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

call for volunteers to draft comments on 1- and 2-character domains in .Asia
by Steve DelBianco 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

As noted in last week's call, BC members may have an interest in how the .Asia gTLD allocates 1 and 2-character second-level domain names. Below is the summary of .Asia's proposal (also here<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/asia-allocation-2011-04nov11-en.htm>). Comments are due 16-Dec. Interested BC members please reply and I'll help organize a drafting effort. --Steve DotAsia is proposing to amend its 2006 agreement (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/asia/<https://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/asia/>) to allow the introduction of one- and two-character .ASIA domains to the marketplace. The community is encouraged to comment on this proposal until 16 December 2011. The implementation would be done through an equitable phased allocation program, which has three main components: 1. A Pioneer Domains Program (a.k.a. and RFP process) to invite interested registrants to propose specific plans for use and promotion; and 2. A Sunrise round for eligible trademark names holders and company names holders to submit applications for domains not allocated in the RFP round; and 3. A Landrush and Auction round for domains not allocated during the Pioneer Domains Program and Sunrise processes. Similar to the .ASIA Startup processes, where more than one successfully verified application is received during any of the periods, an Auction will be held between the successfully verified applications. This equitable phased allocation program is designed and aimed to ensure greater usage and promotion commitments resulting in awareness of the .ASIA domain within the community, and to better serve the Internet community in Asia Pacific region. This proposal came to ICANN on 9 August 2011through the RSEP Process, which can be seen here: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/<https://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/>. For details about the evaluation process, see: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html<https://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html>. The language of the amendment can be seen in this Appendix 6 redlined draft<https://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/asia/appendix-6-redline-04nov11-en…>[PDF, 276 KB], which should be read in conjunction with the RSEP requesthttp://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/dotasia-request-09aug11-en.p…<https://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/dotasia-request-09aug11-en.pdf> [PDF, 21 KB].

