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

Update on ICANN Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDs - will discuss during BC call today
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2011

Feb. 17, 2011

FOR DISCUSSION DURING TODAY'S CALL: Update on ICANN Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDsby JAMIE HEDLUND on FEBRUARY 16, 2011We wanted to provide some additional information on the work being carried out by ICANN’s Board of Directors and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to prepare for their upcoming meeting in Brussels on the new gTLD program.As detailed in our recent announcements and blog, the Board and the GAC will hold a joint workshop to discuss the GAC’s concerns regarding the proposed implementation of the new gTLD program. Following the workshop, it is anticipated that the Board and GAC will meet for a bylaws-triggered consultation.The Board, ICANN staff and the GAC are working diligently to understand the GAC’s concerns and identify the areas of disagreement and possible solutions. Substantial preparatory work has been done, including the appointment of “issue leads” for the topics raised in the GAC’s Cartagena Communiqué, exchanges of draft issue papers and joint conference call discussions. The papers will be published prior to the meeting.Most ICANN Board Members and a strong contingent of GAC representatives are expected to attend.In addition to the Brussels consultation, the bylaws-defined consultation will take place on 17 March, the day before the Silicon Valley–San Francisco Board Meeting. Because of the timing of the bylaws consultation, the Board will not approve or announce the new gTLD program at that Board Meeting.The timing and substance of any subsequent Board actions on the new gTLD program will depend on the outcome of the bylaws consultation.Stay tuned for further updates on the logistics and agenda for the Brussels meeting.ShareT http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/update-on-icann-boardgac-consultation-on-new-…

1 0

GNSO Council meeting Agenda 24 February 2011
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 12, 2011

Feb. 12, 2011

Dear BC members: Please note the following information regarding the GNSO Council's agenda for 24 Feb 2011. The BC will hold a pre Council discussion, as announced by Chris Chaplow, on 17 February, 2011, which will address these topics and other priority issues/topics. Chris will post the agenda for the BC members call. At present, we are expecting to have a 30 minute discussion on a topic of high priority to BC members; then a 40+ minutes on the Council agenda, and a 10 minute update on the GAC/Board meetingin Brussels, and 5 minutes on the agenda for the S.F. meeting. On the DSSA-WG, several BC members have volunteered. The list shown on this email is not inclusive of all BC volunteers. Marilyn CadeBC Chair ======================================================================================= Council meeting Agenda 24 February 2011 FYIAgenda for GNSO Council Meeting 24 February 2011. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htmPlease consult the Wiki page for the latest updates: Wiki link: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_24_february_2011 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdfFor convenience:* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.Meeting Time 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time:15:00 UTC - see below for local times (07:00 Los Angeles, 10:00 Washington DC, 15:00 London, 16:00 Brussels, Friday 25 February 00:00 Tokyo; 02:00 Melbourne 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.m3uItem 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest • Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding “any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party’s judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion” in this meeting. Here is the definition provided in the procedures:“Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue.”The main issues for this meeting are: GNSO Project Decision Making GNSO Improvements Registration Abuse PoliciesDNS Security and Stability WhoisCross Community Working Groups New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 3 February 2011 Council minutes – Approved on 22 February 2011. Item 2: Pending Projects – Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group (IRTP Part B) (15 minutes) Update on Working Group's progress. Working Group (WG) was started on April 16, 2009. WG is chaired by Michele Neylon. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf.2.1: Update on WG – Michele Neylon, WG Chair. 2.2: Discussion 2.3: Next steps Item 3: Operations Steering Committee (OSC) (20 Minutes) 3.1 Approval of amended Council procedures - 5.10 statements of interestRefer to motion https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_february_motions (motion 1)DiscussionVote 3.2 Updating OSC Recommendation for Proxies in the GNSO Operating ProceduresBill Drake has volunteered to lead Update (Bill Drake)DiscussionNext steps 3.3 Proposed GNSO Working Group GuidelinesSee resolution 13 Jan meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101 See public comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary & analysis provided by staffDiscuss next steps - in light of comments received, should GNSO Working Guidelines be adopted or are further modifications required? If further modifications are required, should these be made by the GNSO Council, or should the comments be referred back to the PPSC for consideration? Item 4 : Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (10 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. 4.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair 4.2 Discussion4.3 Next steps? Item 5: WHOIS studies (20 minutes) A new WHOIS studies report has been posted <insert link>. This includes the staff analysis on the last of the 4 WHOIS studies that the Council asked staff to scope for cost and feasibility (this is the study on "Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal"). The Council must now decide which of the remaining 3 studies (Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal study) staff should initiate. 5.1 Update on WHOIS studies (Liz Gasster) 5.2 Discussion Item 6: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (10 minutes) At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG). Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf Current GNSO volunteers: • Zahid Jamil (CBUC) • Scott McCormick (CBUC) • Mikey O'Connor (CBUC) • George Asare-Sakyi (NCSG) • Rafik Dammak (NCSG) • Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG)) • Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG) • Greg Aaron (Afilias, RySG) • Keith Drazek (Verisign, RySG) 6.1 Update from WG (Julie Hedlund) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG. Item 7: Discussion on Community Working Groups (15 minutes) Several Community Working Groups (CWG) have been started recently. How should the GNSO approach such groups? Current CWG in which the GNSO is involved are: 7.1 Discussion. Item 8: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (10 minutes) Refer to motion passed during 3 February meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102 More specifically, Resolve clause 1: RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource  requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN  Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner. 8.1 Feedback from ICANN Compliance Staff. 8.2 Discussion RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. 8.3 Staff update, expected delivery date for Issues Report (XXX). RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests 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. 8.4 Staff update, expected delivery date for Discussion Paper (XXX) Item 9: Any Other Business (10 Minutes)9.1 Update from Staff on goals, expected outcomes and organization of GAC/Board February meeting in Brussels (Staff). 9.2 Status of San Francisco planning (Olga Cavalli).Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4)Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election.The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-8+0DST 07:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+0DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+0DST 10:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Moscow, Russian Federation UTC+3+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing, China UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 00:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 02:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Please let me know if you have any questions.Thank you.Kind regards,Glen Glen de Saint GéryGNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org

