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

What must be in a proper draft charter -- #1: Proper Financial Controls
by George Kirikos 01 Sep '09

01 Sep '09

Hi folks, Given we have two weeks to deliberate, and while free speech continues under the existing charter, I plan a series of bite-sized posts on what should be in a future charter (and as per my prior post, all charter discussions and the charter itself should be on the public mailing list, as per the vote we had months ago which made any other mailing list illegitimate). #1: Proper Financial Controls ---------------------------------------- At present, there is no separate bank account that belongs to the constituency. Would ICANN permit all the funds of the organization to be held by Paul Twomey's Argo Pacific, a contractor, instead of being held in its own name? Of course not. Neither should the BC. This is beyond being basic. With members like eBay (who own PayPal) with great financial experience present, it would be very simple to design effective financial controls that ensure proper financial controls. Sites like PayPal.com or FreshBooks.com allow for easy bookkeeping. *** Recommendation A: The BC charter should mandate that it should have its own bank account. At a minimum, large balances like the reserve fund of the constituency should be held independently of any contractors, e.g. held by ICANN or the GNSO. --------- To ensure accountability, there should be a democratic process for spending and for fees. This can only take place if budgets are voted upon, and if there is an Elected Treasurer. This elected Treasurer provision is present, for example, in the Registrars constituency (see section 3.1.2 of http://www.registrarconstituency.com/legal/bylaws.php ) and the IP Constituency (see IV.(A) of http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws.htm ). *** Recommendation B: The BC charter should mandate an elected Treasurer and a budget process that is accountable via a democratic vote amongst all BC members. ----------- Also to ensure accountability, the finances of the constituency should be subject to audit. This is present in the IP Constituency (section VII.D, http://www.ipconstituency.org/bylaws.htm) and ensures that the funds of the constituency are being properly spent *** Recommendation C: The BC charter should mandate that: "Upon a request made in writing (including via e-mail) to the officers by any member, there shall be an independent review conducted of all BC ledgers and accounts. The BC officers shall select the conductor of said review, a neutral third party with recognized accounting experience. The results of said review shall be made known to the BC." In order to keep these "bite sized", I'll have more on financial and other topics in future posts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 2

Bifurcation of BC Discussions are Contrary to Our Past Vote
by George Kirikos 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Hi folks, Before I comment on the charter, I'd like to know why it was posted on an "internal" mailing list. This is contrary to our past vote. "The BC Officers have agreed it is time for the current membership to vote to EITHER continue this service OR move to an open un-moderated list with archiving. " (the words "EITHER" and "OR" were in bold text in the original .doc file sent on March 23, 2009) Thus, the majority of the BC members explicitly voted to DISCONTINUE the private list --- it was a clear mandate. The BC membership rejected the option of the continuation of any moderated and private list, as per the words we voted upon. The draft charter should have been posted to the public list, as no other list is legitimate. I find many of the new terms of the draft charter to be contrary to the goals of transparency and accountability. They tend towards explicit censorship and/or self-censorship. They discourage debate on important ICANN and BC topics. They continue to be anti-democratic and unaccountable as to how BC fees and expenditures are set, with no elected Secretary and no elected Treasurer. Members would not be able to see the general ledger of the constituency's spending, as is possible elsewhere (and indeed ICANN's budget process is public). A false sense of "civility" is chosen over "truth." However, I shall comment further in a future post, once it's clear that it's fine to post on the public mailing list, instead of some hidden "internal" list. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

New Nom com appointees to Board, Council etc
by Philip Sheppard 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28aug09-en.htm Philip Sheppard AIM - European Brands Association 9 avenue des Gaulois 1040 Brussels +32 2 7360305 <http://www.aim.be/> www.aim.be

1 0

Nominating Committee election
by BC Secretariat 31 Aug '09

31 Aug '09

Dear Members Election for a small business representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee A reminder that the voting period for the above election ends at midnight in your time zone today. Votes received after this time cannot be accepted. If you would like another ballot form please contact me at the secretariat address. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Member contact list
by BC Secretariat 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

