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

Comments regarding PSC Report on Improving Institutional Confidence
by Steve DelBianco May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Only a handful of comments were filed on the PSC draft plan for Improving Institutional Confidence. http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-implementation-plan/index.html#00012 ATT made some intriguing suggestions to improve accountability. NetChoice raised similar concerns (below). We welcome your support for these ideas. The deadline was May 11, but your comments will likely be posted if you get something in today. --Steve NetChoice comments on the Feb-2009 DRAFT Implementation Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) I want to acknowledge the considerable work of the President¹s Strategy Committee (PSC) in developing this report. While I hesitate to ask volunteers to take-on more work, I hope that PSC members can take their work to the next level and soon. There is a growing urgency regarding institutional confidence, since ICANN¹s transition agreement (JPA) with the U.S. Government expires at the end of September. Moreover, the draft Plan does not include adequate proposals or sufficient implementation details in at least two critical areas, Accountability and Capture. Before describing where the IIC Plan needs more work, I should first address what transition means in the context of ICANN and the work of the PSC. In April of 2008, ICANN¹s chairman tasked the PSC to outline a plan for developing this transition framework.¹ This was a same-day response to a statement by the U.S. Commerce Department, pointing out that more work remains to increase institutional confidence¹. It seems to me that ICANN has perfected the method to respond to challenges of this type: develop a study; solicit public comments; then declare that the challenge has been met. I¹ve heard ICANN leaders tell Washington audiences that ICANN¹s transition is a fait accompli, since the JPA will simply expire on schedule. ICANN leaders have admonished me (and others) who ask whether the JPA¹s terms have really been met. If you accept ICANN¹s view, there¹s nothing left but the countdown to September 30, 2009. But hold the countdown for just a moment and think about what transition really means. The JPA is the latest agreement in a commitment the U.S. Government made 10 years ago to transition its original role of DNS management to a private sector organization created specifically for this purpose -- ICANN. For 10 years, ICANN has worked to become the kind of organization that could handle management of the DNS according to the principles articulated by the US and embraced by the world. I still believe that ICANN will fulfill the role it was created for. But I don¹t believe that ICANN today has the mechanisms to ensure that it remains accountable to those principles and is led by the private sector instead of governments. And absent those mechanisms, I don¹t believe it¹s in the interest of anyone to effect a full transition of DNS management roles. Only one recommendation in the draft IIC plan (2.9) would subject ICANN¹s board to external review, but that measure (Establish an extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board¹) would be too difficult to invoke and would create unacceptable and uncontrollable risks if it were ever actually used. The draft Plan for IIC should be expanded to include additional mechanisms that hold ICANN accountable for its decisions in the development and execution of DNS policies. The PSC has more work to do in this area to explore alternative plans, including the possibility of an ad-hoc or standing judiciary¹ that could hear appeals, perhaps through arbitration or something akin to what ICANN proposed for hearing objections to new gTLD applications. Additionally, the PSC could explore the principles and foundational documents that would form the basis to evaluate appeals of ICANN decisions. Finally, the IIC Plan does not adequately address the growing risk that ICANN¹s role could be captured by governments and multi-governmental organizations. The fact that over a billion people have access to the Internet is due to private sector innovation and over a trillion dollars in private sector investment. It¹s going to take yet more private sector investment to reach the next billion people, so ICANN needs to maintain the confidence of the private sector. NetChoice has been raising concerns about the risks of government capture at ICANN and IGF meetings and in comments filed over the last two years. For example: 1. At the 2003 Internet Governance Forum, the Russian Government asked the United Nations to take control of critical Internet resources, raising the risk of government capture. http://blog.netchoice.org/2007/11/dont-blame-it-o.html 2. In our Jan-2008 comments at the mid-term of the JPA, we raised the issue of government capture and suggested that U.S. oversight was providing some protection from capture. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpacomments2007/jpacomment_001.p df 3. In July 2008, we warned that ICANN¹s fast-track program would give governments initial control of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) with non-Latin alphabets. http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-consultation/msg00024.html 4. After ICANN dismissed our concerns about government capture of IDNs, we reiterated the risks in our Oct-2008 comments on IIC. http://comment.icann.org/?14@@.ee7bbd2/1 5. Last week, we criticized yet another plan for government capture of ICANN, the G-12 for the internet¹. http://www.netchoice.org/press/eu-plan-to-increase-government-control-is-not -the-answer-for-icann.html Over the last year we have seen increasing ways and means of governments capturing the private sector¹s leadership role at ICANN. At the same time, government-controlled country-code domains have maintained their independence from ICANN policies and financial support, while insisting on having initial and exclusive control over new top-level Internationalized Domain Names. We appreciate the chance to comment on ICANN reports and draft plans, but it can be very discouraging when our concerns are dismissed even more so when events show that these concerns are justified. While NetChoice will continue to participate in ICANN, there is a real risk that broader participation could wane if others¹ concerns are similarly dismissed. Diminished public participation could have the unfortunate effect of letting ICANN leadership conclude that the Internet community broadly supports ICANN plans. That kind of false confidence could be the beginning of the end for institutional confidence in ICANN. Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice Coalition 1401 K St NW, Suite 502 Washington, DC 20005 www.netchoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org>

