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

U.S. Online Privacy Legislation
by Phil Corwin 02 Aug '10

02 Aug '10

BC members may be interested in an article I have just posted on potential legislation regulating online advertising at http://www.internetcommerce.org/http%3A/%252Fwww.internetcommerce.org/None-… Members may also be interested in checking out the WSJ survey of the tracking practices of the 50 most visited U.S. website at http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/ as quite a few companies active in ICANN affairs are listed there. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

2 4

FW: [liaison6c] Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010.
by Marilyn Cade 30 Jul '10

30 Jul '10

Dear BC Members: The information below provides information about the upcoming GNSO Council meeting. I ask our Councilors and V.Chair of Policy Coordination to provide an update on any discussions or votes thatwill be undertaken at this Council meeting. Reminder that we have a call with CSG re candidates for RTs on 8/4. See separate email/bridge will be posted on Monday to bcprivate list. Looking ahead, I will be announcing a BC members call for August [realize some are on holiday] and we will schedule monthly callsthereafter, at a minimum. In addition, there will be several execomm calls during the rest of year, and we will initiate publishing the agenda and attendance at all those calls, for furthertransparency. Thanks to the two members who proposed that. Excellent idea which I fully support. We will also continue to work on a BC members face to face/with remote participation meeting in September. Marilyn CadeBC Chair +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Updated Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010. Please note the link to the : GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ Please distribute this link and the agenda to all your stakeholder group/constituency members http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-05aug10-en.htm Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 5 August 2010. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 28 October 2009 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/operating-procedures-revised-draft-clean-09o… For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 15:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 08:00 PDT; 10:00 CDT & Quito; 11:00 EDT; 12:00 Buenos Aires; 12:00 Brazil; 17:00 CEST; 19:00 Moscow; 20:00 Pakistan; 23:00 Hong Kong; 00:00 Tokyo, 01:00 Melbourne (next day) Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/ Please enter as a 'guest'. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 15 July Meeting – Scheduled for approval on 28 July 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09389.html Item 2: OSC GNSO Improvement Recommendations (15 minutes) 2.1 Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions 2.2 Read the motion (Olga Cavalli) 2.3 Discussion 2.4 Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this vote.) 2.5 Action Items (if motion passes): • Cheat sheet for new voting procedures (Ken Bour) • Distribution of Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operating Procedures (Glen de Saint Géry) • Staff will distribute a package of materials for SGs and Constituencies regarding charters (Rob Hoggarth) Item 3: Whois Studies (20 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: • Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… • RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm • Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf • Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… 3.2 Motion to delay decision on Whois studies • Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions • Discussion • Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) 3.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 (if needed) • Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?5_august_motions • Discussion • Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this.) 3.4 Continuing discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 3.5 Next steps? Item 4: September meeting date September 16 (scheduled date) vs. September 8? (10 Minutes) • Refer to Doodle Poll results: o 8 September 11:00UTC and 15:00UTC http://www.doodle.com/k8ci6c69e8zb9ywq o 16 September 11:00UTC http://www.doodle.com/zvvzwfkd9xdp4wge • Discussion • Adobe Connect Poll (Kristina Nordstrom) Item 5: Prioritization of GNSO work (20 Minutes) 5.1 Refer to posted project ratings: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… 5.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): • “. . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise.” • “. . