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

Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are
by Matkowsky, Jonathan 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

Hope everyone has safe travels home and great exchange of ideas on important topics! ________________________________ From: frederick felman <ffelman(a)markmonitor.com> To: Matkowsky, Jonathan; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; john berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com> Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Dec 10 12:32:37 2010 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.] [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

Westin Hotel - Union Square - San Francisco
by Chris Chaplow 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

Hi there, Rod has announce the venue for the next meeting which is Westin Hotel - Union Square - San Francisco 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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com De: Michelle [mailto:michellechaplow@yahoo.com] Enviado el: jueves, 09 de diciembre de 2010 21:46 Para: Chris Chaplow Asunto: Re: 99% Im here ground floor Sent from my iPhone On 09/12/2010, at 14:50, "Chris Chaplow" <chris(a)andalucia.com> wrote: No, I dont think so and it is old news. 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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com De: michelle chaplow [mailto:michellechaplow@yahoo.com] Enviado el: jueves, 09 de diciembre de 2010 14:42 Para: Noemi Roman CC: Chris Chaplow Asunto: Re: 99% its very delicate if you want i can check with chris and tweet the .xxx is very tense Michelle Chaplow Travel Photographer www.michellechaplow.com Tel +34952897865 Mobile +34609504729 e mail michelle(a)chaplow.com _____ From: Noemi Roman <noemi(a)andaluciaws.com> To: Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andalucia.com>; staffers(a)andalucia.com Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 2:39:02 PM Subject: RE: 99% ¿Puedo hacer un twitter con esta información? Noemí Román General manager Andalucia Web Solutions Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 802 920 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:noemi@andaluciaws.com> noemi(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andaluciaws.com> www.andaluciaws.com Your business on the Web Please think of the Environment before you print this email <http://andalucia.com/> Andalucia.com winner of Communicator of the Year 2009 awarded by the international Costa Press Club. Andalucia.com awarded Company of the Year at Junta de Andalucia's 2008 Costa del Sol Business awards. From: Chris Chaplow [mailto:chris@andalucia.com] Sent: 08 December 2010 00:16 To: staffers(a)andalucia.com Cc: 'Charlotte - BCC' Subject: 99% At very tense meeting between Govt and ICANN board. Govt Advisory Committee agrees to ICANN board offer to meet for a day or two (retreat) before San Francisco Meeting. This is strongest indication yet that gTLD will not be approved on Friday but in San Francisco in March. And I predict board will approve .xxx to show they have teeth. Lets see… There the deal! <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN> #ICANN chairman suggests GAC-Board meet-up prior to next meeting in SF. Guidebook not getting approved in CartagenaThere the deal! <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN> #ICANN chairman suggests GAC-Board meet-up prior to next meeting in SF. Guidebook not getting approved in Cartagena <http://twitter.com/kierenmccarthy> kierenmccarthy: There the deal! <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN> #ICANN chairman suggests GAC-Board meet-up prior to next meeting in SF. Guidebook not getting approved in Cartagena <http://twitter.com/kierenmccarthy> kierenmccarthy: There the deal! <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ICANN> #ICANN chairman suggests GAC-Board meet-up prior to next meeting in SF. Guidebook not getting approved in Cartagena 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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

7 9

short notes to list regarding what is happening/only a few items will be posted
by Marilyn Cade 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

Long Resolution just read by Rita/this is a summary of the Resolves: GAC and Board intersessional meeting Feb 20ll/exact date to comeGac to provide specific views on each remaining issue that they identified in the GAC Resolution [long ist/includes all of the BC's formally identified issues] Staff to make changes still to DAG/based on comments, including phase II Economic report after analyzing the commentsWG Res 6/January 7, 2011 -- due date for the WG to submit any clarifications.28th Oct. resolution reiteratedsynthesis comments receivedput changes inlaunch as soon as possibleanalyze, provide rationale regarding economic analysis, and other issues All these guys are outside of discussionsRamJonneSuzanneBruce identified what is closed/finished, and what is open. Trademarks protection mechanisms seem to be on the list as closed, but the GAC says that they aren't, so.....

