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

More garbage press releases released as an Independent Economic Reports
by George Kirikos 06 Jun '09

06 Jun '09

Hi folks, ICANN posted two more garbage press releases masquerading as independent economic reports about new gTLDs, see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jun09-en.htm Of course, to no one's surprise, the reports simply justified their original papers. They ignored and dismissed the significant concerns raised by the community, once again. ICANN never even posted a summary or analysis of the original comments that were submitted: http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-prelim/ The author completely ignored the issue of tiered pricing, and did not investigate the magnitude of switching costs (e.g. for a company to switch from Cars.com or Hotels.com to NewCo.cars or NewBiz.hotels if the registry operator for .com was allowed to charge different prices for each domain name, which would be the monopolist's optimal strategy if price caps were eliminated). Indeed, Dr. Carlton's entire report is based on the false assumption that the all would be charged identical prices. Paragraph 69 states: "Ex ante competition serves to protect both uninformed consumers, which face greater risk of opportunistic price increases, as well as better informed consumers BECAUSE BOTH SETS OF CONSUMERS PAY THE SAME PRICES." (emphasis added) In our original comments, we challenged the author, and ICANN itself, to disclose their own switching costs, by accepting/rejecting direct offers to purchase their domain names: http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-prelim/msg00000.html Of course, they ignored this, and simply wave their hands and pretend that switching costs are insignificant or are exaggerated. It appears ICANN is prepared to say anything in order to justify new gTLDs. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

FW: 9th Circuit Reverses in CFIT Suit Against VeriSign; Cites ICA for Decisive Role
by Phil Corwin 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

FYI --The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the case of CFIT v VeriSign, Inc. The case alleges that the awarding of the present .com registry contract through the settlement entered into by ICANN with VeriSign was in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. My law firm prepared an amicus brief on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association which is cited by the Court as a decisive factor in reaching its decision. The Opinion is attached. Please pass this on to other interested parties. >From the decision: Moreover, amicus in this case, the Internet Commerce Association ("ICA"), points out that when Smith and Weber were decided, "the present expired domain name market barely existed," and that today's conditions were "unanticipated only a few years ago." [15] Here CFIT's complaint alleges that every word in the English language is already registered as a domain name, and that desirable domain names can be difficult to come by. On appeal, our understanding of the distinct role and value of expiring domain names has also been significantly aided by the explanation provided by the ICA. As cogently explained by ICA, expiring domain names often carry with them a history of established web traffic and advertising support; when such names do expire, they "still maintain much of [their] prior inbound traffic," making them more valuable than domain names that have never before been registered. The district court, of course, did not have the benefit of briefing by amicus. With the benefit of this aid to our understanding, we are not prepared to affirm the district court's ruling that no separate market exists. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

2 1

NetChoice post on ICANN hearing in US Congress
by Steve DelBianco 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

1 0

FW: Today's ICANN Oversight Hearing
by Phil Corwin 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

