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

ICANN Agenda for Brussels posted; reminder to register for ICANN Brussels meeting
by Marilyn Cade May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

Members Update: Remember to register for the ICANN Brussels meeting; that should speed your onsite registration, and also helps to give an accurate count for attendance at ICANN overall. You can choose to keep your details private, if you prefer not to be listed on the attendance list. BRUSSELS ICANN AGENDA is now posted: ICANN just posted the agenda for Brussels; you will want to take a look at the agenda before our upcoming call on June 2. The agenda is packed with topics of interest to BC members, and many of the sessions will overlap with each other. Of some note is a heavy focus on security issues throughout the week of meetings. There is also a somewhat mysterious workshop entitled "Brand management in the age of new gTLDs". I have emailed staff with a request for more information and to note that BC members have a significant interest in issues related to 'brands'. I hope to gain more information related to that workshop in particular. The heavy focus on security is not surprising; members may want to call the materials and topics to other internal business colleagues within their companies/associations. WHOIS also has several important sessions. Steve DelBianco, Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, will be addressing coordination and focus on the gNSO policy topics separately, and we have a call dedicated to those topics, scheduled for June 7. We will review the ICANN meeting agenda briefly on our Adm/Management call. Thanks to those who provided arrival information separately. Please mark your calendars for a reception Monday evening, which the BC and several of its members will be organizing/hosting, and for the Tuesday breakfast. Neither are on the calendar, since they are invitational, but all BC members are invited to both. Later, we will also be asking you for any guests that you may want to invite from the business community. The purpose of the reception is for interaction by business members and any special guests they invite, such as senior executives, to interact with the GAC. There will be more details on the reception shortly. Reminder about Breakfast on Tuesday: The breakfast will be at the venue and will begin at 8 a.m. as usual, with the Board and Senior ICANN staff as guests. More details on that will also be provided as we get closer to the actual meeting. Please also check out the public comment topics on the ICANN website since we will want to discuss the current public comments on the upcoming members calls. We will divide the topics into those related to ICANN management/overall structural activities, and gNSO policy. I would like to invite member input on what topics the BC wants to have a public statement on, versus those where we just prefer to encourage individual BC members to speak in public sessions on their individual perspectives. Steve DelBianco and our councilors, Zahid Jamil and Mike Rodenbaugh, will be leading the call on June 7, and it will be important to also identify topics related to gNSO policy that need BC statements, if we do not already have positions. Kenya was a very successful meeting for the BC, with a very high degree of visibility and participation by our BC members. I look forward to seeing more of our members in Brussels, and to collaborating with all of you in planning the BC's presence and active engagement in ICANN's Brussels meeting. Marilyn Cade BC Chair Marilyn Cade BC Chair

1 0

Announcement/BC Executive Committee change --
by Marilyn Cade May 31, 2010

May 31, 2010

To: BC MembersFrom: Marilyn Cade, BC Chair, on behalf of ExeComm Subject: Change in officers On behalf of the BC ExeComm, I would like to thank Rick Anderson, who has been volunteering as interim V.Chair, Operations and Finance. The Executive Committee asks that you join in expressing our appreciation for Rick's contributions in the interim period. Rick will continue to be an active member of the Finance Committee. Please join the Execomm in welcoming Chris Chaplow, Andalucia who has accepted the ExeComm's invitation to assume the title, and responsibilities of Vice Chair, Operations and Finance. Chris was formerly the Finance Representative, and has agreed to assume the Vice Chair role. Chris is already hard at work, assuming the day to day interface with webmaster, Sjobeck, and with Gary Hills, who will be continuing in a limited role undertaking invoicing and database maintainance while a longer term approach is developed under Chris' leadership. You will be hearing from Chris on Tuesday's call on some key advances he and I are working toward, and which he will be presenting in our June meeting. Tuesday's call will be a preview for members on changes in website, and other enhancements proposed. According to the Charter, this is an interim secondment, and will be formalized by an election within 6 months. However, in the interim, Chris holds full responsibility and will be a full member of the ExeComm. Chris will be joining the other ExeComm members in hosting the members' calls coming up tomorrow and next week. I will also take this opportunity to announce, based on members requests, that next week's call will be adjusted to allow members to participate in the ICANN policy update. Stay tuned for a change in time on that call.

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] BC prep calls for ICANN-Brussels
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 28, 2010

May 28, 2010

Marilyn, I tried a few times to RSVP to your hotmail address, but received non-deliverable messages. I now resort to spamming the list. :-) Please RSVP me for both BC sessions. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891