2 1

NetChoice post on 'consumer trust' and 'public interest' at ICANN
by Steve DelBianco 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Yesterday, John Berard and I attended a workshop here in Cartagena, on a proposed new 'Consumer Constituency' in ICANN. The proponents were mostly from ALAC, and they say their goal is bring a 'consumer agenda' to ICANN. I just posted a blog that suggests a much better way to institutionalize BC values like 'consumer trust' and the 'global public interest'. The post is shown below and is at CircleID http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101209_institutionalizing_consumer_trust_an… Institutionalizing Consumer Trust and Public Interest at ICANN<http://blog.netchoice.org/2010/12/institutionalizing-consumer-trust-and-pub…> For an organization where people argue for hours over arcane minutiae, it’s remarkable that virtually everyone agrees that ICANN should serve the “global public interest” and build “consumer trust” in the Internet. Although it’s only three pages long, ICANN’s Affirmation of Commitments<http://icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm> (AoC) cites “public interest” five times and “consumer trust” eight times. So at the ICANN meeting today in Cartagena, Colombia, a group of participants explored ways to “institutionalize” these concepts within the organization. There’s no argument about whether to institutionalize concepts of public interest and consumer trust at ICANN. The real question is how to do it in the ICANN context. At today’s meeting, participants focused on institutionalizing these concepts by creating a new ‘consumer’ constituency group within ICANN. That’s not surprising, since ICANN is organized as a constellation of special-interest stakeholder groups and constituencies. A newly chartered ‘Consumers Constituency’ would get a box on the ICANN org chart and its own seat at the table to advocate on behalf of the public interest and consumer trust. But before we head down that path and create yet another new institution within ICANN, let’s think about how to instill these values in the institution we already have. After all, when ICANN committed to accountability in the AoC, there was no rush to create a new ‘Accountability’ Constituency. Instead, everyone assumed that AoC commitments apply to the entire ICANN organization and all of its operations. You might even say that accountability has become “institutionalized” within ICANN. ICANN constituencies are special-interest by nature and oppositional by necessity. They defend the interests of their members against other constituencies that are advancing their own interests. That’s inevitable in making zero-sum policy decisions, but is a competing constituency model the best way to embrace commitments that would be agreed by all and applied to all? Another issue with the proposed Consumer Constituency is that it would be placed within the ICANN organization that makes policy only for generic domains like com, org, and info. That means this Consumer Constituency would have no bearing on policies for country-code domains such as uk, cn, and br. However, these country-code domains are growing faster than the generics, and certainly ought to share the same commitment to consumer trust and the global public interest. To truly institutionalize a commitment to consumer trust and the global public interest, it seems the last thing we need is yet another constituency group housed in one of ICANN’s supporting organizations. There has to be a better way to institutionalize values across an institution. Give this a try: We in the Internet community can develop definitions of “consumer trust” and the “public interest” in the context of ICANN. They won’t be the same definitions used by institutions that work in other fields, such as food safety or global warming. But with some focused attention, we can indeed define specific elements of consumer trust and public interest in the Internet context. Next, we design metrics to assess how ICANN is affecting our definitions of consumer trust and serving the public interest. As Peter Dengate Thrush has often said, “what get’s measured, gets done,” so ICANN’s management can be measured and held accountable for minimum metrics and for year-over-year improvements. For my part, I’ll start the conversation with a definition that fits the global public interest commitment in ICANN’s Bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitments. For an institution that coordinates the Internet domain name system, Public Interest means: availability and integrity of registrations and resolutions. Availability of the DNS is critical for global users who increasingly rely on the Internet for information, communications, and commerce. Domain name resolutions need to be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, from anywhere on the globe. Availability also means being able to use any language and any script for both generic and country-code domains and email addresses. Availability also applies to domain names sought by registrants: will domains in new gTLDs be available to the public, or will they be captured by insiders? That kind of availability should also be part of the public interest test for ICANN decisions. Integrity of the DNS is vital to businesses and end-users of the Internet. Businesses rely upon the integrity of domain name registration to ensure that their brands are not misrepresented or misappropriated. E-commerce and Internet financial transactions absolutely require integrity in resolution of domain names and secure delivery of encrypted data. Internet users depend upon the integrity of domain name services to provide accurate and authentic results when they look up a website or send an email. Integrity is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting users to fraudulent websites or providing false information about the true owner of a domain. I think Availability and Integrity really do capture the essence of serving the global public interest in the ICANN context. I’m eager to see what the ICANN community can do to improve on that definition, and to come up with similar definition for building and measuring consumer trust. --Steve DelBianco