FYI, this report has just been prepared for posting at the ICA website, www.internetcommerce.org<http://www.internetcommerce.org>. Congressional ICANN Oversight Hearing Has A Bipartisan Theme - It's Too Soon To End U.S. Oversight On Thursday, June 4th the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet held an oversight hearing on "Issues Concerning the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers". The hearing was remarkable in a number of ways. First, given the technically arcane nature of its subject, the turnout was spectacular - more than half the Subcommittee's members on a morning when other hearings competed for their attention, and a SRO crowd in the very large hearing room of the full Energy and Commerce Committee. Second, there was remarkable bipartisan agreement expressed, with Member sentiments falling on a continuum between extreme concern and "over our dead bodies" as regards the prospect of termination of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the U.S. and ICANN on September 30th. The witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee were: * Fiona Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce * Paul Twomey, Ph.D., President and CEO, ICANN * Kenneth J. Silva, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, VeriSign * Christine N. Jones, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, The Go Daddy Group, Inc. * Sarah Deutsch, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Verizon Communications * Thomas M. Lenard, Ph.D., President and Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Institute All witness statements as well as streaming video are available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i… . Subcommittee Chair Rick Boucher stated at the onset that the hearing would focus on whether ICANN had become sufficiently transparent and accountable to let the JPA terminate; and concerns regarding the proposed introduction of new gTLDs - including enhanced competition, brand protection, and stability and security. Other Subcommittee members used their opening statements to raise concerns about ICANN's burgeoning budget and staff; question ICANN's priorities and whether it really cared about average Internet users; express the view that full independence would threaten national and global cybersecurity; and note the possibility of potential capture by the ITU or other entities. While several Members noted that ICANN's performance has improved, the prevailing view was that JOA termination was premature and that at least short term extension, coupled with some modification of terms, was in order. Fiona Alexander performed the thankless task of delivering the Department of Commerce's views while new Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling awaits Senate confirmation. Not only was she a stand-in but she could not indicate the Obama Administration's position on JPA extension because that is not fully developed (and even if a decision has been made, it could hardly be announced in advance of the June 8th closing of the public comment period that is supposed to inform and influence the decision). We were concerned by language in her prepared statement noting that even if the US does not extend the JPA it will still participate in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and will also be able to file comments in ICANN's public consultation processes - Mr. Strickling made a similar observation at his Senate confirmation hearing, but these are hardly reassuring words for those who are familiar with ICANN decision-making processes, and most certainly do not equate to a formal oversight role. Paul Twomey, whose departure as CEO later this year is already public knowledge, made his usual case for JPA termination to a highly skeptical Congressional audience - adding the new twist that an extension of U.S. oversight would indicate a lack of confidence in its private sector model and therefore encourage the international community to propose alternatives. None of the Subcommittee members appeared swayed by it. Most telling, perhaps, were the positions taken by ICANN's largest registry and registrar contract parties, VeriSign and GoDaddy. Ken Silva noted that "while ICANN has continued to make progress in certain areas...the basic circumstances giving rise to widespread community concerns over the expiration of the JPA remain largely unchanged and further progress is critical prior to an expiration of the agreement and end to all governmental oversight of ICANN." Christine Jones was even more blunt: "ICANN has not yet achieved competition, nor the private, bottom-up coordination and representation called for in the ICANN bylaws. The JPA between ICANN and the Department of Commerce should be extended or modified, or renewed and modified, to stress the need to correct these deficiencies and require a clear roadmap from ICANN as to how it will regain the confidence of the community on which its existence relies...Unfortunately, ICANN has yet to commit to or is unable to commit to openness, transparency and accountability." When your largest business partners take you to this type of task in front of Congress you really have major problems. The temperature in the hearing room rose by several degrees once the prepared statements were completed and questioning began. Chairman Boucher found it particularly disturbing that ICANN had never taken action against an accredited registrar engaged in cybersquatting. Ranking Republican Cliff Stearns honed in on ICANN finances, questioning whether ICANN's fees, budget and staffing were consistent with its non-profit status, as well as what ICANN would do with the more than $90 million in application fees for new gTLDs it anticipated receiving. Former full Committee Chair John Dingell resurrected the issue of the .com contract, with Christine Jones weighing in that the manner in which it was reached was "not transparent". Multiple Members questioned whether new gTLDs would truly introduce new competition and if ICANN was adequately addressing the problems they might introduce. The hearing ended with Chairman Boucher noting that the record would be kept open for thirty days and that ICANN could anticipate receiving additional written inquiries. What does all this mean for the termination or extension of the JPA? Too much should not be read into this particular episode because many Congressional hearings involve dramatic posturing and it is the Obama Administration, not Congress, which will make the ultimate call. But the strong bipartisan concern about the inconsistency of ICANN's rhetoric with the reality of its performance is hardly confined to this Subcommittee - on May 19th, Senators Olympia Snowe and Bill Nelson, both serving on the Senate Commerce Committee, sent a joint letter to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke expressing the view that "ICANN has considerable work ahead to reach the point where it can stand alone as a stable, accountable, transparent and, most importantly, secure global organization" and essentially endorsing the view that the JPA be at least temporarily extended "to allow time to design and deploy new accountability mechanisms for ICANN". Post-hearing press reports indicate that Chairman Boucher will be joining other Committee members in their own letter to the Commerce Department recommending a one-year extension. In short, if the Administration permits the JPA to terminate in less than four months it is on clear notice that such actions will unleash a strong bipartisan backlash from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. *************************************** In addition, this report appeared in this asfernoon's Congress Daily-- HILL BRIEFS: HOUSE PANEL SEEKS EXTENSION OF ICANN OVERSIGHT Technology. House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee members today called for an extension of the U.S. government's oversight agreement with the nonprofit that administers the Internet domain name system. The deal is currently slated to expire Sept. 30. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is "far from a model of effective and sustainable self-governance," and it would be unwise to shrink the government's role, said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. House Energy and Commerce Communications ranking member Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., plus Reps. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., John Shimkus, R-Ill., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., support prolonging the arrangement between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, citing transparency and accountability concerns. House Energy and Commerce Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., is reportedly drafting a letter to NTIA with Stearns and Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton that recommends a one-year extension. At the hearing, ICANN President Paul Twomey pointed out that a separate but related NTIA-ICANN contract will not sunset. He also warned that extending the joint project agreement would signal that the U.S. government does not have faith in ICANN's model. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hbp_20090604_9808.php Finally, an excellent series of blogs from the hearing appear at http://domainnamewire.com/category/policy-law/ under the heading "Congress Beats Up ICANN". Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

2 1

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain Constituency
by BC Secretariat 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

Formal Petition and Charter of the Proposed New City Top-Level Domain ConstituencyDear GNSO Constituency Leaders and Members; For your information, attached please find a copy of the Formal Petition and Charter of the proposed new City Top-Level Domain Constituency submitted by Dirk Krischenowski of dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG. This significant step represents the fourth formal new constituency petition submitted to the Board in the context of the new GNSO Improvements effort. The Staff will soon open a 30-day Public Comment Forum regarding the Petition which will extend into July. Any comments submitted in the Forum will be summarized for the Board's review. I have shared a copy of the attached documents with the Board and the GNSO Council as well. The document is now also posted on the GNSO Improvements web page at http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm.@icann.org Please drop me a line if you have any questions or comments on this matter. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN 424 558 4805 robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Travel Support Guidelines for Community Members
by BC Secretariat 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

