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

for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
by Steve DelBianco 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations Instrument in the new gTLD Program. Jon Nevett prepared this draft. This comment period and docs are described here<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm>. These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval. This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am requesting an expedited review period. If any member has substantive objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our comments after the ICANN due date. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination, BC

8 21

Business Constituency response to WHOIS Review Team questions
by Steve DelBianco 09 Feb '12

09 Feb '12

Attached is the response of the Business Constituency (BC) to questions from The WHOIS Policy Review Team. This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our charter. Sarah Deutsch served as Rapporteur for this response. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency http://Www.bizconst.org <http://Www.bizconst.org/>

4 6

Policy calendar for 10-Nov-2011 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during 10-Nov-2011 BC member call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ 1. Case studies on TLD variant issues for six IDN scripts (14-Nov) 2. Draft 2012-2015 Strategic Plan (17-Nov) 3. Draft final report on Internationalized Registration Data (17-Nov) 4. Framework for consent in delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs (1-Dec) 5. Registries' proposal for Continued Operations Fund in new gTLD program (2-Dec) 6. Revision to ICANN Bylaws to adopt new GNSO policy development process (5-Dec) 7. IDN ccNSO WG draft final report on adding IDN ccTLDs to ccNSO (15-Dec) 8. Final report on Support for gTLD Applicants from developing economies (16-Dec) 9. .Asia proposal for 1 and 2-character domain allocations (16-Dec) 10. Recommendations to modify Geographic Regions (19-Dec) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. Based on member interest, the BC selects topics on which to submit official positions. Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council GNSO Project Status available at https://www.icann.org/en/processes/gnso/current-issues.html Agenda<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/agenda+17+November+…> and motions<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+17+November…> for 17-Nov GNSO Council teleconference. Item 3: Motion 1 to approve Charter for Outreach Task Force. (deferred from Dakar). Marilyn has proposed a substitute motion (attached) Item 4: UDRP Motion 2 from Mary Wong, to begin a PDP on the UDRP and create a Working Group on UDRP review. alt. Motion 3 from Jeff Neuman to begin a PDP on IRTP recc 7 (domain locks), and to request an issues report on UDRP and URS no later than 18 months after delegation of first new gTLD. Item 5: report of drafting team on Open Council Meetings (John Berard) Item 6: Discuss Dakar Board resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> on amending the RAA, incl: Resolved, the ICANN Board directs negotiations to commence immediately, resulting in proposed amendments to be provided for consideration at ICANN's meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Resolved,, the subject of the negotiations should include law enforcement and GNSO working group recommendations as well as other topics that would advance the twin goals of registrant protection and DNS stability. Resolved, the Board also requests the creation of an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) as quickly as possible to address remaining items suited for a PDP. Item 7: discuss Best Practices to address abusive domain registrations (paper<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/discussion-paper-rap-best-practices-28sep1…>) Item 8: discuss cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Ron Andruff, CSG Liaison, and Marilyn Cade (alt) Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Lynn Goodendorf, Bill Smith) Affirmation review team for SSR (Security, Stability, & Reslience) (Jeff Brueggeman)

1 1

RE: [bc-gnso] BC pre council call, 10th of January, 10am EST
by john＠crediblecontext.com 31 Dec '11

31 Dec '11

1 0

Thick Whois Comments
by Elisa Cooper 30 Dec '11

30 Dec '11

BC Members, Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the Preliminary Issues Report on 'Thick Whois' comments. I will be submitting these comments within the next few hours. Have a wonderful New Year. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH

1 0

BC pre council call, 10th of January, 10am EST
by bc-secretariat＠icann.org 30 Dec '11

30 Dec '11

Dear Bc Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC pre council call scheduled for the 10th of January at 10am est (3pm UTC/4pm CET). Dial in details and agenda will follow. Thank you, Kind regards Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

3 3

RE: [Bc-private] URGENT - redrafted letter from officers to ICANN Board re improvements in the new gTLD program
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com 29 Dec '11