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results.” • “It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved.” • “The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group.” • “The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups.” • “The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts.” • “Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process.” • “The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available.” • “Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient.” 5.3 Next Steps • Staff Utilization Analysis targeted for 26 August meeting (Liz Gasster) • Adobe Connect Poll Council regarding possible next steps (Kristina Nordstrom): o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) • Discussion? • Action Items Item 6: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (10 minutes) 6.1 Refer to: • GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ • GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm • GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 6.2 Key dates in the endorsement process: • 29 July – End of application period • 19 August – Due date for SG input (SG primary endorsements + additional candidates supported for diversity purposes) • 26 August – Council meeting • 8 or 16 September – Council meeting (see agenda item 11.2 below) • 12 September – GNSO endorsement slate due to Selectors 6.3 Brief summary of candidates by SG for the SSR & Whois RTs (Glen de Saint Géry) 6.4 Discussion Item 7: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (10 Minutes) 7.1 Progress report (Stéphane Van Gelder) 7.2 Timeline • End of public comment period for Initial Report: 13 August • Target date for summary & analysis of public comments: 16 August • Target date for submission of revised Initial Report to Council: 18 August • Deadline for submission of Initial Report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 7.3 Discussion Item 8: Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (5 Minutes) 8.1 Refer to: • Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf • Summary of Recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-final-report-conclusion-recommendation… 8.2 Volunteers to develop action plan for Council consideration: • Greg Aaron, chair of the RAP WG • Chuck Gomes, Council Chair • Mikey O'Connor CBUC-RAP WG member • Joi White‪ - IPC CSG • David Donahue -IPC CSG • Berry Cob - CBUC -RAP WG member • Phil Corwin - CBUC -RAP WG member • Mary Wong - NCSG • Faisal Shah -RAP WG member • Fred Felman -RAP WG member • Other? 8.3 Note: • Marika Konings will provide Staff policy support for this effort. • An email list is up and running with all of the above subscribed. • The group will be polled regarding the regular time of the meetings and date of the first meeting; it may be appropriate to use the recurring time that the RAP group used. Item 9: Cartagena Planning (10 Minutes) 9.1 Action items from Brussels Wrap-Up Meeting • Stéphane van Gelder to take the lead, with Glen's assistance, in preparing the schedule for the GNSO calendar for the Cartagena meetings in December 2010. • Glen will follow-up with the ICANN meetings team regarding the following: o Coffee should be available in close proximity to the meeting rooms. o Allowance should be made in the schedule for breaks between all the meetings. o Make Adobe Connect work better with all operating systems or alternatives that allow participation from Linux based systems. o Changing the start time of the Council meeting so that it is no so early. • Wendy Seltzer will lead a group of the following volunteers to develop suggested improvements to the running of the GNSO Public Council meetings: o Tim Ruiz o Kristina Rosette o Wolf-Ulrich Knoben o Edmon Chung o Adrian Kinderis o Others? • A group will be formed to work on the GNSO Council interaction with the Board. o Volunteers: o Terry Davis o David Taylor o Jaime Wagner o Zahid Jamil o Stéphane van Gelder o Others? o Stéphane volunteered to lead this effort. • Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 9.2 Other issues? Item 10: Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (5 minutes) 10.1 GNSO Volunteers: • Terry Davis (NCA) • Rafik Dammak (NCSG) • Greg Aaron (RySG, Afilias) • Kathy Kleiman (RySG, PIR) • Keith Drazek (RySG, VeriSign) • Mike Rodenbaugh (CSG, CBUC) • Zahid Jamil (CSG, CBUC) • Rodney Joffe (RySG, NeuStar) • Jaime Wagner (CSG, ISCPC) 10.2 Status report (Chuck Gomes) Item 11: Audio-casting of Council meetings (5 minutes) 11.1 Refer to information sent to the Council list by Marika on 26 July 2010. 11.2 Implementation status 11.3 Additional feedback? Item 12: Other Business (10 minutes) 12.1 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvement implementation • Note: As part of the motion to approve implementation of the OSC CCT recommendations, the Council resolved to convene a standing committee whose role will be to monitor, coordinate, and manage the continuing implementation of the various recommendations emanating from the chartered GNSO Improvements Work Teams. • Any suggestions regarding how to do this? Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ________________________________________ Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 15:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 10:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+1DST 16:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+1DST 19:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Melbourne/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+0DST 01:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder of CSG discussion with Review Team Candidates/details to follow
by Marilyn Cade 30 Jul '10