2 1

Comments on Registry Stakeholder Group Petition and Charter
by George Kirikos May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Hi folks, Yesterday ICANN invited comments on the Registry Stakeholder Group Petition and Charter, see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11may09-en.htm http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/registry-sg-petition-charter-24apr09.… We've posted our own comments in opposition to that charter, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ryc-sg-petition/msg00000.html in line with our previously stated position, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/ that there should be public mailing list archives, public budgets, and public membership lists. Their meetings should also be archived in MP3 format and ideally be accompanied by transcripts. We also noted that there should be an elected Secretary (as opposed to an unelected Secretariat). Their charter already implements the elected Treasurer position that we and many other members of the BC support as we formulate and move to a new BC charter. Given that the BC has voted for and implemented a public mailing list, we should be setting the bar high for other constituencies to match that level of transparency. I hope other BC members will take that same position if they submit comments, or perhaps that can be a position of the entire constituency if the BC submits comments for the entire constituency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
by BC Secretariat May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Dear ICANN Community Leaders and Members: ICANN's Ombudsman, Frank Fowlie, recently posted a web page on Respectful Online Communication and Behavior: <http://icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication-en.htm>. This page emphasizes the importance of respectful communication in ICANN, particularly in this phase of its development as an international organization: "Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that fellow community members, volunteers, stakeholders, and staff members are all deserving of considerate treatment. Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that the diversity of thought, and diversity of participants, in this unique - bottom up - consensus driven - multilingual and multicultural organization is ICANN’s strength." ICANN's Standard of Behaviour also can be found on this page, and is included below for easy reference. I know some community leaders are discussing how to further encourage and enforce these standards within their community. Please don't hesitate to contact ICANN Staff if there is anything we can do to assist with this endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development policy-staff(a)icann.org ICANN EXPECTED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR "Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils undertake to: Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the values contained in the Bylaws. Adhere to the conflict of interest policy laid out in the Bylaws. Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. Act in a reasonable and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment. Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. Act in accordance with ICANN policies. Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use. Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process."

1 0

Updated BC Members & Contacts Lists?
by George Kirikos May 11, 2009

May 11, 2009

Hello, I noticed we've lost a few members, glancing at the BC members list at: http://www.bizconst.org/members.htm (e.g. Yahoo, Rabio, DomainManager, and perhaps others I might have missed) Is the posted list now current (i.e. reflecting paid 2009 invoices), or is it still subject to change? Also, may we have an updated Contacts List document sent out, as we've not had one in a while. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 7 May, 2009
by BC Secretariat May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 7 May, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090507.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Denise Michel: Board Update
by BC Secretariat May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Dear Council and Community Members, Unfortunately I am on travel and unable to join the Council call today. I am providing a "Board update" via email and would be happy to provide additional information later today, if needed. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development The preliminary report of the Board's 23 April 2009 meeting is posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-23apr09.htm>. I would like to call the GNSO's attention to three items in particular: 1) GNSO Improvements -- Implementation Efforts and Council Restructuring Staff provided an update to the Board on the status of the GNSO Improvements Implementation Efforts and the work remaining prior to the June 2009 implementation timeline approved by the Board. Staff and Board addressed specific issues relating to the outstanding petitions and charters of new Stakeholder Groups and potential amendment of those documents, as well as petitions and charters for new Constituency groups and the anticipated receipt of further petitions. Staff was directed to continue work towards implementation, and no Board action was taken. The Board's Structural Improvement Committee will be discussing these issues at their 14 April 2009 meeting and may provide the Board with recommended actions. 2) RAA Amendments The Board discussed the amendments and directed Staff to send a letter to the US DOC confirming the benefits of the new RAA, prior to the Board's final approval. The Board is expected to act on the amendments at their next (21 May) meeting. This information was provided to the Council list on 24 April by Director Bruce Tonkin (see <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06692.html>). 3) Working Group to Review the Structure of ICANN’s Present Geographic Regions The Board briefly discussed the proposed charter of the community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN’s present geographic regions. As a question was raised by a Board member, the Board deferred approval of the charter until their next (21 May) meeting. The full agenda for the Board's 23 April meeting is included below, FYI. A. Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes – 3 February 2009 and 12 February 2009 2. Approval of Board Audit Committee’s Recommendation for Engagement of Auditors for FY09-10 3. Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN’s Present Geographic Regions 4. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation regarding Ombudsman Framework 5. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for Posting of the Revised Conflict of Interest Policy for Public Comment 6. Approval of Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation of Procedures for Board Nominations 7. Approval of Redelegation of .NG 8. Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment 9. Approval of Posting for Public Comment the Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency 10. Approval of Staff to Follow the Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries B. Regular Agenda 1. GNSO Improvements 1. Implementation Efforts 2. GNSO Council Restructuring 2. New gTLD Implementation Updates 1. Implementation Recommendation Team 2. Geographical Names 3. Timeline 3. Approval of Seoul Budget - October 2009 Meeting Location 4. Agenda for Upcoming Board Retreat 5. Other Business 6. Board Executive Session C. Informational Agenda 1. Registrar Accreditation Agreement Update 2. .PRO Registry Agreement Renewal 3. IDNccTLD Update 4. Update on FY10 Operational Planning & Budget Process 5. Reports from Board Committees 1. Audit Committee – 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 2. Board Governance Committee – 11 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 3. Finance Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report 4. IANA Committee – 28 January 2009 and 16 February 2009 Minutes and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Report 5. Public Participation Committee – 17 February 2009 and 28 February 2009 Minutes 6. Risk Committee – 27 January 2009 and 1 March 2009 Preliminary Reports 7. Structural Improvements Committee – 10 February 2009 Minutes and 28 February 2009 Preliminary Report