1 0

FW: 360 proposal/comments from Marilyn Cade/re CEO succession
by Marilyn Cade 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Posting to the BC list: During the Public Session on CEO Succession in ICANN Dakar, I made a statement at the microphone regarding the need for community input on the criteria for the next CEO/President, and for ongoing feedback on performance of the CEO. I did not speak as chair of the BC. My submission to the public comment email is attached. It includes comments on the PowerPoint presented by the CEO Succession SubCommittee, regarding my personal views on priorities, and a detailed proposal to expand on the proposal I made at the microphone, calling for stakeholder support and input. While I made this proposal in my individual capacity, it has implications for the BC, as it called for the Chair of the various constituencies/SGs/ACs and other chairs to act as an input and feedback mechanism to the board Subcommittee. There seems to be some receptivity to this concept, from my discussions with others, including Board members, but it is unclear how or whether it will be acted on by the Board Sub committee. Should it become a reality, I will immediately advise the BC members. Marilyn Cade ========================================= From: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com To: ceosearch2012(a)icann.org Subject: 360proposal/comments from Marilyn Cade/re CEO Succession Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:35:59 -0500 Dear Board Members of the CEO Search/Selection Process During the ICANN Dakar public session on this topic, I made a comment about the need for Stakeholder support and input to support this Committee, both in the short term, and long term. I am the Chair of the BC@ICANN, but I am speaking as an individual in my submission, and in the proposal I made. As I made a detailed proposal to this group, I attach a more detailed proposal which I have also sent it to the chairs and representatives of the groups that were named in the proposed “360 Group”. This is not a proposal by a group, but a proposal that deserves consideration from an individual. My comments below respond to your PowerPoint about what matters and what priority should be assigned to different characteristics. First, though, I will repeat a comment that I made, and others made, to congratulate you for your openness and interest in understanding the perspectives of the Stakeholders who actually are basic and the basis for ICANN’s actual legitimacy. Today, I am privileged to chair the Business Constituency@ICANN. However, my comments in this submission are as an individual, with a long history of pre-ICANN, and present-ICANN, and as an individual who is highly involved in the Internet eco system’s debates about who should govern the global Internet, which includes, but is not limited to ICANN’s role and functions. Thank you for the ‘outline’ you presented via your PowerPoint slides. I will respond on a page by page basis, as well as with a summary statement. I am available for any clarifications, at marilynscade(a)hotmail.com. I realize that many prefer to have their identities and their contact details obscured. In my case, I believe strongly, that anonymous contributions are not actually appropriate in a discussion of this nature. Please consider my comments publicly available. Page 5: OBTAINING INPUT TO CRITERIA I disagree with the proposed commitment of this Committee that they will accept anonymous input, and not publish submissions. The PSE, which I served on for three years, finally agreed that all submissions must be identified, and identifiable. ICANN cannot accept anonymous submissions. Explanation: ICANN has a threshold of Accountability and Transparency: Recommendation: Maintain a log of submissions. Encourage speakers/submitters to accept their own accountability. Publish a list of contributors, and if you must, publish the contributions separately. UPDATE TO YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT: REQUIRE THAT ALL WHO SUMMIT COMMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AND IDENTIFIABLE. Rationale: How accountable is ICANN, if we do not express with accountability, our views, and with a full expectation that those contributions are respected, and accepted. The PSC considered, and rejected anonymity in submissions. I urge you to rise to that standard. If there is a justifiable role of full anonymity for a submission in this ICANN comment, I would be significantly surprised. If so, then ICANN can accept such a submission sent to the General Counsel. Input accepted through November 15, 2011. Comment: This group needs to remain open for an extended period – perhaps January 10, to accept comments. Many of the ICANN community are digging out from work delayed by being at ICANN; digesting the implications of many policy and other activities; and dealing with holidays in November/December, around the world. The vast community of ICANN Stakeholders can only devote small amounts of time to ICANN, as much as they would prefer otherwise. Slide 6:Caveats The community has a comprehensive understanding of this statement. It may bear more discussion, though, about whether the senior staff, General Counsel, and Board really do