30 Jul '10

This is a notice to the bc-gnso public list that the BC will participate in a call with Review Team Candidates. Details and scheduling of the call will be managed via the bcprivate list. Any questions can be sent to marilynscade(a)hotmail.com.

1 0

Notice of Extension of PEDNR Public Comment Period
by Marilyn Cade 30 Jul '10

30 Jul '10

I have been asked to notify the BC members of the extension on the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Initial Report. For your information, the deadline to submit comments on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Initial Report has been extended to 15 August. To submit comments, please visit http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report.

1 0

URGENT TO BC MEMBERS - REMINDER RE APPLICANTS FOR SSR AND WHOIS REVIEW TEAMS
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-2-and-4-en.… TO: BC MembersFROM: Marilyn Cade, BC Chair This is a reminder that if you are interested in being considered as a candidate for either SSR or WHOIS Review Teams, that you must self nominate. The process closes July 29 July @ 23.69 UTC. As chair, I would urge that you submit earlier than that time/date, if you are interested in being considered. There is a complex process for the selection of the representatives from the CSG on names to put forward. We will put forward You must apply directly and meet the deadline provided by ICANN. Names will be posted on a web site, with c.v.'s letter of motivation and additional information. There are 6 applicants on SSR and 6 applicants on WHOIS as of today. Only one applicant on WHOIS is from CSG and none on SSR, AS YET. Once the process closes, the CSG leaders will schedule an informational call with all candidates. Each SG may endorse one applicant on each Review Team. We may choose to endorse a second applicant from another SG. or we may not endorse any names. We may also identify one or two additional candidates that we can support, in the event that Council's proposed diversity procedures are not met. NOTE: The additional diversity criteria that the Council established has not been endorsed by the CSG. This was also the case at the time of the last selection process. The Council also identified additional GNSO Requirements, and candidates from the CSG should follow those. I am not so clear that you should limit your description of your knowledge and relevant skills/experience to 3 paragraphs. My advice to candidates is to write clearly but to be complete in your submission. That will be helpful to the CSG leaders, and to your colleagues. Steve Metalitz, on behalf of the CSG leaders, will facilitate a conf. call schedule for the CSG. I have asked that a transcript of the call(s) be provided. This would be available to any members who cannot join a call with candidates. Following the candidate call(s), the CSG leaders will discuss the CSG candidate(s) for SSR and WHOIS RTs. I encourage members who can take on these roles to nominate. I also, however, remind all that this is review -- NOT creating the improvements themselves. And, I do think that members should understand that the time commitments are significant. I consider them manageable, however, in light of the importance of the work. I am happy to talk to any member off list who might want to discuss the process itself, or needs help navigating the web pages to find information about this process. For the record, the CSG leadership is Sarah Deutsch, and Marilyn Cade as BCTony Holmes and Antonio Harris, ISPCPSteve Metalitz and Claudio DiGangi, IPC

1 0

Results of BC poll on DAGv4 comments
by Steve DelBianco 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

From: Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination To: BC Members ( Background on this policy poll appears at the end of this email ) On 26-July, GNSO Secretariat (Glen de Saint Géry) downloaded and counted ballots for the two BC position statements on DAGv4. Glen reported there were 24 (twenty four) votes (incl 1 abstention) in the bcvote(a)bizconst.org mailbox. Glen opened, logged, and counted each vote. The results: a) With respect to the "Points 1-3" there were 18 votes of "Support" and 4 votes of "Do not Support". (One person did not vote in this category) b) With respect to the "Rights Protection Mechanism" there were 18 votes of "Support" and 5 votes of "Do not Support". ***end of Glen’s report*** 24 ballots represents 47% of 51 eligible members. While the BC poll shows significant majority support (82% on points 1-3 and 78% on RPMs), we did not reach the quorum required by our Charter, Section 7.4: A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm Before the results were in, the Executive Committee approved a process in the event quorum was not achieved: Since quorum was not achieved, the Executive Committee will submit the 2 position statements to ICANN as minority positions, per Section 7.4 of the BC Charter. That is, these positions were approved by a clear majority of those voting, but the number of voters was 2 short of the required quorum of 26 (50% of 51eligible voters). On the attached position for "Points 1-3", 18 BC members voted to support, 4 members voted "Do not Support,” and there was 1 abstention. [attach position] On the attached position for "Rights Protection Mechanisms", 18 BC members voted to support, while 5 members voted "Do not Support.” [attach position] Using the description above, we will post these 2 position documents to ICANN’s public comment forum today. Each comment includes a note explaining the voting and failure to reach quorum. Last week, we alerted staff that the BC would be a few days late with our comments. *** background emails below *** From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:38:24 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Documents and ballot for BC Comments on DAGv4 (poll closes noon EDT Friday 23-Jul-2010) As described in our previous note (repeated below), the BC is now polling members to determine support for proposed comments on Draft Applicant Guidebook version 4 (DAGv4). Attached are three documents: *** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf Points 1thru 3: This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments regarding: market differentiation; translations and IDN versions of gTLDs; and community-based evaluation scoring. Our Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis provided to ICANN. *** Comment part 2: DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf Rights Protection Mechanisms. Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC “minority statement” we approved and submitted on a previous draft of the DAG. *** A blank ballot form: BC Polling Form 20-Jul-2010.doc, where you can indicate support or non-support for each of these 2 proposed comments. Voting instructions for BC members: Attached is your ballot form. Please complete your ballot and save the document to your local computer. Then attach your saved ballot to an email and send to bcvote(a)bizconst.org Please use the subject line "DAG4 Comments Vote". You will receive an auto confirmation of your email. This mailbox will retain all the ballot emails. Nobody on the Executive Committee has access to this mailbox at this time. When the voting closes at 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010, we will arrange for our Secretariat (or another neutral party) to access and tally the ballots. Reminder: please submit your ballot by 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010. Thanks to all who contributed to these draft comments. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:14:38 -0400 To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: "excomm(a)bizconst.org" <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Subject: Process and polling for BC Comments on DAGv4 From: Marilyn Cade (BC Chair) and Steve DelBianco (vice chair for policy coordination) to: BC members Comments on DAGv4 are due to ICANN on 21-July. Ron Andruff volunteered to be BC Rapporteur and worked with Sarah Deutsch to circulate a draft on 14-July. For the last week, about a dozen BC members debated and exchanged alternate drafts via email. During that discussion, at least 5 BC members expressed opposition to the comment draft. If opposition reaches 15% of paid membership, section 7.4 in our Charter is triggered: 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of members will be eligible to vote. A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm The ability of the BC to comment on DAG 4 is important to many of the members. The time line has to be modified to do follow the polling process in our charter. The majority of your executive committee supports giving a clean document to members to vote/poll in a shortened time frame. We respect that some of you may not be in agreement with the decision. However, we see no other way to achieve a submission within a reasonable time frame. Although it will be 2 days late, it will be within a reasonable time frame to be considered by ICANN. Ron Andruff is working with a few others on a clean document that he will distribute by 4pm EDT today. The goal is to for this document to get as close as we can to a consensus that all BC members can vote on. Ron may also distribute additional section(s) that would be subject to a separate vote. We will then conduct a formal members poll to close by noon EDT, Friday 23-July. We understand that this is not the best option. But given time pressures, and the work that has gone into this from all members, we want to ensure that we do all we can to have as much agreement on a core submission as we can, and that we find ways to hear the voices and concerns of all members. ------ End of Forwarded Message