1 0

BC Members Call - Thursday 17th February at 10.00 EST
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please note the next Members call will be to discuss issues raised in the next GNSO council call. Members call Thursday 17th February at 10.00 EST The next Council Call will be on the 24th February 2010 and Agenda will be published on 16th February. http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Call details and more detailed agenda to follow. Best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andaluciaws.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

FW: URGENT -- Please read the note from me below: solicitation of volunteers for DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group/appointment of one BC member to own BC position
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 8, 2011

Members: This is a URGENT reminder of the opportunity to volunteer to be considered as a volunteer for the DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group. This has been on the ICANN websites for some time, and we have had a designated represenatative, Scott McCormick, on the drafting term for the Charter, appointed by the ExComm, in keeping with our BC Charter for such designated representatives. Scott has agreed to continue as the designated BC representative, who will commit to the time commitment and own the representation of the BC's formal positions and concerns as a member of the WG. The ExComm has accepted that and will so designate him. Thanks to Scott for all his earlier hard work, and for agreeing to continue. Send your information as instructed by the email below -- to Julie Hedlund -- julie.hedlund(a)icann.org. If you would be so kind as to advise the ExComm that you are volunteering, that would be appreciated and we will also keep in touch with Julie. [You can send any such communications to excomm(a)bizconst.org and will reach the officers and councilors.] Individuals have to nominate themselves to be considered. The deadline says tomorrow. I want to explain the situation in more detail. It is a little confusing and is different from other WGs. TIME TO VOLUNTEER: YOU SHOULD DO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, but in all cases by the end of this week. Do it earlier if you can. I called Julie and asked for an extension until the end of the week. The announcement pasted below is from the earlier postings of the invitation/notice from Julie Hedlund, which I am told was shared with community earlier. The original deadline of January 17 is long past. The deadline you are addressing is by end of this week, but earlier if you can. WHAT YOU ARE VOLUNTEERING AS : You are volunteering to be considered as a member if you meet the criteria established in the Charter/which is attached and which is described below. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE GROUP'S WORK: It isn't quite clear how its work will then be reported into any of the three chartering SO groups: GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC. That will be a further topic of discussion, but it is an important group to the BC's interests. I did discuss this with Julie and that will be further developed as the group is formed. There will be three chairs. Each group of volunteers from the three chartering groups : GNSO and ccNSO and ALAC would determine within their own 'members' who volunteer who would be the chair that they contribute to the co chairing. That will mean getting elected by your peers from within the GNSO, as far as I can determine. The Chair will have a heavier work load than the members, as would be expected. WORK LOAD: This group overall is going to discuss fairly complex and often technical aspects and will carry a pretty heavy and demanding work load. Keep that in mind when you submit your request to volunteer to the working group. One of Scott's functions will be to keep the broader BC up to date on the progress and focus of the group, so that there is feedback from a designated BC representative and to advance the official positions of the BC on this topic as they are developed. This is an internal designation and will not affect consideration of any other member who volunteers. The decision for all participants will be made based on their submitted statements. SIZE OF GROUP: There is no information on the size of the group/at some point, it may become closed to new additions. INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS OF SSR INSIDE THE BC: These will be continuing inside the BC so that a BC position(s) can be developed. That is work in progress. All BC members will of course be appraised of that discussion as it is scheduled. Marilyn Cade, Chair, on behalf of the ExComm ================================================================================================ > Dear members of the GNSO Community, > > This is the final reminder for Volunteers for DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group. > Please respond no later than COB 9 February 2011. > > As you may recall, the GNSO Council has adopted the charter of the Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA WG). The objective of this working group is to: > > .examine the level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS; > .the current efforts and activities to mitigate these threats; and > .identify possible gaps in the current security response to DNS issues. > The Charter is available at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15nov10-en.htm > > As this charter was also adopted by the ALAC and ccNSO and is in the process of being adopted by the NRO, we are now calling for volunteers from the GNSO community to join the DSSA WG. > > If you would like to become a member of the DSSA WG, please note that following membership criteria apply: > > 1) You should have knowledge or expertise of the objectives of the DSSA Working Group as referenced in the charter. > > 2) You should be prepared to actively participate in the activities of the working group on an ongoing and long-term basis. > > 3) You should be prepared, if required, to sign a a Formal Affirmation of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure paper (see Annex B of Charter) and/or a Non-Disclosure Agreement. The WG might want to set up a sub-working group to access confidential or proprietary information. If you want to participate in such a sub-working group you will most likely be be required to sign one or both of the aforementioned agreements in order to ensure access to and protection of confidential information. > > If you are interested in joining this Working Group, we also need a Statement of Interest, containing the following information: > > .Current vocation, employer and position > .Type of work performed > .Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in that are interested parties in DSSA related topics. > .Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in DSSA related topics. Are you representing other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your nomination/selection as a work team member. > .DSSA Working Group members are expected to demonstrate knowledge or expertise aspects of the objectives of the DSSA Working Group. Please, identify any knowledge, expertise or experience you have that would be relevant to the work of the DSSA Working Group. > .Describe any tangible or intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such processes, for example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your position to advance your ability to participate, this should be a part of the statement of interest, just as should employment by an organisation that has an interest in DNSSA Working Group outcomes. > The Statement of Interest will be posted on the DSSA Working Group website. > > If you are interested in joining the DSSA Working Group, please let me have your statement by the 17 January 2011, at the latest. If you have any questions about the DSSA WG, please contact Julie Hedlund, Policy Director, at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org. > >

