January 2011 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?13_january_motions
by Zahid Jamil Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT: Business Constituency support for Non-profitConstituency Petition
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 8, 2011

Jan. 8, 2011

>From Marilyn as individual member: Clarification re statement: propose statement strike second sentence. That was intended for internal explanation. Making that point externally will garner objection to new constituency from non commercial/civil society and registrars. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 04:23:44 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT: Business Constituency support for Non-profit Constituency Petition On 8-Dec in Cartagena, Philip Sheppard circulated a statement supporting the petition to create a non-profit constituency. The petition is at http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/npoc-charter-redacted-07dec10-en.pdf Philip's original note is shown at the bottom of this note. 14 BC members immediately supported Philip's suggestion and Marilyn Cade suggested an additional point. No objections have been registered. The deadline for comment on this proposal was extended to 30-Jan-2011 after the proponents modified their mission statement. (new mission is "The purpose of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency shall be to represent, specifically, the operational concerns related to service delivery of not-for-profit and non- governmental organizations who are domain registrants in the DNS" ) On Monday's BC call, let's discuss points the BC should make in indicating support for the petition. Here's what we have so far from Philip and Marilyn: The Business Constituency supports this petition to form a new non-profit Constituency in the GNSO. We believe this petition is timely, since it follows a GNSO restructuring that enables diversification within the non-contract house. We believe there are common interests between this new constituency and our own, since both represent registrants and users of the DNS. -- Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be> > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:24:46 +0100 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed non profit constituency 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.

1 0

DRAFT: Business Constituency support for Non-profit Constituency Petition
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 8, 2011

Jan. 8, 2011

On 8-Dec in Cartagena, Philip Sheppard circulated a statement supporting the petition to create a non-profit constituency. The petition is at http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/npoc-charter-redacted-07dec10-en.pdf Philip's original note is shown at the bottom of this note. 14 BC members immediately supported Philip's suggestion and Marilyn Cade suggested an additional point. No objections have been registered. The deadline for comment on this proposal was extended to 30-Jan-2011 after the proponents modified their mission statement. (new mission is "The purpose of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency shall be to represent, specifically, the operational concerns related to service delivery of not-for-profit and non- governmental organizations who are domain registrants in the DNS" ) On Monday's BC call, let's discuss points the BC should make in indicating support for the petition. Here's what we have so far from Philip and Marilyn: The Business Constituency supports this petition to form a new non-profit Constituency in the GNSO. We believe this petition is timely, since it follows a GNSO restructuring that enables diversification within the non-contract house. We believe there are common interests between this new constituency and our own, since both represent registrants and users of the DNS. -- Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be<mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be>> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:24:46 +0100 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed non profit constituency 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.

1 0

posting of topics for BC Call for Monday, Jan 10/Agenda /details posted to the bc private list
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 7, 2011

Jan. 7, 2011

Reminder of BC Members Call Monday, December 10, at 9 a.m. EST - 10:30 am.DETAILS ARE ON THE BCPRIVATE LIST FOR DIAL IN INFORMATION Agenda:Update from any action items from CartagenaCurrent Council Agenda items -discussion about any topics up for discussion and decision before Council-Rec6 WG status/letter-Rec6 position statement -WHOIS Studies - funding -RAA amendments -any other Council issues Finance/Operations Update on any urgent items: Chris ChaplowAny Other Business from Members:UPDATES: CSG issues: V.Chair for Council vote Election process for Board Member from non contracted party house Brief updates on ICANN AoC related WGS - 5 minutes each-AART - Marilyn/Steve-SSR - Jeff Brueggeman as lead - TBC-WHOIS - Susan as lead [Lynn and Bill as independent experts to also add comments] - TBC--Planning for March ICANN meeting - Marilyn to kick off discussion-Appointments to the SSR Cross Working Group -- Scott and Marilyn

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting
by john＠crediblecontext.com Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

1 0

Business Constituency Comment on Rec6
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