29 Dec '11

Why are our deliberations about policy positions so often pushed by a few members to the private list? I think that is contrary to the reason we have a public list, and to our stated commitment to develop policy openly and transparently. I am moving it back to the public list where it belongs. I attach a redline with suggestions for improvement and accuracy in Marilyn's redraft. It requires changes, or at least a formal policy process per our Charter if she is going to maintain some of her stated positions. The major issues I see with this, at this point: 1. The BC has never discussed or recommended any sort of "block list" policy, and this would be a major policy recommendation that must go through the policy development procedures in Section 7 of the BC Charter <http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm> . The implementation of such a policy across all TLDs would be unfathomable. As you state it, United can go and prevent anyone from registering United in any TLD? (Um, "which United". one might ask.) Oh, and lucky for Siemens, they own 'MUSIC' as a registered trademark for hearing aids in the USA since 1997! ICANN has already given away new TLD operators' rights to use any country name, ICANN's trademarks, etc., for absolutely no logical reason. Now you want the BC to propose that all words that are registered trademarks anywhere in the world can be blocked by any holder of any such registration, across every new TLD in the world? At minimum, this will require more thoughtful, and formal, written policy development per our Charter. You can't just throw this skeletal and dubious proposal into a letter to the Board, merely because you and a few other members like the idea. Particularly while giving the membership just one holiday weekend to consider your idea?! There is no rush to get such a position developed, if that is what the membership wants to do, but I suspect the idea will die fairly quickly once people think for a moment about the implications. 2. Your statement about Community Priority should restate the position we have agreed upon in prior, formally developed policy positions on this issue. Specifically, we have recommended lessening the CPE passing score from 12 to 11 points. We have never discussed giving 'brands' any priority over other applicants, unless somehow they can qualify as a community-based applicant. Again the practical implementation of such a policy is unfathomable, given that almost every single word imaginable is registered somewhere as a trademark, or otherwise used as a 'brand' by someone, somewhere. 3. The BC has never proposed a centralized URS service, and I don't know what you mean by this. Instead we have expected it to operate similar to the UDRP, with several accredited providers, and we suggest ICANN have a contract with all providers. So that proposal needs to come out. 4. Agreed with URS transfer option, as we have long agreed in our written policy positions, but why are we now suggesting an additional fee to trademark owners? Again this seems like a new and unhelpful idea that has not been properly discussed, so that proposal should come out. 5. We should reiterate our call for the TMC to include "brand + keyword" and brand typosquats, as we have previously agreed in prior written policy documents. That would be the single biggest help to trademark owners and businesses, and could be easily achievable as there really is no downside consequence from additional notices going out to applicants for domain registration. I hope everyone has a happy new year, it is regretful that some in the BC leadership are so urgently pushing new proposals to us at this point in time. I frankly don't see the urgency, unless someone is hoping to delay the new TLD application window from opening, as scheduled for more than six months now. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:53 AM To: bc-private icann.org Subject: [Bc-private] URGENT - redrafted letter from officers to ICANN Board re improvements in the new gTLD program Dear BC members -- although it is a holiday period, I must ask that you focus on the redraft of the improvements document which has been circulating on the bc-private list. I have edited the earlier version of the improvements, added in accurate WHOIS at the request of a member, and a reference to not sending 'brands' or NGO or charitable gTLD string applicants into auctions. This was called to my attention by an applicant for BC membership that has just began to learn about ICANN. The significant addition is the do not register/registry block service, which is modeled after the IFFOR .XXX service in many ways. It is challenging to consider defensive registrations costs and UDRP costs across potentially hundreds of new gTLDs, a single cross all gTLD block on a number of names associated with trademarks will at least lower the defensive registration burden somewhat. I proposed a three year period, followed by an assessment. In order to have impact, this really needs to be sent out Tuesday, January 3. The letter is silent on a delay, but does recognize that many global businesses are highly concerned, and that the BC has consistently tried to get improvements to the program. Some are expensive to ICANN, but all are achievable improvements. I incorporated the request to express support for multi stakeholder nature of ICANN raised by a couple of members.

2 2

Trade Mark Clearing House
by Chris Chaplow 29 Dec '11

29 Dec '11

Hi there, I notice that section 3.2 the TMC is only for Word Marks not design marks. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-clean-12nov 10-en.pdf Currently design marks are accepted by registry in sunrise applications. I use them for a number of clients. I am not sure why design marks are not included in TMC, perhaps Zahid who was on the IRT would remember. Does this have implications for any other BC member? This must reduce the impact of the TMC best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.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)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

ICANN Assets $100M and Growing
by Phil Corwin 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111221_icann_publishes_its_annual_report_re… 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

1 0

FW: NYTimes Calls for Slowdown of New gTLD Program
by Phil Corwin 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

FYI--- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?a… ________________________________ December 25, 2011 Expanding Internet Domains Come January, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers plans to allow businesses, nonprofits and others to apply for their own “top-level domain” with their own online suffix, like the familiar .com and .org suffixes that now rule the Internet. Icann, the nonprofit that manages the Internet’s address system, says increasing the number of top-level domains will ease crowding and create opportunities for businesses to connect with consumers. For instance, Canon plans to buy .canon to put its Web sites in one spot and the American Bankers Association is reportedly considering .bank, where banks could offer secure online banking. But a plethora of new suffixes is just as likely to cause confusion for consumers and enable malefactors to use the new arenas for deception. Icann expects 500 to 1,000 applications in next year’s 90-day application window. Before it approves any of them, it needs to slow down and put in place better safeguards against consumer fraud. The expansion of top domains could be costly for businesses, which might have to buy new domains (Icann is charging $185,000 per application) to protect their brands from fraudsters making money by squatting on brands. The Web is full of sites that masquerade as legitimate companies to sell pirated goods or steal consumers’ financial information. Fraudsters avoid detection by registering their sites using proxy services and false identities. The administrators of the online address system — Icann, the registries that operate suffixes like VeriSign, and agents like GoDaddy that sell Internet addresses to the public — are doing a terrible job curbing fraud. A recent Icann report acknowledged that the system to identify Web site owners “is broken and needs to be repaired.” Icann says it will increase security in the new domains, including thorough background checks of all applicants. There will be a clearinghouse for owners of trademarks, who would get first dibs on domains connected to their brand. If anybody but the Coca-Cola Company applied for .coke, he or she would have to prove a legitimate, non-infringing reason to run it. And there would be a “rapid takedown” procedure to close infringing domains. But companies will still have to spend a lot on defense, registering domains to avoid squatting on their brands and keeping an eye out for potentially infringing Web sites across hundreds of new suffixes. And Icann’s current inability to deal with abusive domain name registrations undermines confidence in its ability to address the risks of this vast expansion. The Federal Trade Commission is rightly urging<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm> Icann to require that registries and registrars be able to verify the identity of owners of all domains that have a commercial purpose, and to impose meaningful penalties for those who break the rules. There is no pressing need to create hundreds of new suffixes next year. It would be far better for Icann to start with a pilot program to work out problems before expanding the system. 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

2 3