4 5

Counting of the BC Comment on the Dag4 Vote
by Chris Chaplow 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

Dear Glen, On behalf of our all the members the BC, thank you very much for stepping in to count the vote for our Dag4 Comment. We do appreciate it, especially knowing that you had a lot of other tasks to attend this Monday morning. Thanks for the diligence. With best regards, 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

1 0

FW: Comments of Business Constituency, reflecting majority support but lacking required quorum
by Steve DelBianco 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

Below is a copy of the cover email to ICANN, explaining the BC minority positions. ------ Forwarded Message From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:33:33 -0400 To: <4gtld-guide(a)icann.org> Subject: Comments of Business Constituency, reflecting majority support but lacking required quorum In accordance with our Charter, the Business Constituency (BC) conducted a poll of its members on 2 position statements addressing separate aspects of the Applicant Guidebook, version 4. Both position statements were approved by a clear majority of those voting, but the number of voters was 2 short of the required quorum of 26. Because this BC poll did not reach the required quorum, the BC Executive Committee followed its Charter in determining to submit these position statements as minority positions. *** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf Points 1thru 3: This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments regarding: 1) market differentiation; 2) translations and IDN versions of gTLDs; and 3) community-based evaluation scoring. Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis provided to ICANN. 18 BC members voted to support this comment, 4 members voted "Do not Support,² and there was 1 abstention. *** Comment part 2: DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf (RPM) Rights Protection Mechanisms. Rapporterus Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC ³minority statement² approved and submitted for a previous draft of the DAG. 18 BC members voted to support this comment, while 5 members voted "Do not Support.² -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

1 0

PUBLIC COMMENT ANNOUNCEMENT RE: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries/BC process TBD
by Marilyn Cade 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