1 0

IMPORTANT: GAC-Board meeting: need to rsvp to ICANN for attendance on site /Reminder that we may need to vote on BC statements/possible BC members 'gathering'
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 8, 2011

Please see an important announcement pasted below. ICANN updated this late last week, and it just came to my attention late last night. Apologies that I didn't catch it earlier. Others may have. The new news is required RSVP, with proof of travel somehow shown. I have a call into ICANN staff to verify how this will work. I am planning on attending, and I think that Steve DelBianco is also planning to travel. Other members may be as well. There will not be a guarantee of seats, it appears. I will do my best to find out how much room there is, however. As you all will recall from the BC call with members, Steve and I and others will be working on a document which summarizes the present BC positions against the GAC/Board discussion topics. Where we do not have a position and it seems advisable to do so, we will use a shortened voting period. The ExComm does believe that would only be necessary in one or two instances, but we won't know until we see the GAC and Board discussion papers. I have asked for the Constituency Chairs or their designees to be designated 'experts' to respond to questions about formalized positions of the individual constituencies. That would allow the BC's views to be heard regarding the items of priority to the full BC. I also want to have a brief gathering of BC members from the Brussels area and those who travel while we are there. One of our members located in Brussels has volunteered space, so stay tuned for further details on what seems feasible on that front. We may also want to invite some business guests who may be prospective members to drinks or breakfast, and Chris and I will work on whether that seems doable, depending on who from the BC is actually in Brussels at that time/dates. Updated: ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs Updated: 2 February 2011 21 January 2011 RSVP to Attend ICANN Board-GAC Meeting in Brussels A message to those who wish to attend the ICANN Board-GAC Meeting in Brussels on 28 Feb-1 Mar. If you wish to attend as an observer the upcoming meeting of the ICANN's Board and the GAC to discuss new gTLDs [see below], please RSVP by sending an email to GAC-BoardRSVP(a)icann.org no later than 8 February 2011. Space in the room is limited and we don't wish to have people traveling and find there is no space for them to attend. Therefore it was necessary to come up with a limited procedure for seat allocation. If the number of RSVPs exceeds the amount of available seating, ICANN staff will allocate the seating in an equitable manner. To ensure maximum attendance, those whose RSVPs are confirmed will need to submit a copy of an airline ticket, hotel reservation or other indication of their intent to attend in person. As previously announced, the meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the meeting. Please note that in addition to the open plenary sessions, smaller meetings focused on specific issues may also take place and may be closed to non-participants. If they occur, those in these smaller meetings will report on their work during the open plenary sessions. During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts – Kunstberg, Brussels. The purpose of the meeting is to: Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") advice and the current implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook. Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either: arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process. The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will also be made available. Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. Details of the agenda and logistics will be made available closer to the meeting. Background ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) plays a key role within ICANN, particularly with regard to providing advice to the Board on public policy issues. The GAC has been actively involved in the discussions on the introduction of new gTLDs and has regularly provided advice to the ICANN Board on a number of issues, which the Board has sought to address. The most recent GAC communiqué [PDF, 45 KB] identified a number of issues associated with the introduction of new gTLDs that the GAC considers outstanding, or unresolved to the GAC's satisfaction. The new gTLD program has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN community. In October 2007, following more than 18 months of community discussions, the GNSO formally completed its policy development work on new gTLDS and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations. In June 2008, ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the policy recommendations and directed staff to commence work on an implementation plan. The first version of the Applicant Guidebook was posted for public comment on 1 October 2008, and since that time a further four versions have followed with the most recent, the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook published on 10 November 2010. Each version has been revised as a result of comments received via the respective public comment fora. The ICANN meeting in Cartagena provided the platform for discussion of the latest version, and provided an opportunity for the Board to hear first hand, the community's views.