fully understand it as the community personifies it today. As someone who helped to catalyze ICANN, among many others, this discussion would benefit from more ‘light’ and engagement, including with the founders. Slides on page 7- 17 My comments are a summary about the content of these slides. First, as someone who knows and supports ICANN globally, I have a view. However, I think that my comments will support the Committee best, if I focus on the general considerations of global business. CEO Search Criteria: o Technical o Community o Management and Leadership Skills o Personal Skills and Values Technical: Many of the technical advisors, and some Board members, and members of the community think a deep understanding of the DNS and more importantly, the Internet and the implications of the role of ICANN in the global Internet qualify Board members. A basic understanding, and the ability to obtain sophisticated understanding is required. One challenge I see is that the Board at present is dependent on some experts within the Board, and lacks access to truly independent experts, as advisors. It is true that a factual understanding of what we do, and why we do it, and our commitments technologically, are critical aspects for an ICANN Board Member. Can they learn this, and can they accept informed, neutral advice? I would say, yes, with the caveat that ICANN will need to fund briefings, and informational sessions. Technical : agree with the Institutional Knowledge items. Community: Industry Institutions This list is incomplete, but a good start. It should include IGF, AU, CITEL Community: International Awareness This PP is not sophisticated in its conceptualization of ICANN’s challenges. But is a good start. The model of bottom up, consensus based policy development must include the issues of SSR, which are omitted from this slide. In this slide, ICANN proposes to prioritize IPR, privacy, freedom of speech, but omits its core value of SSR. ICANN has a core commitment to SSR, and the fundamental commitment to security, stability, and resilisency of the Internet’s unique identifers, and their impact on the global Internet, Management and Leadership: The topics seem appropriate, but as we have learned from past experience, applicants external to ICANN do not easily understand our Code”. Many resources can be ‘procured’. To date, ICANN and its present CEO/President has a challenging record of how consultants to the CEO have integrated into support of ICANN. Past experiences are not necessarily useful for how a future CEO, with different support and advice, utilizes experts and resources. There needs to be limits on how much flexibility, without Board approval exists to add resources, staff, and advisors. Most organizations have strict limits on discretionary funds, and discretionary hiring’s, without organizational approvals. It appears that the recent experiences have exceeded the community’s expectations. A CEO with private advisors that aren’t part of ICANN’s accountability system aren’t representative of an open, transparent ICANN. When outside hires are recruited without a valid understanding of the organization and its internal and external challenges, they may support their hiring official, but fail to meet the expectations of the community. This seems to be a current and expensive situation for ICANN. Measuring whether a new CEO/President should be allowed to have external advisors should be assessed against a validated criteria. Personal Skills and Values: These skills are native requirements for a CEO/President. The CEO must understand ICANN vis –a vis other organizations. BUT, fundamentally, understand and support ICANN and its core mission. Some of these criteria must come from the community, and the ability to understand and work with the community. No one individual will process all of these attributes. To me, and I believe to the business community, the key value for a CEO/President is the ability to understand and reflect a commitment to the core value of ICANN. Many other skills can be procured. Existing in a larger eco system, as first defined by the business leadership, will increasingly be a requirement. The business community will support ICANN, and its new leadership in this key area. A key priority of aligning with Core Values is of course, a fundamental requirements. It is not actually clear that ICANN requires ‘humility’ for itself, or its CEO, although that is interesting to consider. It might suggest that we misunderstood the community in a recruitment in the past. Perhaps the message is that a CEO should not seek personal visibility, but act in support of the organization’s goals and agenda, in public events. In addition, acting in the public interest, however, deserves increased attention to the ICANN community. It may be time for an internally focused CEO, that helps to strengthen and build the organization from within, and that seeks to support and strengthen how the various organizations that comprise ICANN effect and influence the future of the global Internet, and ICANN’s leadership within that larger eco system. That dialogue remains yet to come, with the process established by this board Committee. Comments of Marilyn Cademarilynscade(a)hotmail.com+ 1 202 252 6787

