December 2010 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Members' archive of ExComm email list
by Mike Rodenbaugh Jan. 4, 2011

Jan. 4, 2011

I have proposed to the ExComm that we make an archive of our email list available for Members, to promote professionalism in the ExComm and transparency to our membership. I anticipate the costs of that implementation to be next to nil. There has been no expressions of disagreement amongst the ExComm. Our Chair suggested this was relevant to discussion of the BC Charter, but I do not think it requires a Charter amendment or any further discussion other than on this List. Are Members in favor of this? Is there any opposition, and if so why? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

4 3

gTLD list
by Chris Chaplow Dec. 20, 2010

Dec. 20, 2010

Steve, On cursary inspection a number are not serious applications. For example .madrid and .and are associations that have not updated their website since March 2010. Bty.. It is looking like I might be the last man home from Cartagena. I am still stuck in LHR and British Airways have finally rebooked my flight..for the 26th Dec. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

3 2

new gTLD applicants -- a list
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 20, 2010

Dec. 20, 2010

Kieren McCarthy's dot-nxt conference site includes a sort of unofficial "Expression of Interest" It's titled "All Applicants of new gTLDs" and its at http://dot-nxt.com/applicants/all About 110 applicants in here so far. 3 brands 26 Community-based 34 generic terms 47 geographic Only a few are IDN candidates, BTW. Does this list cover most of the strings you folks have heard about? -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 2

ICANN Extends Comment Period on New gTLD Guidebook and Economic Study Phase II
by Phil Corwin Dec. 18, 2010

Dec. 18, 2010

Yes, you are reading that correctly. One week after the close of the comment period, ICANN has reopened it and extended it to January 15th -- http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17dec10-en.htm . Recall that both Fred Felman, for MM, and myself, for ICA, had urged such an extension in the opening days of the Cartagena meeting. Apparently, ICANN was so swayed by this improbable alliance that they granted the request, albeit belatedly ;-) 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

1 0

Charter timelines
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

It is my plan right now to spend some time during Christmas, while with my family, drafting some edits to Charter, based on the discussions to date. Ken Bour, ICANN staff will be assisting, as will Sarah as CSG Charter expert. I would anticipate having a members call in January and a separate Charter review call, again in January, once there is a redline on some of the sections. Stay tuned for a calendar of Members call dates once Chris and Donna get a chance to develop a straw proposal for calls. We will try to schedule calls after Council agendas are posted, in time for discussion as needed, of agenda items. In the meantime, enjoy the days before Christmas or other Holidays you and your family celebrate. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

I hope the proposal that the Bc mission is rewritten to promite domain portflio management was a joke. Here's another one. What exactly is our councillor recall procedure ???? Philip > Marilyn, > As we consider a rewrite of the Business Constituency's mission to better > reflect who we are, we might begin with a review of the self-descriptors > used in the round of introductions at our meeting with the new ICANN > finance team. The characteristics fell in two bucket: > To prevent: > FraudBrand abuseMalwarePhishingCybersquattingBarriers to e.commerce > > To promote: > Domain portfolio managementTechnology architectureRisk > managementInnovationEfficiencySecurityEasier e.commerceIP rightsTrademarks > From this, we can build a case for membership in the BC that may resonate > with companies. > Just some raw material for consideration. > Berard >

6 6

Recap of ICANN Cartagena meeting
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 13, 2010