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are]
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Thu, December 9, 2010 19:27 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com Cc: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> "'bc - GNSO list'" <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 >

1 0

FW: ICA Comments on Final Applicant Guidebook
by Phil Corwin 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

Fellow BC members, these were just filed--FYI-- BUTERA & ANDREWS Attorneys at Law 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 202-347-6875 Philip S. Corwin, Partner pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com<mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> December 9, 2010 By E-Mail to 5gtld-guide(a)icann.org<mailto:5gtld-guide@icann.org> Board of Directors Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Re: Proposed Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Dear Members of the ICANN Board: This comment letter is submitted by the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) in regard to ICANN’s November 12th notice establishing a period for public comments on the Proposed Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. This letter supplements all of our comments on prior versions of the proposed Guidebook, the most recent of which was filed on July 21, 2010. ICA is a not-for-profit trade association representing the domain name industry, including domain registrants, domain marketplaces, and direct search providers. Its membership is composed of domain name registrants who invest in domain names (DNs) and develop the associated websites, as well as the companies that serve them. Professional domain name registrants are a major source of the fees that support registrars, registries, and ICANN itself. Executive Summary * The inflexible “three strikes” UDRP loss applicant disqualification criteria must be adjusted to take into account the size of an applicant’s domain portfolio as well as their overall history of UDRP arbitrations. * A UDRP loss that has been reversed upon appeal to a court of proper jurisdiction should not be counted against an applicant. * Applicants that have been found to have engaged in three or more instances of attempted reverse domain name hijacking should be barred from participation in the new gTLD program. * The STI-RT’s recommendation for a 20-day URS response time should be restored or, failing that, extensive guidance should be provided regarding the grounds for which a 7-day “good faith” request for response extension will be granted. Applicant Eligibility Section 1.2.1 of the Final AG now states in part: ICANN will perform background screening in only two areas: (1) General business diligence and criminal history; and (2) History of cybersquatting behavior. The criteria used for criminal history are aligned with the “crimes of trust” standard sometimes used in the banking and finance industry… Applicants with confirmed convictions of the types listed in (a) – (k) below will be automatically disqualified from the program. Circumstances where ICANN may deny an otherwise qualified application include, but are not limited to instances where the applicant, or any individual named in the application: … k. has been involved in of a pattern of decisions indicating that the applicant or individual named in the application was engaged in cybersquatting as defined in the UDRP, ACPA, or other equivalent legislation. Three or more such decisions with one occurring in the last four years will generally be considered to constitute a pattern. While we support the general policy that repeat intentional infringers of intellectual property rights should not be eligible to apply for new gTLDs, we strongly believe that the approach taken by the Final AG in this regard in unreasonably inflexible and fails to even take the entire UDRP process into account. It also fails to contain equivalent sanctions for complainants who abuse the UDRP process. First off, the loss of a UDRP arbitration is not equivalent to a “conviction”, nor is the UDRP “legislation” adjudicated by a reliable and predictable court system. The shortcomings of the current UDRP system were recently noted by ICANN’s Business Constituency (comment at http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html ), citing “increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive consistency in the UDRP process” as its rationale for opposing accreditation of any new UDRP providers until ICANN enters into a standard agreement with all UDRP providers “as that is the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers”. The inflexible “three strikes” rule proposed in the Final AG fails to take into account the gross shortcomings in the present administration of the UDRP. Second, this proposal completely ignores our July 2010 suggestion that the treatment of UDRP losses as evidence of “cybersquatting” behavior should be done on a sliding scale basis that takes portfolio size into account. Clearly, while the loss of three UDRPs against a portfolio of 300 domains (one out of one hundred) might constitute rebuttable but not conclusive evidence of intentional infringement (given the lack of consistency in UDRP administration), three losses against a portfolio of 300,000 names (one out of one hundred thousand) constitutes no such evidence. Many individual and corporate ICA members own or manage domain portfolios of this size or greater, and barring them and