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Call for Volunteers: Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team
by Benedetta Rossi 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

Call for Volunteers: Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a drafting team that will prepare a request for information on Fake Renewal Notices, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council. What This Group Will Do The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October in response to one of the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group that 'additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional [RAP WG] Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council's and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly'. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this Drafting Team (DT) will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the DT will be archived publicly. DT members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The DT is expected to follow theGNSO Working Group Guidelines <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact theGNSO secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group>(gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background >From theRegistration Abuse Policies Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf>: 'Fake renewal notices are misleading correspondence sent to registrants from an individual or organization claiming to be or to represent the current registrar. These are sent for a variety of deceptive purposes. The desired action as a result of the deceptive notification is: * Pay an unnecessary fee (fraud) * Get a registrant to switch registrars unnecessarily ("slamming", or illegitimate market-based switching) * Reveal credentials or provide authorization codes to facilitate theft of the domain' As a result, the RAP Working Group recommended, following obtaining further information from ICANN's Compliance Department, that the GNSO Council consider requesting an Issue Report on this issue. However, after review of the information received from the ICANN Compliance Department (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html) and further discussions on this issue (see for examplehttp://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-rap-1…) the GNSO Council determined that further information would be desirable before deciding whether or not to request an Issue Report. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
by Marilyn Cade 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

Thanks, Bill. I am a little mystified about how the motions approach developed since it was after my tour of duty as a Councilor, and before we added the Oolicy Staff. . It is very UN like in language, as well. It was probably an evolutionary improvement to document the flow and history of what has transpired since the Council now has a very busy and detailed working agenda, that typically takes months per topic, and history of actions is important. Zahid has been on Council for several years-- he may recall the history on how the formalized motions came about. We had motions, but wrote them ourselves as councilors, so they tended to be more functional. Still, documenting linkages and supporting materials for a motion is important. Still, I do have sympathy for your view. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:31:20 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call As the resident renegade/cynic, I'll ask: Why do we accept and perpetuate a system that requires resolutions to establish a group that will develop a charter whose group-specific content is almost certainly shorter than the resolution to create the group? Presumably this charter must then go back to the group (Council) that chartered the first group (Drafting Team) for approval, and no doubt requires a similarly lengthy resolution to establish the group to perform whatever work was originally desired. It seems to me that we're process heavy and in a manner that is not bottoms-up. On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: I'm in general agreement with the views that Mike stated. While I believe there's a middle ground - of the two competing Resolutions, Mary's is preferable Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:33 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; BC Secretariat Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks for this. Can I share these thoughts with Steve and an ongoing discussion about this with CSG Councillors? 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 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com> > *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** ________________________________ From: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:23 -0800 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> ReplyTo: <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Thanks Zahid. Curious to hear how the discussion went on the BC call this morning on this issue. I have a feeling I may be a fairly lone voice, but fwiw, I support Mary's motion over Jeff's. Indeed it was a unanimous recommendation of the RAP-WG, including a bunch of IP attorneys and reps (including me), to do a review of the UDRP since it has been in place for ten years and has not been all that effective as a deterrent against cybersquatting. Waiting another 2.5 years, or longer if the newTLD program is stalled, is not going to help anything or anyone other than IP attorneys who charge many thousands of dollars to file or defend UDRP cases (again, including me); . oh, and also the bad guys who abuse the DNS and reputable brands with virtually no trouble and no consequence. Also I am not holding my breath waiting for URS implementation, as it may never happen and even if it does come into some form or another, it is unlikely to be used much if at all, particularly in just the first 18 mos. after the first new TLD. I fail to see how it will impact a review of the decade-old UDRP in any way whatsoever. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:19 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. 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 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://www.jamilandjamil.com/ <http://www.jamilandjamil.com<http://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. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11