2 1

Report on RAP Resolutions in the 3rd Feb 2011 GNSO Council meeting
by Zahid Jamil Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

Dear Members, Report on the GNSO Council RAP WG Resolutions Today the GNSO Council passed the resolutions below wrt the RAP WG/RAP-IDT Reports. The Council Chair had suggested that each Resolved should be voted on separately In discussions Steve Del Bianco had with Jeff Neuman (Registry) support was obtained for my amendments to the Council motion and some additional language on best practices. Separately I reaching out to the NCSG’s Mary Wong (NCSG) proved helpful and we were able to agree on language that led to support of the NCSG Councillors. The quid pro quo for the NCSG voting in favour of all BC amendments was that BC would not vote down any of the resolved(s). In the Council meeting, the process was met with enormous opposition by the Registrars and in particular my observation was that Stephane, in his role as Chair, favoured an interpretation of the operating procedures to the effect that the proposed Resolutions would be simply taken off the table since one of the proposers Tim Ruiz (Registrar) had decided to withdraw his support as a seconder – this was despite advice from the ICANN General Counsel stating that the resolution could be sponsored by other councillors. Alternatively, the Chair was favouring a delay and deferral of the vote since the allotted time was running out – filibuster. I must mention that the support of Jeff Neuman, Mary Wong and in Staff Margie and Marika to what effectively was my Resolution on behalf of the BC was invaluable. Eventually, the Registrars accepted, with a few amendments, the Resolutions and all Resolutions were passed unanimously. Disappointment: A disappointing compromise by all on the call with the Registrars of calling the Issues Report in Resolved 3 ‘discussion papers’. Positive Outcomes: All recommendations of the RAP WG have been passed by the Council. The list of RAP Recommendations added as the 4th Resolved, which several members on the last call had suggested should be included have been specifically mentioned and we should now work on strategy for implementation. There was much common ground amongst the Registry, NCSG, CSG for passing the Resolutions on the Council viz-avis the attempt to block the resolutions by the Registrars. All parts of the motion passed unanimously. The motion as passed is below: Motion in response to the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) final report. Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf),%E2%80…> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed  approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report, and Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf) and Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena. RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource  requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN  Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner. RESOLVED #2, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider: * How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.  * Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.  The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed. RESOLVED #3, the GNSO Council requests 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. This effort should consider (but not be limited the following subjects: * Practices for identifying stolen credentials * Practices for identifying and investigating common forms of malicious use (such as malware and phishing) * Creating anti-abuse terms of service for possible inclusion in Registrar-Registrant agreements by registrars who adopt them, and for use by TLD operators who adopt them. * Identifying compromised/hacked domains versus domain registered by abusers * Practices for suspending domain names * Account access security management * Security resources of use or interest to registrars and registries * Survey registrars and registries to determine practices being used, and their adoption rates. RESOLVED #4 (As proposed by Zahid Jamil): Resolved, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to add the remaining RAP Recommendations to the GNSO Project List so that the GNSO Council can keep track of the remaining recommendations and address these as appropriate. These remaining RAP Recommendations are: · WHOIS Access – Recommendation #1: The GNSO should determine what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion. The GNSO Council should consider how such might be related to other WHOIS efforts, such as the upcoming review of WHOIS policy and implementation required by ICANN’s new Affirmation of Commitments. · Uniformity of Contracts: View A: The RAPWG recommends the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. View B: Opposed to the recommendation for an Issues Report as expressed in view A · Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #1: Rough Consensus: Make no recommendation. The majority of RAPWG members expressed that gripe site and offensive domain names that use trademarks should be addressed in the context of cybersquatting and the UDRP for purposes of establishing consistent registration abuse policies in this area, and that creating special procedures for special classes of domains, such as offensive domain names, may present problems. Alternate view: The URDP should be revisited to determine what substantive policy changes, if any, would be necessary to address any inconsistencies relating to decisions on “gripe” names and to provide for fast track substantive and procedural mechanisms in the event of the registration of deceptive domain names that mislead adults or children to objectionable sites. · Cybersquatting – Recommendation #2: View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space. View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space. · Fake Renewal Notices – Recommendation #2 – conditional on #1: The following recommendation is conditional. The WG would like to learn the ICANN Compliance Department’s opinions regarding Recommendation #1 above, and the WG will further discuss Recommendation 2 looking forward to the WG’s Final Report. The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate fake renewal notices. · Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support structured, funded mechanisms for the collection and maintenance of best practices. · Cross-TLD Registration Scam: The RAPWG recommends the GNSO monitor for Cross-TLD registration scam abuse in the gTLD space and co-ordinate research with the community to determine the nature and extent of the problem. The WG believes this issue warrants review but notes there is not enough data at this time to warrant an Issues Report or PDP. · Meta Issue - Uniformity of Reporting: The RAPWG recommends that the GNSO, and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes. · Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names – Recommendation #2: View A: Turn down a proposed recommendation that registries develop best practices to restrict the registration of offensive strings. View B: Registries should consider developing internal best practice policies that would restrict the registration of offensive strings in order to mitigate the potential harm to consumers and children. · Domain Kiting / Tasting: It is unclear to what extent domain kiting happens, and the RAPWG does not recommend policy development at this time. The RAPWG suggests that the Council monitor the issue (in conjunction with ongoing reviews of domain-tasting), and consider next steps if conditions warrant. 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.

