. Outline of GNSO and BC-related meetings - Philip 2. IRT final report on trademark protection and new TLDs - Zahid 3. Registrars Accreditation Agreement further revisions and "registrants rights" working group - Phil Corwin 4. Registrations Abuse Policy (RAP) working group - Mike 5. Sydney outreach activities - Liz Williams 6. GNSO reform update - Philip

1 0