Dear Members Thank you to those who have notified me of changes to the contacts list. I will circulate the new list on Monday so please send me your updates by close of business today at the secretariat address. Many thanks Gary

1 0

RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
by Mike Rodenbaugh 25 Aug '09

25 Aug '09

I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care? My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think. I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com: NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign). To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well. Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services. On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition. A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members. Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday. All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue All, Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting. Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue. Let me know if any questions. Thanks, Adam Palmer Link: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters

13 39

Nominating Committee election
by BC Secretariat 25 Aug '09

25 Aug '09

Dear Members I have sent ballot forms for the Nominating Committee election to the principal named representatives of each BC member organisation. This has been sent on the internal list; if you have not received a ballot form please let me know. Note that if you are on the list as a secondary (copy) contact, you will not receive a ballot form. Best wishes Gary

1 0

FW: [council] Rodenbaugh Comment re GNSO Restructure Amendments to ICANN Bylaws
by Mike Rodenbaugh 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

To BC List: these are comments I filed today as the public comment period closes on this issue. I provide them fyi, and in case anyone wants to make comments to me and/or the public comment process. Thanks, Mike For nearly three years I have represented the Business Constituency as one of its Officers and GNSO Councilors, but make these comments in my personal capacity only, as they have not been reviewed by the BC. Why is ICANN refusing to allow new constituencies in the Contracted Party SG? There are applications for two subsets of newTLD registry operators -- geoTLDs and IDN TLDs. It seems reasonable for there to be a "Resellers Constituency." These commercial entities have interests wholly aligned with those of the Contracted Parties. Indeed resellers effectively are contracted parties, and prospective registry operators will have a contract with ICANN upon making their application. Meanwhile they have an "as soon as possible" expectancy of such a contract, and then a registry contract. Yet the Board and Staff, without any explanation that I have seen, have unilaterally decided that no other entities will be allowed into the "Contracted Party" House. These entities do not belong in the Non-Contracted Party SG, as they simply would dilute the power and voice of the vast majority of entities and individuals in the world, who do not rely substantially on ICANN contracts (or the expectation of ICANN contract) for their livelihood, but are materially impacted by the policies of ICANN and its contracting parties. Resellers and prospective registry applicants (if that was their primary purpose, at least) would not be allowed in the existing or proposed Business Constituency, ISPCPC or IPC -- and should not be allowed to dilute the voices of the new Commercial SG and Non-Commercial SG. Representatives of those parties have indicated assent, however reluctantly in many cases, to this restructuring plan on the basis that parties aligned with ICANN Contracting Parties would find their voice through that House, not ours. The voices and voting power of so-called "Non-Contracting" commercial interests are already heavily diluted under this restructuring scheme, with the NCSG gaining much and the Contracting Parties losing nothing whatsoever. Yet it is those "Non-Contracting" commercial interests that essentially fund by far the greatest portion of ICANN's budget through their domain registration fees, and it is those commercial interests that make domain names valuable. While those interests suffer much already in the proposed restructure, now it will be proposed that 'contracting party' interests be allowed in our House as well? The result will be an even stronger stranglehold on policy development than is already wielded by the Contracting Parties. Their two Constituencies are essentially aligned in interest on virtually all issues. Alignment will only increase if ICANN repeals restrictions on cross-ownership, which anyway do not exist with respect to ccTLDs in most cases, so we have seen registrars and registries teaming up on ventures for many years now. One of the GNSO Councilors, for the Registrar Constituency, is CEO of a registry services company. Effectively today they are one block with effective veto power over anything. The best way to cement that in place is to forbid any other voices from joining their House. Why do Contracting Parties maintain double voting? It is unwise that the Contracting Parties are allowed to continue with 'double voting' on the new Council. Is it not a main point of the restructure to increase participation and diversity on the Council? Why does this only apply to one House, and not the other? Particularly in the near future with hundreds more new TLD operators, and most likely hundreds more registrars, there is no excuse to allow just six seats in that House, while there are twelve in the other. That makes it twice as hard to persuade a single vote to "switch sides", which might make the difference in many cases. [Not sure if this is changed in their new charters, but for similar reasons it also should be forbidden that the Registry Constituency Councilors be required to vote as a block as they are today, rather than individually as in the Registrar Constituency.] ICANN should be well aware that this entire GNSO restructure has been a bitter pill for the "Non-Contracting" business community to swallow. Their power and voices will be diminished and those who have been involved know it. It has not caused such recent uproar since the newTLD process has proved to be a more immediate and distressing battle for some in that community, though by no means all. These details are also rather uninteresting for any normal person to consider, particularly anyone who has not participated on Council. From my perspective, these specific elements of the new restructure could result in a lot more bitterness in the years to come, and appear wholly contrary to the spirit and stated intention of the ICANN Board in its mandate of this effort. Moreover, they were primary facets of the compromise reached in 2008, which now appear to have been discarded by the Board and Staff, without explanation or reason. Sincerely, Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com