4 5

FW: ICANN chair expects more new TLDs delay
by Phil Corwin Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

http://domainincite.com/icann-chair-expects-more-new-tlds-delay/ ICANN chair expects more new TLDs delay<http://domainincite.com/icann-chair-expects-more-new-tlds-delay/> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, February 3, 2011, 10:55:21 (UTC), Domain Registries<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registries/> ICANN's new top-level domains program is unlikely to be approved at its San Francisco meeting next month, according to chairman Peter Dengate Thrush. "We don't think we'll be able to approve the final applicant guidebook in March," he said in a new interview with World Trademark Review<http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=62470E83-F9B8-4921-…>. This confirms my suspicion<http://domainincite.com/governments-to-take-trademark-concerns-to-icann/> that changes to the Guidebook made following the upcoming meeting between ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee may be too extensive for ICANN to rubber-stamp without first consulting the community. The ICANN board and the GAC are due to meet<http://domainincite.com/details-of-icanns-government-showdown-emerge/> in Brussels, February 28 and March 1, to discuss the GAC's outstanding concerns. Chief among these concerns is trademark protection, where the GAC is pretty much aligned with the interests of the intellectual property constituency. Brussels will also cover matters such as geographic names protection and procedures for dealing with controversial strings<http://domainincite.com/us-wants-veto-power-over-new-tlds/> that governments may want to object to. While ICANN is under no obligation to adopt the GAC's suggestions wholesale, if it makes substantial concessions its bylaws will likely demand more public comment on the changes. ICANN's board indicated last week that it plans to tell the GAC where it disagrees with its advice at a consultation March 17, one day before its San Francisco meeting. It also said that it plans to approve a Guidebook<http://domainincite.com/breaking-icann-sets-march-deadline-for-new-tlds/> "as close as practically possible to the form as set out in the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook" published in November. UPDATE: I had an opportunity to put Dengate Thrush's comments to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom this afternoon. He said: "I'm not going to forecast when the final Applicant Guidebook will be approved." Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 0

CircleID Article on USG's Proposed Scorecard
by Phil Corwin Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

BC members should be aware that I have posted an article regarding the USG's proposed "scorecard" at http://www.circleid.com/posts/us_scorecard_for_brussels_draconian_trademark… Those who agree or disagree with any part (or all) of it should feel free to post comments at the Circle ID website, as well as on this list. Two comments have already been posted since it was posted this afternoon. Regards to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