their considerable financial resources as potential new gTLD investors on the basis of a rigid three strikes rule based upon a very imperfect and unpredictable UDRP arbitration process is absurd. Third, the proposal fails to take into account a registrant’s overall historic experience of UDRP decisions. The hypothetical owner of a portfolio with 300,000 domains could easily have been the target of 30 UDRP proceedings in a decade (averaging 3 per year), won 27 (90%) and lost 3 (10%), and subsequently had the 3 losses reversed in judicial appeals. Yet this registrant with an overall UDRP acquittal rate of 90%, and 100% acquittal rate following reversal on appeal, would nonetheless be unfairly branded a “cybersquatter” ineligible to invest in a new gTLD venture. Finally, the proposed eligibility screen gives no consideration whatsoever to the only appeals mechanism now available under the UDRP – which is appeal under the national law of the registrant. This leads to the equally absurd potential situation where a domain registrant with a portfolio of 300,000 domains may have lost three UDRP arbitrations in the past decade, one of them in the past four years; may have appealed each of those losses under applicable national law and won reversals in all three cases – and yet would still be barred from eligibility as a gTLD applicant! In addition to these gross shortcomings, the proposed treatment of cybersquatting is also unbalanced in that there is no prohibition against complainants who regularly abuse the UDRP process from being eligible to apply for a new gTLD. Surely such repeated abuse of process in an attempt to illicitly obtain a legitimately registered and used domain – to steal it, in effect –and should be regarded as a “crime of trust” bearing upon eligibility. We therefore propose that the background check criteria be further amended to bar any individual or business entity that has been found in three or more UDRP decisions to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking to be declared ineligible to be a new gTLD applicant. URS Response Time Section 5.1 of the proposed procedures for Uniform rapid Suspension (URS) shortens the time for a registrant to respond to the filing of a URS complaint against a domain name from 20 to 14 days. Section 5.3 states: Upon request by the Registrant, a limited extension of time to respond may be granted by the URS Provider if there is a good faith basis for doing so. In no event shall the extension be for more than seven (7) calendar days. This revision implements Section 2.6 of the ICANN Board’s September 25th Resolution (http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm ), which neither provided any rationale for this decision nor any greater explanation as to what might constitute acceptable “good faith” justifying such an extension: URS timing: In response to public comment, change the time to respond to a complaint from 20 days to 14 days, with one opportunity for an extension of seven days if there is a good faith basis for such an extension. We are dismayed that the Board chose to revise this element of the URS. The twenty day response period was arrived at after long and careful consideration by the Special Trademark Issues-Review Team (STI-RT) and was based upon its conclusion that this amount of time was necessary to assure that a registrant would indeed receive notice of alleged abuse and would have adequate time to prepare a meaningful response. The STI-RT’s recommendations were unanimously adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board. If the Board’s intervention on this matter in September was meant to win acceptance from trademark interests for the Spring 2011 launch of the new gTLD program their verbal comments in Cartagena have shown that expectation to be largely unwarranted. We are further dismayed that the Board did not explain its reasons for this surgical strike or give any indication as to what types of circumstances would give rise to the granting of a 7-day extension. A 7-day extension in no way addresses the variety of circumstances in which a registrant may not receive notice of the complaint within the initial 14 days after its filing and indeed may first learn of it when his domain ceases to function, and we therefore believe that the Final AG should restore the full twenty day response time recommended by the STI-RT. Recognizing that reversal of the Board’s decision on this matter may not be attainable, we request that ICANN provide greater guidance as to what type of circumstances may provide the basis for a “good faith” seven day extension of a registrant’s response time. We do not seek rigid or inflexible rules but rather illustrative examples and general principles so that URS examiners make decisions on such requests within a guiding framework rather than on an ad hoc and unpredictable individual basis. Finally, we would note that the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, but that the Final AG still omits that critical requirement and therefore threatens to carry the inconsistency issues that plague the UDRP, noted above, into this new rights protection mechanism. Conclusion Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. We hope to see responsive changes made in response to them before the Applicant Guidebook is finalized and the new gTLD program is launched. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Counsel, Internet Commerce Association 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