This comment is in response to GNSO Council's 08-Dec-2010 request for constituency comments on recommendations of the cross-community working group (CWG) regarding Council's Recommendation 6 (the "morality and public order" section of the draft AGB) The Business Constituency (BC) addressed this issue in its Dec-2010 comments on the proposed final AGB. (see page 7 of BC comments posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00026.html and attached here) Relevant points from that submission are repeated here in response to Council's request. In our Dec-2010 comments, the BC explains our rationale for concerns over the proposed objection process: The BC is concerned that confusion and controversy may result from subjective and undefined aspects of the Limited Public Interest and Community objections. The BC understands that ICANN may need to outsource objection and evaluation tasks during the new gTLD application process. But a decision to outsource services does not enable ICANN to escape accountability for decisions made by outsourcing vendors. ICANN's Board must be the final resolution body for disputes that arise during evaluation and objection processes. The challenges of managing both internal and outsourced objection processes underlies the BC's recommendation for an initial batch of fewer than 500 applications: "The first batch should be limited to significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." (see page 3 of our Dec-2010 comments, attached) The BC also called for more definitions and specifics in the Guidebook section on Limited Public Interest objections: 3.1.2.3 ".. an applied-for gTLD string may be considered contrary to generally accepted legal norms..." the BC believes that term "generally accepted" should be specifically defined. The objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has identified itself as representing. the BC believes the term "substantial opposition" should be specifically defined. 3.1.5 Independent Objector A formal objection to a gTLD application may also be filed by the Independent Objector (IO). The IO does not act on behalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet. The BC believes the Guidebook should include a description of the methodology ICANN will use to solicit interest from independent Objectors. The IO will be selected by ICANN, through an open and transparent process, and retained as an independent consultant. the BC recommends adding specific decision criteria regarding the selection and supervision of the Independent Objector. Anyone may file a [Limited Public Interest Objection]. Due to the inclusive standing base, however, objectors are subject to a ³quick look² procedure designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. the BC believes that open-ended guidelines may create a perpetual loop of opposition. The BC recommends a more specific regime. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency www.bizconst.org

1 0

Members call-Monday, Jan 10 @ 9 am EST
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

Please mark your calender for a BC call next Monday. We will publish a detailed agenda on Thursday, but as a placeholder, we will 1) Debrief from Cartagena on any outstanding issues 2) Discuss GTLD policy topics and Council agenda items - lead by BC Councilors/Steve DelBianco. 3) Update on various items of relevance to BC 4)depending on availability, hear update on SSR and WHOIS WGs. The call will be transcribed and recorded. Donna Thomas, our executive assistant will take rsvps for the call and will publish the dial in information later this week. Stay tuned for a formal agenda and dial in information. This is a "save the date" announcement. Marilyn Cade BC Chair Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

ICANN Governance Public Comment Topic: Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT): Final Recommendations
by Marilyn Cade Jan. 5, 2011

Jan. 5, 2011

BC Members: >From time to time, as chair, I will be posting announcements about ICANN governance/non policy topics that are open for public comment to the broader Internet community. This is provided as a informational courtesy to BC members. Rarely would we be developing BC comments on ICANN governance topics, but some members who do post individuallymay wish to share their comments with the full BC, and that is welcomed. The BC has several gTLD policy priorities to address in the next several weeks, including topics like WHOIS and SSR, how to impact the intersessional session of the GAC/Board. We will be discussing those topics in our next BC call early next week. At that time, we can also briefly discuss this topic, depending on members interests and priorities. I do want to acknowledge that governance of the organization has a significant impact on the BC's larger concerns. This is not a gTLD Council issue, but has broader interests and implications for business users. If there is sufficient interest among members on this topic, I will organize a segment of our BC call in February to discuss this topic. In the meantime, please review the call for comments below, and consider your association/company's interest in developing your individual comments. And, look for a second email from me, announcing a BC members call early next week, to provide input and feedback on gTLD topics and the upcoming Council call. Happy New Year.... Marilyn CadeBC Chair ================================================================================================ Announcement: Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT): Final RecommendationsPlease visit the ICANN Public Comment Page for documents and details for public comment. > Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT): Final Recommendations > > As prescribed by the Affirmation of Commitments, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) now issues its final recommendations [PDF, 2.54 MB] for public comment. > > These recommendations were developed on the basis of the draft proposed recommendations submitted for public comment in November 2010 and include the input received via the comment periods, email mechanisms and during ICANN meetings (38 and 39). Interviews, fact-finding and analysis led by the ATRT as well the Berkman Center's Final Report [PDF, 3.92 MB], produced by the selected external consultant - Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University - constitute bedrocks of these final recommendations which are now submitted to the ICANN community for comments. > > Under the AoC, resulting recommendations will be submitted for public comment and the Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. The community is now invited to participate in this comment forum by 14 February 2011 and to provide input on the final report via: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#atrt-fi….

1 0

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