3 4

Re: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Without any prejudice on any topic, some stuff belongs off list. :-) There are over 50 members in BC and we need to reflect a respect for what is best (eg: clearly a BC general issue) and what is best done bilaterally. Mike, I think that was what you intended/ you were offering to forward client materials to I party, not the full BC. Thanks. Marilyn Cade BC Chair Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Matkowsky Jonathan <Jonathan.Matkowsky(a)LasVegasSands.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:35:49 To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs I wanted to also follow up on the issue of bona fide intent, and whether if there are competing applicants, all would have a bona fide intent to use that mark. While it has always been true that intent has to be more than a hope or a wish, the intent can be an external contingency. Jonathan Matkowsky From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:37 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs Thanks for clarifying. My client's applications were refused by the Examining Attorney, and now are on appeal before the TTAB (still within the PTO). I'll forward you some materials. Use in commerce of a mark in connection with domain registration services can and has occurred without regard to ICANN, therefore a bona fide intent to supply those services need not involve ICANN. To the extent they are relevant, ICANN registry contracts are designed to ensure continuity of registry operations upon termination. So trademark rights should be assigned to the successor registry operator who is continuing to supply services under that TLD string/brand. I see no fundamental reason to ignore the fact that TLDs do function as indicators of source for the registry services provided by that TLD operator. The trademark laws protect colors, sounds, shapes, etc.,. so I would like to understand the logic behind any argument to deny trademark protection to TLD strings. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:03 PM To: 'icann(a)rodenbaugh.com'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs Mike, I make no judgments about your particular clients, am not familiar with the facts surrounding their application and would be happy to see the briefing materials you prepared for the TTAB. I assume this means that your client's application received a final refusal from the PTO? If someone is offering services not related to registry services, I agree this may be a different story. Perhaps the TTAB will opine on this legal issue, but I don't think it's possible to have "bona fide intent to use" a mark when the underlying contract to operate the services under that name have not yet been awarded to you. You -- and other competitive bidders -- may all have a bona fide *hope* that you'll receive such rights, but I don't think your bona fide intent to use can begin until the period until you're actually awarded the contract by ICANN up until the time you start actual use in commerce. Regarding your idea that ICANN simply amend its contract to require registries to disavow their trademark rights after cancellation of their contract, I think it's simpler for the contract to prohibit trademark registrations in the first place, at least for the registry services supplied under the contract. "Disavowing" trademark rights after the fact means the registry must either assign trademark rights to ICANN (do we really want ICANN owning these marks?) or a third party, both of which may be difficult for ICANN to enforce, or abandoning the trademark rights, which is not a great idea from a trademark policy perspective. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:25 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs Sarah, some further facts for your consideration. ICANN is not the only operator of TLDs, or of domain name registration providers. Registries can and do offer many other services under their TLD string/brand, other than domain registration services. Sometimes several applicants do each have a bona fide intention to use the same trademark in US commerce, even for the same services. This is surely a big reason we have an "intent to use" filing system in the US. I am not aware of any TMEP rule going anywhere near so far as you would interpret it with respect to TLDs as trademarks, and Berry has cited many examples of contrary PTO practice. These issues are thoroughly briefed before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board in the US now, pending a hearing and a decision with respect to my client TheDot Communications Network LLC and its application to register the ".music" trademark. I would appreciate further comments once you have reviewed some of that briefing, and would appreciate you refraining from suggestions of perjury and bad faith, unless you become aware of the background facts and then have an informed opinion. Re your fear that ICANN would cancel a registry contract, that seems a simple matter to require, as a condition of the contract, that upon termination the applicant shall disavow any trademark rights in the TLD string/brand, at least with respect to domain registration services and ancillary services not offered by the applicant prior to the application. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Deutsch, Sarah B [mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:25 PM To: 'Matkowsky, Jonathan'; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs You can't "acquire distinctiveness" in a trademark you neither own nor use. And when you apply now at the PTO, this is for a registry name that has not even been awarded to you by ICANN. The TLD program has not yet started. ICANN has not yet reviewed any applications or determined who is best positioned to run a registry. If there are competing applicants, do all applicants have a "bona fide" intent to use that mark? Applying for exclusive rights in a trademark in advance of the TLD program seems like a form of TLD front running. For generic terms especially, it's important that registries serve a fiduciary duty to the public. If for compliance or other reasons, ICANN winds up terminating their contracts, they would own exclusive nationwide or global trademarks, which may prevent or conflict with a third party who takes over their operations. This outcome would be exactly the opposite of ICANN's stated intent to encourage innovation and competition. Again, unless you own a prior trademark registration for services or products unrelated to the registry services, to me this is bad policy. Re: Berry's question, the PTO examiners are often inconsistent and sometimes marks will register despite the PTO's rules against it. I would think that marks that have been registered for "registry" type services are at risk for cancellation if someone should choose to challenge them. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ---------------- From: Matkowsky, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Matkowsky@LasVegasSands.