Who we are
by john＠crediblecontext.com 09 Dec '10

09 Dec '10

1 0

Proposed non profit constituency
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

We ran out of time at the Cartagena BC meeting to agree to send a spportive statement to public comments to welcome the formation of the new NPOC. We had a presentation of the new constituency from Debbie Hughes at the CSG meeting earlier in the day. This constituency is the outcome we have been striving for in the composition of the new non conract parties house. I'd like to propose we make the following statement to public comments as the BC. '"The Business Constituency welcomes the proposal to form a new non-profit consituency. We believe this is timely. We believe there will be areas of common interest between this new constituency and our own, both representing as they do users of the DNS.'' Perhaps we could agree to send this on a no objections basis rather than have to put it through our usual policy 14 day window. Deadline 10 December ? Philip

11 10

FW: URGENT REMINDER AGM information
by Mike Rodenbaugh 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

I was asked by the GNSO Secretariat to prepare a short "post-mortem" on my Council terms, which I created a couple weeks ago and thought I would forward now. It truly has been a pleasure to work with you all, and I look forward to many more years of participation in the ICANN community. My Council term began in Fall, 2006, just as the new gTLD Task Force was beginning its work in earnest. As Yahoo!'s representative to ICANN, our mission was to eliminate domain tasting, and lead efforts to increase awareness about cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems (phishing, etc.) in the DNS. I chaired the Working Group which devised Consensus Policy that has virtually eliminated domain tasting, which in turn has dramatically lowered the instance of new cybersquatting and other related problems since then. With help from many others in the community, we also have succeeded in raising awareness significantly among contract parties and the broader ICANN community respecting cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems, and the contract parties' responsibility to help address those abuses of their systems. I have spread this message through more than a dozen working groups, including various new TLD groups, Domain Tasting, Fast Flux, Registration Abuse Policies, RAA Amendments and others. There is much more work to do in this regard, but there has been significant progress over the past four years. Serving on Council has been a tremendous personal growth and educational experience, so I want to thank you, the entire policy staff at ICANN, Chuck and many others who have been so helpful to me over the years. I appreciate that I have made dozens of friends and met hundreds of colleagues through my work at ICANN, and that truly has been the best part of the experience. I look forward to continuing my involvement in ICANN policy development matters, in different capacities, as the DNS rapidly expands in the future. Kind regards, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:39 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: Glen Subject: URGENT REMINDER AGM information -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: vendredi 29 octobre 2010 16:29 To: 'icann(a)rodenbaugh.com' Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AGM information Dear Mike, It is customary at the Annual general Meeting that the Board Chair pays a short tribute to parting Council members and in order to have accurate information, would you please be so kind as to provide a very short resumé of your term on the Council, date you joined and anything else that should be highlighted. If you could please let me have this information by no later than 2 November, it would be most appreciated. Thank you so much, and my apologies for giving you an extra task! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Recognition
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

I today received a certificate and gift from the constituency in respect of my long standing contribution to the BC. This was most flattering and unexpected. It was also most welcome. Thank you all very much. Philip

4 3