1 0

UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call
by Zahid Jamil 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. 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.

6 9

eighty-seven-major-national-and-international-business-associations-and-companies-join-with-ana-forming-the-coalition-for-responsible-internet-domain-oversight-crido-to-oppose-icanns-top-level-domain-expansion-program
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

For information: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/eighty-seven-major-national-and-int… New York, NY ? November 10, 2011 ? Eighty-seven major national and international business associations and companies have joined forces with the ANA (Association of National Advertisers), forming the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight (CRIDO) to oppose the rollout of ICANN?s top-level domain expansion program. Among the many influential members of CRIDO are the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Society of Association Executives, the National Restaurant Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, the American Council of Life Insurers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The WFA represents a global network of 51 advertiser associations representing some 90 percent of global marketing communications spending, equivalent to $700 billion annually. On behalf of its many constituencies and industries, CRIDO is committed to aggressively fighting ICANN?s proposed program, citing its deeply flawed justification, excessive cost and harm to brand owners, likelihood of predatory cyber harm to consumers and failure to act in the public interest, a core requirement of its commitment to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The proposed ICANN program would permit applicants to claim virtually any word, generic or branded, as an Internet top-level domain. Top-Level Domains are everything to the right of the dot, such as .com and .org. In the first year alone, the ICANN plan would allow hundreds of new Top-Level Domains, and thousands in the future. This would strongly pressure brand owners at every level of business including small businesses, consumers, NGOs, charities and foundations to defensively buy and protect new top-level domains. ?This unprecedented, united opposition to ICANN?s top-level domain expansion program clearly demonstrates the enormity of the dissatisfaction across the Internet stakeholder community,? said Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the ANA. ?The major global industries represented by CRIDO foresee immense damage to their constituents, consumers and the economy. We implore ICANN to discontinue its efforts to roll out this ill-conceived, unwanted and destructive program.? If the ICANN program proceeds, CRIDO firmly believes, the loss of trust in Internet transactions will be substantial. In addition, the for profit and non-profit brand community will suffer from billions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures ? money that could be better invested in product improvements, capital expenditures and job creation. ?The World Federation of Advertisers and its members strongly urge ICANN to abandon its top-level domain program in its current form and proceed in a manner that suitably acknowledges the legitimate interests of client-side marketers and brand owners across the globe,? said Stephan Loerke, managing director, WFA. WFA?s members represent advertising associations in all regions of the world, including the Association of Canadian Advertisers, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Russian Association of Advertisers, the Advertisers Association of Turkey, the Indian Society of Advertisers, the Japan Advertisers Association, and the China Association of National Advertisers. At the recent ANA Masters of Marketing Annual Conference, attended by more than 1,700 marketers, Liodice announced that the Association?s Board voted unanimously to fight ICANN?s top-level domain expansion program. He also urged attendees to rally support from additional trade associations in their industry sectors, creating a massive groundswell of opposition to ICANN?s program before it causes irreparable damage. At the meeting, several hundred attendees signed petitions personally opposing ICANN?s proposal. The petitions will be circulated at upcoming conferences and events to garner support from even more members. To date, the following 47 associations have joined CRIDO and signed a petition that will be sent to the DOC that publicly states their opposition to the proposed ICANN program: AAF-Amarillo AAF-Dallas AAF-Fort Worth AAF Hampton Roads AdClub Cincinnati American Advertising Federation (AAF) American Advertising Federation of Des Moines American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) American Beverage Association (ABA) American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) American Health Care Association (AHCA) American Insurance Association (AIA) American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) Association of Canadian Advertisers (ACA) Association of National Advertisers (ANA) Austin Advertising Federation Boise Advertising Federation Cable Advertising Bureau (CAB) Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) Direct Marketing Association (DMA) European Association of Communications Agencies (EACA) European Publishers Council (EPC) Food Marketing Institute (FMI) Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) Idaho Advertising Federation Idaho Falls Advertising Federation Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) IAB Europe Lewis-Clark Valley Advertising Federation Magic Valley Advertising Federation Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) MPA - the Association of Magazine Media National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) National Confectioners Association (NCA) National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) National Restaurant Association (NRA) Pocatello Advertising Federation Promotion Marketing Association (PMA) Radio Advertising Bureau (RAB) Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB) U.S. Chamber of Commerce World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) which includes 50 independent federations throughout the world To date, the following 40 companies have joined CRIDO and signed a petition that will be sent to the DOC that publicly states their opposition to the proposed ICANN program: Acxiom Adobe Systems Incorporated Allstate Insurance Company American Express Brinker International Burger King Corporation The Coca-Cola Company Combe Incorporated ConAgra Foods Costco Wholesale Corporation Darden Restaurants, Inc. Dell Inc. Dunkin Brands, Inc. Educational Testing Service (ETS) Fidelity Investments Ford Motor Company General Electric Company Hack Creative Hewlett-Packard Company Hunter Douglas NA J.C. Penney Company, Inc. Johnson & Johnson Kellogg Company La Quinta Liberty Mutual MillerCoors Money Mailer of Amarillo Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Neon Sun Tanning Salon Nestlé USA ORCI OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC Papa John's Procter & Gamble Publicis Groupe Pulte Group Samsung US Bank Vanguard Verge Martin C SUTTON Group Risk Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ Group Security & Fraud Risk 8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________ Phone. +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 Mobile. +44 (0) 7774556680 Email. martinsutton(a)hsbc.com ________________________________________________________________ ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ************************************************************ HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ************************************************************ ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 November 2011
by Benedetta Rossi 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