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:36 PM To: Deutsch, Sarah B; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure states that if the TLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, registration should be refused on the ground that the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services. Merely descriptive marks can still acquire distinctiveness and become recognized as trademarks. There is common use of ".com" to refer to Internet businesses. You can find "dot-com advertising" in some dictionaries. So it doesn't pass the familiar "who-are-you/what-are-you" test. That will hopefully not be the case as Mike points out, the new TLD program is supposed to encourage innovation and competitive new uses of the DNS. Even when it comes to the addition of a TLD indicator to a descriptive term, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized the possibility of a distinctive mark. Jonathan Matkowsky From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:26 AM To: 'icann(a)rodenbaugh.com'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs I'd like to differ on a couple of points. I don't think it's difficult to determine what is a brand. Brands are trademarks. Ownership of a federal trademark registration and other global trademark registrations are not only proof of a "brand" but confer nationwide exclusive rights to use that mark for the goods and services in the application. However, I would distinguish that the "brand" be a trademark that is registered and used for goods and services unrelated to registry services. The mark should be used in commerce for unrelated goods and services well before that brand ever gets awarded a TLD. It's my understanding that the BC has long opposed the idea that a TLD alone can become a brand -- only an existing trademark, such as CANON for cameras could be recognized as a brand TLD. BTW, it's my understanding that certain TLD applicants are inappropriately trying to lock up trademark rights in their "brands" at the PTO before ICANN has even awarded them a contract to operate the TLD. Whether ICANN awards them a contract or not, the PTO has rule that in the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure confirming that registry services alone are not registrable as trademarks. When you apply for a trademark registration, you need to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that you either have a bona fide intent to use the mark or have rights to use the mark in commerce. I don't see how anyone can sign this declaration in good faith given the fact that ICANN has not yet considered their application, several may be applying for the same TLD and the PTO's rule that such services are unregistrable. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 12:27 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs I generally support Berry's comments too. I appreciate the effort to devise clear rules. I offer a few more thoughts fwiw. I have argued that all TLDs are in fact brands of their registries, as by definition they are indicators of source of the registry service. Also I can envision lots of companies, including current registrars and registries, who might benefit from the SRSU model as Berry exemplifies it. I envision that many of them who essentially will allow use of domains to the public (i.e. to all Facebook members, in Berry's example) would have robust content-monitoring systems, and would see benefit to exercising quality control over how all domains within the TLD are used. The 'types' of TLDs that could employ models like this may extend well beyond what we think of 'dotBrands' today (i.e. .canon and .facebook). So long as the TLD operator is ultimately responsible as the registrant as well as the 'registration authority', from the BC's perspective these models should be encouraged. But these models may be disruptive to the status quo in ICANNland, and so did not get very far in the Vertical Integration working group. With the Board's resolution on VI, it seemed that the SRSU and other innovative models were being encouraged. Yet now some elements of the "Code of Conduct" are being proposed as a tool to essentially restrict business models like SRSU, in favor of the incumbent ICANN contracting parties and those who have designed their TLD models around the status quo. The BC should fight against that, as our support of the newTLD program has always been founded on the innovative, competitive new uses of the DNS that are envisioned (and those that have not been envisioned). Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska(a)nokia.com Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:30 AM To: berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs Dear all, Just wanted to express my support for Berry's definition of a Single Registrant TLD. In my opinion this is a simple enough (and probably the only feasible) way to define such a thing. BR, -jr From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Berry Cobb Sent: 28. tammikuuta 2011 2:12 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs Thank you Steve for updating the BC. Adding to Steve's points...... The reason ICANN Staff, experienced Registry Operators, & some other stakeholders will not sign on for "carve outs" is because there is NO BRIGHT LINE DEFINTION FOR A BRAND. In the context of TLDs what is a BRAND? Is it because they are Fortune 1000 company? Do they own Trademarks in the USA or Europe? Do they earn over $2 billion dollars a year in revenue? Where do we start to draw the line? If some sort of bright line exists, then please share. If it exists then I doubt we would see the pushback experienced today or during the VI WG. In my opinion, if the BC and IPC ever expect any headway regarding the "dot-brand" concept, then we MUST stop using "DOT-BRAND." Within my short ICANN career, one thing I've noticed is that a BRAND is a loaded and charged word among the community. If the BC supports "carve outs," then the case must be presented very specifically and using BRAND is not the way forward. Framing this concept should embrace the use of "Single Registrant" only. Notice how Single User & Multiple User is omitted? The main reason SRSU gained support during VI is only because of the Single Registrant component and it's limitations in how domains were registered and used. Anything beyond SRSU was poking a stick at a tiger. I remind everyone the reasoning for SRSU & SRMU is only because BRAND could not be defined. The following is how I view the possible scope of a "Single Registrant" TLD: · Any 2nd, 3rd, 4th,5th level domains registered are owned and operated only the by the entity that owns the TLD · All WHOIS information for registered 2nd level domains reflect the entity that owns the TLD · If the entity chooses to deploy content or allow use by others external to them, the entity is still responsible or liable for that domain and its content · The entity may register its own domains without equivalent access to other Registrars (RAA concepts should still be used, but ZERO registration fees to ICANN) · The entity may deploy and use its 2nd level domains how it sees fit and the Reserve Names list no longer applies · The entity can "warehouse" domains because it owns the domains · The entity is required to provide Zone File Access for monitoring and compliance · I am sure there are other elements to define the boundary here.. · Therefore, much of the Code of Conduct is meaningless to a "Single Registrant" TLD So, using the Cannon example from