1 0

BC prep calls for ICANN-Brussels
by Marilyn Cade May 27, 2010

May 27, 2010

In preparation for the ICANN Brussels meeting, the BC will hold two calls with different agendas. Call one: Administrative Update, June 2, 9-10 am EST. Update on draft agenda for CSG and BC meetings in Brussels Work underway on 1) member invoicing 2)member brochure for Brussels 3)CSG work items and process re new CSG Charter 4)Business reception with Governments/Board 5) website improvements strategy 6)ICANN budget/operating plan 7) Agenda and topics for House meeting on Saturday, Brussels meeting 8) other management items Please RSVP for this call to receive the bridge information. Rsvp to marilynscade(a)hotmail.com Call Two: Policy update/planning for Brussels-June 7, 9-10 am EST. This call will focus on gTLD related policy topics. An agenda will be posted by Steve DelBianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordination separately for that call. A bridge will be posted for this call to those who rsvp for that call. Rsvp to marilynscade(a)hotmail.com/please specify which call, or if you are rsvp'ing for both. I would also like to welcome Jon Nevitt, who joined the BC in time to participate in Kenya meeting, and two new members: John Berard, Credible Contest and Fred Felman, MarkMonitor. Also welcome to Tero Mustala, with Nokia Network Systems, who is participating along with other Nokia colleagues and is joining the BC list. Shortly, you will receive billing invoices for 2010 dues, billed at the 2009 reduced fee levels. The Brussels meeting preparation will become very busy now. ICANN has promised that the agenda will be posted by May 31. Best regards, Marilyn Cade BC Chair Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

FW: [council] Public Comment: Meetings for the Next Decade Consultation Process Opens
by Mike Rodenbaugh May 27, 2010

May 27, 2010

This is a fairly important topic for many members who regularly attend meetings. Please make your thoughts knows via the public comment process, and copy them to this List. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:54 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Public Comment: Meetings for the Next Decade Consultation Process Opens http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21may10-en.htm Public Comment: Meetings for the Next Decade Consultation Process Opens 21 May 2010 As ICANN enters its second decade, the time is right to look at the meetings ICANN holds each year from a holistic and truly bottom-up perspective, to ensure that ICANN meetings optimally serve the community in the most cost-effective and stakeholder-focussed ways possible. For that reason, ICANN is pleased to announce the beginning of Stage One of the "Meetings for the Next Decade" consultation process. This consultation consists of a detailed survey, in six languages, available at the link below. Responses may be entered until 23:59 UTC on 5 July 2010. Respondents may also send a comment in to a traditional email-based comment forum where they believe that the survey misses a point that's important, or where they wish to convey the views of a group or organisation with respect to the questions the survey addresses. The survey does allow for a response to be made on behalf of an organisation, as well as by community members speaking in their individual capacity. The consultation is a part of the work programme of the ICANN Board's Public Participation Committee and at the staff level is a joint effort of the ICANN Meetings department and the Senior Director for Participation and Engagement. For more information about the consultation and consultation process, please refer to the Meetings for the Next Decade microsite, at http://www.icann.org/en/meetings2010/. Take the survey now at: https://www.bigpulse.com/33025/register. References Meetings for the Next Decade Microsite: http://www.icann.org/en/meetings2010/ ICANN Board Public Participation Committee ("PPC"): http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)-- single registrant TLDs
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

Philip, Thank you for your response. I support your statement that we as BC members must advocate for commercial users. Just to be clear, the intent of my example is not in support of a Registry, but more about the market in general. I want to see each approved TLD succeed in the market, because that is ultimately the best for consumers. The last thing I want to support are policies that create unfair market conditions whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing TLDs will create uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers and business users of that TLD. Further, I will state that I have not finalized my opinions WRT to the concept of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many other characteristics to consider in the whole. Single Registrant Single User(SRSU) vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has been discussed a fair amount by not exhaustively. I appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum going! Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)-- single registrant TLDs I too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with the other cases. My default in such cases is that unless one can be watertight in the definition, then erring on the side of caution is probably better. However, as BC members we need to think what is the best model for commercial users, not what is best for one registry or other. So I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social registry !! Philip

4 6

Public Comment: Draft Advisory on the Effect of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 3.7.7.3
by Marilyn Cade May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

Dear colleagues:I am passing along an announcement from the GNSO Secretariat of a draft advisory on the Effect of Registrar Accreditation Agreement, in order to make it easy for you to locate the relevant announcements, and Public Comment Forum. These announcements are part of a regular announcement process provided by ICANN, when a new public comment forum is opened. Marilyn CadeBC Chair http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14may10-en.htm Public Comment: Draft Advisory on the Effect of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 3.7.7.3 14 May 2010 ICANN has observed community comment concerning the interpretation of RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3. In order to provide clarity, ICANN is posting for public comment the following draft advisory http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-… [PDF, 216 KB]. The forum will be open through 9 July 2010. One central clarification: if a Registered Name Holder licenses the use of a domain name to a third party, a licensee, the third party is not the Registered Name Holder of record (or "registrant"). This advisory also describes under what conditions that a Registered Name Holder is to identify the licensee and to whom. Community members are invited to review the draft advisory and comment on all aspects of the document. At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted, prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions, and post the final version of the advisory. The Public Comment Forum is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-3773

1 0

ICANN's Tax Return
by Michael D. Palage May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

Hello All, ICANN has recently posted its tax return from the 2008-2009 tax year, see http://www.icann.org/en/financials/tax/us/fy-2009-form-990-en.pdf Happy reading. Best regards, Michael

2 1

Next CBUC Meeting
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

CBUC, Will we have a CBUC meeting prior to Brussels? If so, can we go ahead and get this scheduled on everyone's calendar to ensure maximum participation? Thank you. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891