Dear BC members, Please find below the Agenda for the upcoming GNSO Council Meeting on 17 November 2011 as published by the GNSO Secretariat. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org *Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 17 November 2011.* The Agenda posted on the *Wiki page* usually has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+17+November+… The*motions* can be found on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf 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 20:00 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeti…> Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC ( 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 18 November 2011 05:00 Tokyo; 09:00 Auckland 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. *GNSO Council meeting audiocast * *http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u* *_Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) _*1.1 Roll Call*_ _* 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: * 26 October minutes –approved on 2011. * 26 October new Council minutes – approved on *_ Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)_* Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) • GNSO activities: 9 (Outreach Task Force DT and Fake Renewal Notices DT added). • Other activities: 11(RAP, request to ICANN Compliance complete – Uniformity of Contract IR and Meta Issue, Uniformity of Reporting added) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (no change). *_Item 3: Outreach Task Force Charter (15 minutes)_* As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program A motion is being made to approve the resulting Outreach Task Force's charter. This motion is deferred from the Dakar GNSO Council meeting. Refer to motion 1 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 3.1 Reading of the Motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote *_Item 4: UDRP (25 minutes)_* Following the drafting of an Issue Report on a possible review of the UDRP, a motion is before the Council to initiate a PDP on this topic and that a drafting team be formed to write a charter for the working group. Refer to motion 2 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mary Wong) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote If the Council does not approve the above motion, a second motion on this issue has been made and will be examined by the Council. Refer to motion 3 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November… 4.4 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.5 Discussion 4.6 Vote *_Item 5: Open Council Meeting Drafting Team (10 minutes)_* Following the Singapore meeting, a GNSO Drafting Team (DT) was formed to work on possible enhancements to the format of the GNSO Council's Open Meetings. An update was provided to the Council on the DT's work during our Dakar Open Council Meeting. As some DT members have since left the Council, this discussion item is an opportunity for the Council to decide how to take this work forward. 5.1 Update from DT (John Berard ?) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps *_Item 6: Dakar Board resolution on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments RAA (15 minutes)_*__ At its meeting in Dakar, the Board approved a resolution on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments (RAA). http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7 The resolution requests staff to prepare an issue report as a prelude to a PDP. This item is an update from staff on this work. 6.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 6.2 Discussion *_Item 7: Best Practices to address abusive domain registrations (15 minutes)_* On 3 February 2011, the GNSO Council resolved to request a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. The discussion paper was submitted to the Council on 28 September http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1… During the Dakar meeting wrap-up, there were questions on whether a WG should be created as a result of the discussion paper and if so a DT would need to create the charter. Another question asked was should the paper be put out for public comment instead? 7.1 Update from Staff (?) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps *_Item 8: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting (20 minutes)_* Following the Council's request, SSAC has responded that it does not see any additional work it can do on this at this time http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct1… During the Dakar meeting wrap-up, it was suggested that Council reps go back to their respective groups and think about possible next steps and what to do with data once it is available? It was also asked whether Staff look at how the ccTLDs address this issue? This discussion item aims at seeing if this issue should be closed or if work should continue. 8.1 Update from Staff (?) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps *_Item 9. Any Other Business (5 minutes)_* 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 (**GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>**) * 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. 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 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+1DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 22:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China (CST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/cst.html>) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Auckland New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 next day ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Prior BC Position on Uniform Agreements with UDRP Providers ( RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call)
by Phil Corwin 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