Public Comment: Travel Support Guidelines for Community Members http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03jun09-en.htm 3 June 2009 ICANN community participants dedicate substantial time and resources to advance ICANN's work, and it is reasonable for ICANN to use travel funding to facilitate participation. In order to ensure that the resources are prioritized and administered appropriately, the Travel Support Guidelines have been updated for FY10, as reflected in this Community Travel Support Guidelines for public comment paper [PDF, 209K]. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelin… The community is encouraged to provide feedback on the travel support guidelines on an online public forum, http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#travel-su… feedback via conference calls with community groups, and/or at the workshop to be held in Sydney http://syd.icann.org/node/4035. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

RAPWG update for GNSO Council
by BC Secretariat 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

As discussed on our call today, attached is an update from the RAP-WG, with cover note below from Greg Aaron, the chair. The WG will also meet in Sydney on Monday, 22 June from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. local time; the meeting will be open, with remote participation, and has time reserved for Q&A with members of the ICANN community. Please let me know any questions or comments. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@afilias.info] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:44 PM To: 'Avri Doria'; mike(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Marika Konings' Subject: RAPWG update for GNSO Council Dear Avri and Mike: Greetings. The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) charter asked that "The Working Group should address the issues outlined in the Charter and report back to the GNSO Council within 90 days following the end of the ICANN meeting in Mexico City." In keeping with that requirement, the RAPWG respectfully submits the attached update to the Council. Please do let me know if there are any questions I can answer, either now or at Sydney. The WG will also meet at Sydney on Monday, 22 June from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. local time; the meeting will be open and has time reserved for Q&A with members of the ICANN community. With best wishes, --Greg Aaron RAPWG Chair ********************************** Greg Aaron Director, Key Account Management and Domain Security Afilias vox: +1.215.706.5700 x104 fax: 1.215.706.5701 gaaron(a)afilias.info **********************************

1 0

end of call music
by BC Secretariat 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

It seems that someone put their phone into hold mode. I tried to find out who it was so I could mute it, but didn't make it in time. Apologies to members for the way the call ended. Gary

2 1

Report from ICANN oversight hearing
by Phil Corwin 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

As noted I will not be on today's call as I am at the Internet Subcommittee's oversight hearing on ICANN, which has just begun. I plan to provide a full report. But let me note two very important things before the call begins- 1-There is remarkable turnout both by Members of the Subcommittee and the public (SRO in a large hearing room). ICANN is no longer an obscure issue on Capitol Hill. 2-On a bipartisan basis Members have noted in opening statements continuing problems with ICANN's functioning (while noting some improvements) and expressed great concern to outright opposition to terminating US oversight. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

2 1

IRT Final report
by Rick Anderson 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

I think, Philip, that may have been an unfortunate remark. There are many members of the BC which are small and even one-person companies. Some of these are people like myself who used to be with smaller firms and and are now with much larger, some. Have moved the opposite direction from larger firms to one-person consultancies. Regardless of size of company, some of the BC individuals from some of our smallest companies are amongst our most able contributors, such as George. If we do not respect contributions from individuals representing our smaller member firms, or do not repsect them as much as other members, maybe we should be upfront about it and refuse to accept their membership fees. That is not my view, I think if they qualify for membership under our rules, size of member firm is not important, certainly less important that the quality of its policy contribution, which in George's case is considerable, whether one agrees with his every point they are always educational. The BC would be the poorer if he took what appears to be your suggestion and refrained from input. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Jun 03 07:23:45 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report Hello, On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: > George, > you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter" > > please tell BC members more about your company, its business objectives, global reach and staffing. Is this some sort of suggestion that my company isn't qualified to offer an opinion/position, or that my company is not representative of the many companies (and individuals) who've registered 180 million domain names worldwide? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Internet-Domain-Names-Surpass-iw-15423088.html I'd be curious to know who you believe should be able to comment on ICANN policy. My company has been a member of the BC for years, sailing through the credentials committee, etc. Indeed, I was trusted enough to be on the credentials committee, deciding who was qualified to be in the BC, before I decided to step down from that committee. It was my company that detected the flaws in the .biz/info/org contracts that would have permitted tiered pricing: http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/ It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder: http://www.circleid.com/posts/petition_against_site_finder/ http://www.verisignsucks.com/ http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm even before it launched (note the 3rd link was on September 9, 2003, whereas SiteFinder launched on September 15 as per the 4th link). If those qualifications aren't good enough to create informed comments, please do educate the rest of the BC as to what does qualify as informed comment. Do you believe only members of AIM should be allowed to participate in ICANN policymaking, for example? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ 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.

4 5