Dec. 13, 2010

Here's a recap of ICANN meetings in Cartagena last week. Many BC members and officers participated in meetings and workshops lasting from Saturday though Friday. On Monday, the BC posted its newly-approved position regarding new gTLD Guidebook. See http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00026.html BC officers and members argued multiple points of our position in front of the Board, including the public forum on Thursday. ICANN's Government Advisory Committee (GAC) issued their Communique to the Board on Thursday evening (attached). The GAC's top-10 open issues are: 1. Governments don't want to pay fees to object to TLD strings 2. Procedure for sensitive strings 3. Root zone scaling 4. Market and economic impacts 5. Registy-Registrar separation 6. protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection 7. Post-delegation disputes with governments; 8. Use and protection of geographical names; 9. legal recourse for applicants; 10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries; Given this strong statement by the GAC, the Board dared not approve the proposed final gTLD Guidebook. The Board did make several decisions at their Friday meeting. These are explained in a 12-minute video interview with Board chair and CEO at the ICANN home page. Board resolutions are at http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm ). 3 key resolutions are summarized below: 1. The Board voted to delay new gTLD launch, pending meeting with the GAC and resolution of several issues, incl geographic names and sensitive strings. - The Board and GAC will meet in Feb-2011 to discuss issues noted in the GAC Communique (see above). - ICANN staff will revise the Guidebook based on comments received and based on the Economic Study Phase II Report. - The Recommendation 6working group is invited to provide proposals on sensitive strings. by 7-Jan-2011. - ICANN staff directed to synthesize results of planned consultations and prepare revised guidebook for Board to vote on launch of the new gTLD program as soon as possible. 2. The Board voted to sign an agreement with ICM to operate the .xxx TLD. Resolutoin included steps to explain decision to GAC in areas where GAC advice was not heeded. 3. The Board approved the ³Jonathan Zuck² resolution to define and set goals for AoC review of the new gTLD program, incl competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the DNS context. The Board elected Peter Dengate Thrush to continue as Chair thru end of his Board term (Jun-2011). Steve Crocker was elected Vice Chair. --Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination

1 0

Sewing our "Big Tent"
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 13, 2010

Dec. 13, 2010

1 0

FW: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 13, 2010

Dec. 13, 2010

Sharing some further info I got from ICANN Staff in response to some inquiries I made upon seeing this “Alert”. Happy to hear any comments, but in sum I do not think there is any more to do on this issue and ICANN Staff can stop their reporting on it at this point. Best, mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Craig Schwartz [mailto:craig.schwartz@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:19 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'Rosette, Kristina' Subject: RE: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Hi Mike, I hope you find the following information helpful as a follow-up to your question about blatant tasting. Here are some data points and comments: - June 2008 there were 15,738,292 AGP deletes in .COM vs. June 2010 that saw 41,798 = 99.8% decrease - June 2008 there were 1,860,164 AGP deletes in .NET vs. June 2010 that saw 5,951 = 99.7% decrease - June 2008 there were 1,409 AGP deletes in .BIZ vs. June 2010 that saw 850 = 40% decrease - June 2008 there were 35,052 AGP deletes in .ORG vs. June 2010 that saw 2,908 = 91.8% decrease - July 2008 there were 18,945 AGP deletes in .INFO vs. July 2010 that saw 8,887 = 53.1% decrease (Note: I used July rather than June as in June 2010 there were an unusually high number of AGP deletes (far beyond the 2010 average monthly figure of ~6k) that were identified in an AGP Exemption Request from one registrar. That information was presented in the report recently provided to the GSNO and shared with the community.) A particularly interesting statistic is to share with you is that the six registrars with the highest number of AGP deletes in June 2008 (for .COM and .NET combined) totaled 17,598,476 AGP deletes or roughly 59% of all AGP deletes for that month. In contrast, those six registrars reported AGP deletes in June 2010 (for .COM and .NET combined) of 1,544 or roughly 2.2% of all AGP deletes for that month. Clearly for at least those registrars their business practices have changed in response to the AGP Limits Policy. Further and in order to assess if there continues to be blatant tasting by some registrars, it would be necessary to identify the number of AGP deletes that resulted in an excess deletion fee compared to the total number of AGP deletes for a particular registrar per month across all the TLDs they are accredited to distribute. However, given the overall decline of 99.7% of AGP deletes, it’s unclear what the benefit of additional work would be relative to the costs of extracting that information and what this would really tell us. Lastly and as you noted in your 22 November 2010 email, there are cases where some registrars are deleting, outside of the AGP, a significant number of the names they added. What could be inferred from this is that they’re testing the marketability of these names and ultimately deciding to delete them. However, since these registrars have paid for the names, this doesn’t fit the definition of “domain tasting.” As always, I’m available to answer any questions you or the GNSO may have about the implementation of the AGP Limits Policy. Take care and have a good holiday weekend. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 11:59 AM To: Craig Schwartz Cc: 'Rosette, Kristina' Subject: FW: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Craig, I recall that early on in implementation of this policy, there was still some blatant tasting activity centered at a few registrars. I wonder if that is still so obviously happening, or not. Do you know where the ‘Per-Registrar Activity Reports’ are for Verisign? They are referenced in the recent Registry Operator Monthly Reports (http://icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/) as ‘provided under separate cover’, but are not found from a quick search or near proximity on the ICANN site, or link from the Monthly Report. They recently had been provided directly within the monthly reports, I thought? Anyway I would appreciate help locating them. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:38 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov10-en.htm _____ ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Proposed Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy Implementation 19 November 2010 The Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy, implemented on 1 April 2009, resulted in a 99.7% decrease in AGP deletes and illustrates the success of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members identified a problem, initiated policy discussions, and generated a solution that has produced effective and sustained results. ICANN today is posting its fourth and proposed final status report <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-18nov10-en.pdf> to the GNSO on the implementation of AGP Limits Policy. This report presents ICANN’s experience implementing the Policy, provides statistical information on net new registrations, AGP deletes, the percent of names deleted during the AGP for each TLD, and the disposition of exemption requests for the period. ICANN committed to analyzing and reporting on the effects of the Policy to the GNSO at six-month intervals for two years after its implementation. The first status report <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-10jun09-en.pdf> was issued on 10 June 2009, the second status report <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-14dec09-en.pdf> on 14 December 2009, and the third status report <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-limits-policy-report-01jun10-en.pdf> on 1 June 2010. The purpose of these reports is “to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.” On 10 June 2010, the GSNO Council discussed whether additional Policy work was necessary based upon the results of the implementation and whether the reporting requirement should be amended or eliminated. At that meeting the GNSO Council determined that the successful outcomes from the Policy did not warrant additional work at that time and that staff should continue its reporting requirement through the end of the two-year cycle. The publication of this fourth and proposed final report fulfills this reporting requirement to the GNSO. This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann(a)rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free! <http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscription.p…> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&m=33…> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=332778&act=PWHD&r=11033829&c=…>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