Per Steve's suggestion, here is the October 2010 BC position regarding accreditation of new UDRP arbitration providers (emphasis added) - http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html Business Constituency (BC) Comment on ICANN Proposal to Recognize New Domain Name Dispute Provider *Background* There is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) arbitration provider. *Summary* The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. *Explanation* The BC notes that the voluntary registration or renewal of a gTLD domain must be undertaken via an ICANN-accredited registrar. All registrars are subject to a uniform contractual agreement with ICANN, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). ICANN recently strengthened the RAA with additional amendments and the addition of flexible enforcement options, and a Final Report proposing additional RAA amendments has just been delivered to the GNSO for its consideration. In stark contrast, the involuntary termination or transfer of a domain can be ordered under the authority of a UDRP provider that has been accredited by ICANN but which is not bound by any constraints on or requirements pertaining to the exercise of that delegated authority. This has led to increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive consistency in the UDRP process. Such concerns are likely to grow if additional providers are accredited in the absence of the uniform framework of a standard mechanism. The BC strongly advocates that ICANN must first implement a standard mechanism with any and all UDRP arbitration providers that defines and constrains their authority and powers, and establishes regular and standardized review by ICANN with flexible and effective means of enforcement. The ultimate sanction of cancelling accreditation is an extreme sanction that ICANN has demonstrated a reluctance to initiate in other contexts. ICANN appears to be transitioning from an environment in which the vast majority of UDRP cases (approximately 98%) were handled by two arbitration providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which significant gTLDs were based in a limited number of national jurisdictions to one in which the majority of gTLDs and UDRP providers may well be headquartered in a widely distributed group of jurisdictions. In the future, business interests may well be investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive, new branding, and other purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that all UDRP providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost remediation for addressing cybersquatting. The BC notes that the issue of whether UDRP providers should be under a standard mechanism with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP providers should be under a standard mechanism. *** The rapporteur for these comments was Phil Corwin. ICANN Business Constituency http://www.bizconst.org Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:49 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call A tabular comparison of the two UDRP motions with highlights to make them more convenient to review is attached. 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 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://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. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: 10 November 2011 20:19 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] UDRP Motions (competing) for GNSO Council call Dear BC Members, Here are two competing motions that have recently been posted to the Council list for inclusion in the next GNSO Council call: ROPOSED MOTION ON REVIEW OF THE UDRP Made by: Mary Wong (Non-Commercial SG) Seconded by: WHEREAS, on 3 February 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) from ICANN staff, to include consideration of: (1) how the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process; (2) whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated; and (3) suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed; WHEREAS, a Preliminary Issue Report was prepared by ICANN staff and released for public comment from 27 May 2011 to 22 July 2011, for which 24 community comments were received; WHEREAS, further feedback was received in the form of responses by various UDRP providers to a questionnaire issued by ICANN staff, a Webinar conducted by ICANN staff, and two UDRP-related sessions held at the 41st ICANN meeting in Singapore; WHEREAS, a Final Issue Report taking into account the community comments and public feedback received was prepared by ICANN staff and published on 3 October 2011; WHEREAS, the Final Issue Report illustrates a diversity of views among the ICANN community as to a number of UDRP-related issues, such as: (1) the advisability of commencing a PDP at this time rather than when the new rights-protection mechanisms (RPMs) mandated by the new gTLD program (e.g. the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system) are reviewed; (2) whether the UDRP, although improved over time in terms of consistency of application and streamlining of processes, is fair; and (3) other matters such as whether to launch a PDP or form an experts' panel, and whether more formal accreditation or contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers is desirable; WHEREAS, a PDP provides the best means for assessing how to respond to this diversity of views, in particular because a PDP can be designed to address concerns about the size and complexity of the UDRP review, such as: (1) by identifying short-term issues that can be worked on during the launch of the new gTLD program and up to the first review of the URS, and other issues that may require a longer time frame for work, including any process-related or current implementation problems; (2) the formation of Sub-Teams within the Working Group to handle different issues, tasks and timelines; and (3) the division of the PDP into work phases, including possible issues and time frames corresponding to the new gTLD program, if appropriate; WHEREAS, the UDRP is the oldest GNSO policy that has yet to be reviewed, and the further postponement of a PDP is unlikely to improve or correct some of the flaws and problems with the current UDRP that were identified by the ICANN community during the process of preparation of the Final Issue Report; and WHEREAS, the issue of community bandwidth and resource allocation may not diminish even after the launch of the new gTLD program and the new RPMs, and reviewing such a complex policy as the UDRP together with the URS is likely to exert even more pressure on community bandwidth and resources; Be it RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the initiation of a PDP on the UDRP and the establishment of a Working Group on UDRP Review; RESOLVED, further, that the drafting team that will be formed and charged with developing a charter for the Working Group on UDRP Review take into account the diverse possibilities for Working Group modalities and work phasing; and RESOLVED, further, that the charter for the Working Group specifically task the Working Group with considering: (1) related issues and recommendations raised by the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group, which were adopted by the GNSO Council as recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors at its meeting on 21 July 2011; and (2) recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP; and (3) such other similar issues and recommendations as it considers appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP Made by: Jeff Neuman (Registries SG) Seconded by: Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both (a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and (b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group [LINK], and Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 [LINK] and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 [LINK] in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the "perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee" and that "a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . [to] allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting." RESOLVED, that the GNSO approved the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation and launch of the first new gTLD. 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 www.jamilandjamil.com<http://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. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4007 - Release Date: 11/09/11

1 0

DSSA-update slide deck
by Mike O'Connor 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

hi all, here's a copy of the deck i'm talking from on today's call - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

AIM's BC representative
by Philip Sheppard 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

As I mentioned before AIM 's representative to the BC is now Marie Pattullo. I thought you may like to see a short profile about Marie. After qualifying as a solicitor in the City of London, Marie moved to Brussels in 1993 and worked in private practice before joining AIM, the European Brands Association, in 2000. As AIM represents the branded goods industries in Europe on key issues which affect the ability of brand manufacturers to design, distribute and market their brands, Marie's role encompasses coordination of the association's vital brand protection work. Via its Trade Mark Committee, AIM is, inter alia, a founder member of the OHIM (EU trademark office) Users Group, an observer to the OHIM Administrative Board and an observer at WIPO. The AIM Anti-Counterfeiting Committee brings together AIM's members with other right holders and their associations in the largest such network actively fighting counterfeiting and piracy at European level. Marie thus works closely with all European institutions engaged in IP and brand protection matters and with the relevant experts, particularly in trade mark administration, protection and enforcement, from the members of AIM and the wider industry. Philip

3 2