1 0

CSG Charter - concerns re Board adopted version and proposed bylaws changes
by Philip Sheppard 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

All is not well in the land of GNSO reform. I attach a copy of the now Board adopted CSG transitional charter. As you may know this was changed at the last minute by staff and the following text was deleted: ------------------------------------------------------------- Art 4.2 DELETION of a clause to prevent inappropriate allocation of a new constituency by the Board: "provided that such constituency, as determined by the unanimous consent of the signatories to this charter, is representative of commercial user interests which for the purposes of definition are distinct from and exclude registry and prospective registry, registrar, re-seller or other domain name supplier interests". Note art 1.1 remains: "CSG represents the views of users and connectivity providers". ------------------------------------------------ Art 4.2 was inserted because of our concern about new constituencies with supplier interests being placed in the CSG. This concern is now made more real by the proposed staff change to the by-laws. A proposed new bylaws section 5.4 states : "Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency in the Non-Contracted Parties House". That is ALL new constituencies must be in our House. --------------------------------------------------- This destroys the balance in the House concept of dividing user from supplier interests. 5.4 means there is a strong likelihood that interests associated with R&Rs will be able to dilute the effectiveness of the Users House. This is not theoretical. There are pending constituency applications from: City TLDs (registries and would be registries) IDNs (strong registry interests) And talk of a registry operator and a reseller constituency. ------------------------------------------------------ To date I have made comments to Public Comments on this issue and asked Bruce Tonkin, one of the GNSO-elected Board members, to ensure the Board at least discusses the issue this week. The by-laws are due to be voted on this Thursday Aug 27. We are also in discussion with our CSG colleagues but have not yet seen an outcome. We may yet be able to rely on art 1.1 in the CSG charter but it is somewhat thin comfort. Philip leaves us with the issue of our veto given the uncertainty over new constituencies with no home to go to (eg City TLDS, registry operators) etc. Our options are: 1. Live with the veto deletion (and rely on article 1.1 to fight any constituency allocation we dislike) and nothing more. 2. Live with the veto deletion (and rely on article 1.1 to fight any constituency allocation we dislike) and register a written protest on process. 3. Fight the veto deletion on the grounds of bottom-up and process. My instinct is option 2 (but happy with option 1 as I made a statement on process on Council last week) Comments? Philip

2 1

Nominating Committee nominations
by BC Secretariat 24 Aug '09

24 Aug '09

Dear Members The nomination period for elections to the Nominating Committee 2009-2010 has now closed. I have received the following nominations: Small Business Mike Roberts Nominated by Marilyn Cade. mCade llc Waudo Siganga Nominated by Anders Halvorsen, WITSA Liz Williams Nominated by Philip Sheppard, AIM Large Business No nominations were received for the Large Business seat. I have informed the Officers who will discuss options with members. I will send candidates' election statements to the list later today. The election opens tomorrow and I will send voting forms and instructions to the internal list tomorrow morning. Best wishes Gary

1 0