1 0

Public Comment: Single, Two and Select Three Character Names in .PRO
by BC Secretariat May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06may09-en.htm Public Comment: Single, Two and Select Three Character Names in .PRO 6 May 2009 ICANN is today opening a public comment forum on a proposed amendment from RegistryPro to Appendix C and K of the .PRO Registry Agreement. On 8 April 2009, ICANN posted for public information a request submitted by RegistryPro through the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP). The request calls for a phased allocation process for single, two and select three character names in .PRO. The RegistryPro proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/registry-pro-08apr09-en.pdf [PDF, 132K]. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN performed a preliminary review to determine whether the proposal might raise significant security, stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposal does not raise such issues. [Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework…) which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.] The proposal requires an amendment the .PRO Schedule of Reserved Names (Appendix K) and a description of the phased allocation program is proposed to be inserted in Section 12 of Appendix C. A copy of the proposed contract amendment is available here [PDF, 100K]. Comments on the proposed amendment may be submitted to pro-alloc-amendment at icann.org through 5 June 2009 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pro-alloc-amendment/. All documentation related to the RegistryPro proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009002. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy
by BC Secretariat May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06may09-en.htm Public Comment: Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy 6 May 2009 A new public comment period opens today on the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy [PDF, 117K]. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-06may09-en.pdf Click here to go through to the public comment period (open until 5 June 2009). http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200906.html#coi The ICANN Board initially adopted a Conflicts of Interest Policy on 4 March 1999, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article V, Section 7, and Article VI, Section 3(b). The Board Governance Committee ("BGC") has responsibility for administration of ICANN's Conflicts of Interest Policy. The Committee charter specifically states that the BGC "shall periodically review the Conflicts of Interest Policy and consider whether any modifications should be made to the policy to improve its effectiveness." In furtherance of its role, the BGC has reviewed and significantly revised the Conflicts of Interest Policy in order to, among other things, remain current with legal disclosure requirements. On 23 April 2009, the ICANN Board of Directors followed the BGC's recommendation that the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy [PDF, 117K] be posted for public comment. http://www.icann.org/en/committees/coi/coi-policy-06may09-en.pdf Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: comments on the IRT draft report
by BC Secretariat May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Posted by the secretariat on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh It 'started out' as a proposal thought likely to deter cybersquatting. It has failed that purpose, but it still is designed to address cybersquatting cases only, rather than 'garden variety' trademark cases. And it is still better than nothing. Rest assured George, at least in the US, federal courts have no obligation to give any deference to a UDRP panelist's decision once challenged. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com

1 0

Comments on the IRT draft report
by George Kirikos May 6, 2009

May 6, 2009

Hi folks, We just submitted our comments (in 2 parts) to the IRT draft report: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-draft-report/msg00015.html (long!) http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-draft-report/msg00016.html (shorter, and you can admire our pretty pictures explaining what new TLDs really mean) We noticed BC member CADNA issued a press release today echoing our own comments of 2 weeks ago that the comment period was simply too short: http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20090505/DC1159805052009-1.h… The deadline is today (May 6) if you want your comments to be considered by the IRT in their final report. You can submit comments after May 6 (and before May 24), but their impact on the final report is apparently nil. Instructions on how to do so are at: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm which includes the report itself and a link to all comments. Feel free to endorse, copy, or borrow any material that you might agree with from our own comments if you're pressed for time, or you might want to simply write complaining about the lack of time to properly submit an analysis before the deadline, to get ICANN to reconsider its timelines (or at least to be on the record about that). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 2