4 3

RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI) -- single registrant TLDs
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

I tend to agree with Jon's comments below. For sure, registration caps should not be required for internal registrations. In relation to Case #1, I feel confident we will see strong consensus develop from the VI WG on single-registrant TLDs. WRT to Jon's point on cases 2 & 3, Registrations to third parties not only can open the door to gaming, but IMO also begin to impede fair competition. For example, in case #3 Facebook offers a free or super cheap 2nd level domain (berrycobb.facebook) to it's customer that would have otherwise purchased a 2nd level domain (berrycobb.social) from the dot_social TLD at the going market rate. Would this not threaten the dot_social's business model? My example may not be the best here, but I invite CBUC members to review VI responses from Richard Tindal about threats to competition. He has some good insight in to this issue. Another variation to consider will be the not-for-profit organizations. The NCUC has mentioned several examples where business models will supply 2nd level domains as a value added service. Will this have potential to threat competition. As an FYI, I do believe the CBUC will need to set aside specific conference calls to build our consensus position. This will be a very complex topic to bring everyone up to speed on the concepts and issues in addition to any consensus that comes from the VI WG. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:56 AM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI) -- single registrant TLDs Steve: I support you on Case 1, but not Case 2 or Case 3. Once you start distributing the names to third parties outside of the company, it should follow the applicable restrictions. In case 2, why just bank customers, why not telecom customers or retail customers, etc.? It's a slippery slope. Similarly, in case 3, could a registry set up as a social media site and get around restrictions that we set-up. The thing about all exceptions is that they are subject to gaming. If the exception is limited to just that entity -- no third parties -- it would be cleaner, implementable, and more likely to be approved. It's not like Facebook wouldn't be able to give away names to its subscribers, it would just have to be done with whatever restrictions/protections that ICANN sets up. Thanks. Jon On May 14, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > > Thanks to Berry and the other BC members on the VI working group for keeping > us apprised of your work there. > > As we form our constituency position on the proposed VI models, I wanted to > focus briefly on one issue: single registrant TLDs. > > Most of the 9 proposed VI models mentions single registrant TLDs and most > would allow the TLD to manage its registrations -- but with caps of 30,000 > or 50,000. Let me offer a few examples that show how companies (even some > BC members) would want more control over their own TLD registrations: > > Case 1: employees of a company. This is the example cited most often, as > in, IBM might want to create 2nd level registrations for all its employees, > for HR functions, scheduling, or even "mail(a)steve.delbianco.ibm". If a > company were to do this, they would rightfully insist upon total control > over 2nd level registrations, and would not want to let all registrars have > equal access to sell names. The employer might create its own accredited > registrar, in which case 100% cross ownership and self-distribution would > need to be allowed under the new VI policy. For this case, there is no > justification to impose an arbitrary cap of 50,000 on the number of > registrations that could be done before opening it up to all registrars. > IBM, for instance, has 400,000 worldwide employees, according to its 2009 > Annual Report. Case 2: bank customers. A global consumer bank > might pursue its own TLD, > hoping to give each of its customers their own 2nd level registration to > enable secure access to a DNSSEC-signed online banking page. An arbitrary > limit of 50,000 registrations would not be sufficient for even medium-sized > regional banks. When a bank reaches the registration cap, it will not want > to be forced to compensate and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to > enroll, authenticate, or remove banking customer registrations. > > Case 3: social network services. A global social network platform might > want to operate its own TLD in order to give each of its users their own 2nd > level web address. (e.g. SteveDelbianco.facebook ) Even sites like Flickr, > dropBox, and Twitter might want to offer this service to enrolled customers. > An arbitrary limit of 50,000 registrations would be too low a threshold, and > no service would want to lose total control over the privacy and security of > its users' data. These services would not want to be forced to compensate > and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to enroll, authenticate, or remove > their users. > -- > > I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member) who's planning to > apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to operate their own TLD > if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed registrations. > > I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for potential needs of > single registrant TLDs like those described in these examples. > > Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to conform with > ICANN's contract and consensus policies. It's also acceptable to require > the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can be > wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company. But let's > argue against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant > TLDs to use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com> wrote: > >> VI WG, >> >> Attached is the CBUC position statement from Aug 2009 regarding the >> issue of Vertical Integration. While several CBUC members participate >> on the VI WG, no substantial change has occurred requiring >> modification to our consensus. The CBUC reserves a change to our >> consensus position, if any, when the VI WG creates its final report >> and opens the final community comment period. >> >> In summary, Our present consensus position basically aligns to the >> ICANN board resolution in Nairobi and we are pleased with the >> substantial and adequate discussion with respect to VI/CO & also >> Single Registrant TLDs. The CBUC looks forward to the analysis of >> proposals by the VI WG and we are optimistic a solution will be >> created to match the expansion of gTLDs. >> >> Any specific questions to the CBUC can be filed through Berry Cobb. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Berry Cobb >> Infinity Portals LLC >> berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com >> http://www.infinityportals.com >> 866.921.8891 >

2 1