Brainstorming on this is great /and I appreciate hearing from members on their views. I am pleased to report that Chris and I are in dialogue w 3 new prospects - which is a credit to the BC membership in conveying that the BC can be a good place to work. That is about all of you. We will see if they follow through, but at least preliminary discussions began. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: frederick felman <ffelman(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:32:37 To: <Jonathan.Matkowsky(a)LasVegasSands.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are I think of it as a subset of online brand building and security... On 12/10/10 12:22 PM, "Matkowsky, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Matkowsky(a)LasVegasSands.com> wrote: I think domain portfolio management is one of many important business concerns. ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thu Dec 09 12:18:00 2010 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Who we are I agree, domain name portfolio management isn't a BC issue per se./I think John is 'brainstorming' and we will just gather ideas and actually discuss different ideas later/I would add SSR, for instance. .... and yes, I will put in a discussion about accountability of officers/councilors, including the duties to participate, consult, etc. > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:27:27 +0100 > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be > To: john(a)crediblecontext.com > CC: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > I hope the proposal that the Bc mission is rewritten to promite domain > portflio management was a joke. > > Here's another one. What exactly is our councillor recall procedure ???? > > Philip > > > > Marilyn, > > As we consider a rewrite of the Business Constituency's mission to better > > reflect who we are, we might begin with a review of the self-descriptors > > used in the round of introductions at our meeting with the new ICANN > > finance team. The characteristics fell in two bucket: > > To prevent: > > FraudBrand abuseMalwarePhishingCybersquattingBarriers to e.commerce > > > > To promote: > > Domain portfolio managementTechnology architectureRisk > > managementInnovationEfficiencySecurityEasier e.commerceIP rightsTrademarks > > From this, we can build a case for membership in the BC that may resonate > > with companies. > > Just some raw material for consideration. > > Berard > > > > [THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE OR REPLY BY E-MAIL AND THEN PROMPTLY DELETE THE MESSAGE. THANK YOU.]

1 0