NOTICE to BC Members: I AM ASKED AS CHAIR, TO DISTRIBUTE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. Please note your opportunity to submit your individual comments. Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair, Policy Coordination, will advise the BC of his proposal on how, and whether to submit BC comments. This announcement is an alert, since many BC members may wish to submit individual comments. Some BC members have been on this working group, in their INDIVIDUAL capacity. They are subject matter experts that can inform the rest of us. They were not acting on behalf of the BC, and I applaud each of them, especially Mikey O'Connor, for undertaking the work, and understanding and 'living' the unique separation of WG from 'REST of WORK' for a Constituency that one belongs to. All of you who worked on this WG are invited to help to inform the RoU [rest of us], but we respect that you will now act as a BC member, or abstain, if you so determine. I wanted to recognize your work on this WG. It has been 'heavy lifting' and is much appreciated. We will have an aggressive schedule of ICANN public comments ahead, and we will try our best to be clear, in the subject line, of the purpose of an announcement. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-23jul10-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries 23 July 2010 The GNSO Vertical Integration Working Group is seeking comments on its Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries. This Initial Report [PDF, 731 KB] is posted for public comment as a required step in the GNSO’s Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. The Initial Report describes various proposed solutions for restrictions on vertical integration between registrars and registries for adoption in the New gTLD Program. Please note: The Working Group is working under an extremely aggressive schedule in order to meet the requirements that have been placed on it by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. The Working Group is planning to continue its analysis throughout the public comment period. Reviewers are encouraged to submit comments early to provide the group as much time as possible to consider them. The public comment period ends on 12 August 2010. Background: The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO Council formed a working group to evaluate whether any policy recommendations should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs. ICANN is currently in the process of finalizing the implementation details for the launch of new gTLDs. ICANN has posted four draft applicant guidebooks and a series of topic papers for public comment describing the manner in which ICANN proposes to implement this program. These documents include proposals on the topic of vertical integration and whether cross-ownership restrictions or other rules related to vertical integration should be adopted to apply to the New gTLD Program. The Initial Report describes several proposals regarding vertical integration that have been developed and analyzed by the VI Working Group. No proposal has achieved consensus support within the VI Working Group. These proposals are included for the purpose of seeking public comment and will be subject to further analysis and debate as the VI Working Group continues to strive to develop a consensus position to recommend to the GNSO Council on an expedited basis. The Initial Report published for public comment is a “snapshot” of a living document that will be revised several times during the public comment period. Reviewers are encouraged to check on the working-group wiki for the latest version of this Initial Report. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposed vertical integration models that are described the Initial Report. The Initial Report will be posted for a public comment period that closes on 12 August 2010. Comments can be sent to vi-pdp-initial-report(a)icann.org and reviewed athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/. Additional Information: To review the Issues Report on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars, please refer to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf [PDF, 254 KB]. The ICANN Board resolution on Vertical Integration is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#5. To review the charter describing the policy work undertaken by the Vertical Integration Working Group, please refer to: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-1… [PDF, 41 KB]. For information on the details of the implementation planning activities for new gTLDs, please refer to the documents posted athttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm To review updates to the Initial Report that may be developed by the VI Working Group during the public comment period, please refer to the archive of Initial Report snapshots posted at https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots. Staff responsible: Margie Milam Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Notification of Receipt of Proposal for Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers
by Marilyn Cade 24 Jul '10

24 Jul '10

AUTONOMOUS NUMBERS POLICY: Dear BC colleagues While perhaps not on your radar screen, AS's matter. These numbers are as critical [or more so] than IP addresses. Your technical guys who support your networks worry about your AS, since that is how your network is 'found' by other networks. I will invite technical contacts from BC members to work together to discuss this topic. It is not a 'general' gTLD policy issue but a broader governance issue. We could schedule a specific call to discuss. Countries can, through their practices, limit the ability of ISPs to obtain AS #s; that makes a country look like they have limited connectivity to the Internet. The US, most of Europe, and most of Latin America, assume that any network can obtain an AS number via the RIR, and be 'identified' as a separate network in the global Internet. Some countries want to limit the access to AS #s to the incumbent telecom in their country and have all ISPs 'behind' the single AS #. This creates much confusion in both being able to measure Internet growth, and some other challenges. If you want to join a discussion on this topic, please let me know. I believe that comments, for the most part, should come from individual companies with experts, but we may want to submit a high level statement. This is not a gTLD policy, but an ICANN goverance policy which has significant implications for the BC's members, especially those that operate networks. Marilyn CadeBC Chair > > > Forwarded From: John Jeffrey > To all ICANN Advisory Committee and Supporting Organization Chairs (with copy to SO Secretariats), > > Pursuant to ICANN's MOU with the NRO, yesterday ICANN received a proposal for a Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers. Under the MOU, ICANN is required to issue a 21-day final call for comments on that proposed policy and to issue notices to ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the final call. > > This is to inform you that today, ICANN opened a 21-day final call for public comment on the proposed policy, and encourages your membership to participate. The announcement of the public comment period, including a link to the proposed policy, is available at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jul10-en.htm, and the public comment forum can be accessed at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#asn-2010. The public comment forum will be open until 13 August 2010. > > Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and circulating this information to your supporting organization or advisory committee membership. > > John Jeffrey > General Counsel & Secretary > ICANN > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > Marina del Rey, CA USA 90292 > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org >

1 0