Steve below, the above "Single Registrant" concepts can satisfy the "carve outs" defined by the BC. If Cannon chose to register 2nd level domains to their customers, partners & vendors, but it is still designated as the Registrant, then the Single Registrant carve outs still apply. What about the Facebook use case? The one batted around most often is berrycobb.facebook. If Facebook chooses to register and supply me a domain and the defined "Registrant" remains as Facebook and Facebook is willing to take on the risk for the content I deploy on berrycobb.facebook, then I imagine the stakeholders listed above will probably not have much issue with "Single Registrant carve outs." This is the essence to "Single Registrant, Single User" concept. Conversely, any hope for consensus in VI quickly broke down with a use case for "Single Registrant Multiple Users." Using Facebook as an example again...if FB chose to allow me to register berrycobb.facebook, but instead I am designated as the Registrant, Facebook now competes head to head with other Registrars & Registries in the domain registration business. This is the crux of the debate. Where does one draw the line as Facebook being a social media "BRAND" vs. Facebook a social media "BRAND" that also chooses to register domains and compete in the domain market. If any exceptions or carve outs are given to FB because they are designated a "BRAND", then wouldn't other entities competing for the same registration dollar be at a competitive disadvantage because they are bound by the full extent of the Code of Conduct? Most will recall that I did not support the sections of the BC Position that called for these SR exceptions, because it did not provide a bright line solution for the community. Rather, it called for nebulous, self-serving, carve outs that only provided confusion. I hope we do not repeat the same mistake for future BC position statements. I'm starting to believe that no position is better than a half-baked one. With all this said however, I CAN support a "Single Registrant" concept, just not as we have it defined in our position today. There is no doubt that without some sort of designation for single registrant TLDs the Code of Conduct will certainly interfere with operations and may in fact deter some applications. The challenge is that the "Single Registrant" type of TLD is NOT defined in the Guidebook. Until it is, then any exceptions will not make the next AGB. I am willing to join a team of BC members to develop a specific proposal that not only benefits the BC, but benefits the entire community by relieving confusion. If we expect any momentum, the BC must come together and define a reasonable solution that ICANN Staff and Community can embrace. I am sure my fast-run scope definition above has several holes. So I welcome contributions to fill them. Gripes, complaints, & moans are also welcome if you feel I am way off base. Thank you, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com <mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com> http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:11 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs To: BC Members Re: ICANN Con call today regarding Registry Contracts I joined a large con call today hosted by ICANN, to discuss new gTLD registy agreement. (see description at bottom of this note) Berry Cobb and Jon Nevett were also on the call. When we got to the Registry Code of Conduct, ICANN staff mentioned they had received many comments on how this would or would not work for dot-brand registries. At that point I brought up the BC concerns expressed in our Guidebook comments filed 6-Dec in Cartagena. I used the example of Canon, since they have said they may pursue a dot-brand. I said Canon might want to operate its own Registrar and restrict registrations to its own operating divisions, like copiers.canon and cameras.canon And Canon might want to manage a big sub-domain of photographers using Canon cameras, like [name].photos.canon I said The Code of Conduct should not restrict dot-brands from using an owned or closely affiliated registrar to register and manage names that it controls. (e.g., for divisions, product lines, locations, customers, affiliates, etc. ) I gave the BC recommendation to insert this clause into the Registry Code of Conduct: 4. Nothing set forth in articles 1, 2, or 3 shall apply to a single-registrant ('dot brand') Registry Operator acting with respect to user data that is under its ownership and control, or with respect to conduct reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD. An experienced registry operator on the call said our 'carve out' would allow 'gaming' and abuse. (they say that a lot). ICANN Staff is very resistant to any 'carve-out' for dot-brands. They oppose any exception (or even a definition) for dot-brand. Craig Schwartz said ICANN didn't want to get in the business of monitoring Canon's copier business. ( I think that was the point of our recommendation - we don't want ICANN getting involved in how a dot-brand allocates registrations to entities it owns or controls) Will discuss more on our Monday call, I hope. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 Temporary Drafting Group Work Session on New gTLD Base Registry Agreement Issues – To Be Held 27 January 2011 <http://blog.icann.org/2011/01/temporary-drafting-group-work-session-on-new-…> by Craig Schwartz on January 14, 2011 The Temporary Drafting Group will hold a teleconference on 27 January 2011. The issues open for drafting/discussion during the call will include: · Suggestions for additional language for Specification 9 (the Registry Code of Conduct) · Proposed modifications to conditions related to the termination of a registry services agreement · Suggestions for clarifications to provision requiring advance notice of registry price increases · Concepts for continued registry operations instrument to provide continuity of services Results: This is not a formal public consultation, but is intended to inform drafting which might make up a later public consultation. Any results from the Temporary Drafting Group will be included in documents that will be posted for public comment. No results from the Group will necessarily be used in any agreement drafts, but inputs from the Group will be considered by the ICANN Staff in making recommendations relating to questions discussed or posed to the Group. Session: This third Temporary Drafting Group session will be held via teleconference on 27 January 2011 at 18.00 UTC (http://timeanddate.com/s/1xxz) and is scheduled to last for 120 minutes. Participation: The Temporary Drafting Group was formed in early 2010 and announced in a 28 April 2010 blog <http://blog.icann.org/2010/04/temporary-drafting-group-work-session-on-new-…> post. If you would like to participate, please submit your name to TDG-Legal(a)ICANN.org <mailto:TDG-Legal@ICANN.org> , and we will provide you with information for the call. [THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE OR REPLY BY E-MAIL AND THEN PROMPTLY DELETE THE MESSAGE. THANK YOU.] [THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR IS NOT THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE OR REPLY BY E-MAIL AND THEN PROMPTLY DELETE THE MESSAGE. THANK YOU.]

2 1