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

Policy Calendar for 17-Feb-2011 BC Member call
by Steve DelBianco 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

To: Business Constituency Members From: Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination Below is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during 17-Feb member call. (attachments are provided for Channel 4 below) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment processes: ICANN Public Comment page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ Selected Public Comments open at this time: (in order of comment closing dates) 1: Accountability & Transparency Review Team FINAL recommendations (14-Feb) http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-final-recommendations/index.html#00010 2: Proposed process for recognizing new Constituencies (4-Mar) 3: Interim report on internationalized registration data (14-Mar) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual or company comments on any topic. 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 Upcoming discussions & votes at 24-Feb GNSO Council meeting (15:00 UTC) Full agenda at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-24feb11-en.htm Item 4: proposed guidelines for working groups. Should they be adopted or posted for further comment? Item 5: Responding to Board resolution asking GNSO for definitions & metrics for AOC terms (consumer choice, consumer trust, and competition). Several BC members have volunteered. No outreach yet from Rosemary Sinclair. Item 6: WHOIS studies. Staff posted an analysis of "Privacy & Proxy Relay & Reveal". Council must decide which of remaining 3 studies (Registrant Identification, Proxy and Privacy "abuse" and this Relay and Reveal study) staff should initiate. (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-chart-11feb11-en.pdf) Item 7: update on Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group. Draft charter at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf Item 8: discussion of cross-community working groups Item 9: Staff feedback regarding Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) motion passed at 3-Feb meeting (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102 ) 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. 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. Council Working Groups: (see GNSO Project Status List as of 27-Jan-2011, at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) (SarahDeutsch ) Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (Board meetings, outreach events, public forum, etc.) Upcoming Board/GAC Intercessional meeting in Brussels, 28-Feb to 1-Mar GAC 'scorecard' expected before 22-Feb. Selected previous BC positions on GAC-Board topics (attached) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Bill Smith) Affirmation reviewteam for SSR (Security, Stability, & Reslience) (Jeff Brueggeman)

8 23

Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012
by Steve DelBianco 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

ICANN is now gathering public comment on its proposed framework for FY 2012 operating plan and budget. Attached is a discussion draft for BC comments prepared by Chris Chaplow, our Vice Chair for Finance & Administration. (Those of you in San Francisco last week heard Chris summarize these comments in the Public Forum on Thursday. ) ICANN's Comment period closes 4-April, so today (21-March) begins our 14-day review period for this discussion draft. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 30-March, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 4-April. For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2012 Thanks again to Chris for his leadership on all ICANN financial and administrative issues. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

2 6

RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012
by Chris Chaplow 04 Apr '11

04 Apr '11

Please find attached redline V2 of the document updated after members comments. Looking forward to speak on the call later today. Best regards, 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.

2 2

FW: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process
by Steve DelBianco 31 Mar '11

31 Mar '11

Philip, John Berard made this comment on your draft: Thanks to Philip for slogging through the proposed policy document. The two points made -- long and complex -- combine to create an even more difficult problem: it is hard for new people to feel comfortable. Making the process -- and ICANN, in general -- more accessible is a goal worth promoting. John also suggests adding this paragraph to your PDP draft comment: The complexity of the PDP report points to a larger problem, It is increasingly difficult for people new to ICANN to easily engage and, therefore, contribute to the community. The proposal laudably intends to reset the process for all, but it would be improved if there were a summary -- visual or executive -- that could serve as a roadmap. Are you agreeable to that addition? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Fri, March 25, 2011 2:48 pm To: "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>" <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>> ICANN is now gathering public comment on the final report and recommendations by a work team focused on the Policy Development Process (PDP-WT) Below is a draft for BC comments prepared by Philip Sheppard. ICANN's Comment period closes 1-April, so today (25-March) begins an abbreviated 7-day review period for these abbreviated comments. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 30-March, these comments will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN on 1-April. For topic background, see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-pdp-final-report Thanks again to Philip Sheppard for his brief but pointed review of a report that's over 100 pages long. Thanks also to BC members who served on the PDP work team: Marilyn Cade Mike Rodenbaugh John Berard ---- DRAFT BC position on Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team Proposed Final Report & Recommendations General Comments At 109 pages the report is thorough but overly long. It is a report of a team with recommendations but not yet a guide for prospective participants in a PDP. As noted in recommendation 3 this work needs to be turned into a short practical manual on the PDP without references to the working team or recommendation number ## or extraneous points of discussion. The start of such a document in section 5 is good but seems overly long at around 15 pages. A rigorous edit is required. The flow charts are useful but overly complex. A simplified one for council initiated work only is needed. A flowchart showing timelines would be useful. Comments on specific recommendations 10 and 11. The BC is concerned that the “preliminary issues report” is being over engineered. This report is intended to be short and factual outlining the issue raised NOT solving it or adding opinion on its merit. Therefore an additional public comment period at this stage is both redundant and will waste time. 12. Whereas certain issues will indeed benefit from a workshop, making this a mandatory procedure is short sighted. 13. A possible impact analysis before a vote to start a PDP is an option that will be gamed by parties wishing to delay a new PDP. 16. Codifying a practice to delay seems a dangerous precedent. If done the wording needs to be clear that this is not a cumulative right potentially delaying a decision to launch a PDP by six Council meetings. Voting thresholds. There is a lot of discussion about Council voting thresholds. The BC recommends further changes to these should simplify not add complexity to an already overly complex structure.

2 1

CircleID post on GAC and ICANN Board
by Steve DelBianco 28 Mar '11

28 Mar '11

I'm a bit chagrined to use XXX in the headline of this post, but I'll take any opportunity to pressure ICANN Board and management to "mind the GAC" on new gTLDs. See http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110327_dot_xxx_exposes_the_naked_truth_for_… Also made similar remarks last week at the Capitol Hill panel: "Influencing ICANN: What Role Will World Governments Have Over Internet Domain Functions?<http://www.netcaucus.org/events/2011/ICANN/>" Audio available at http://netcaucus.org/audio/2011/20110321icann.mp3 -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on Proposed New GNSO Policy Development Process
by john＠crediblecontext.com 27 Mar '11

27 Mar '11

1 0

Bc Call reminder
by Benedetta Rossi 26 Mar '11

26 Mar '11

Dear Members, Just a reminder of the gnso council prep call for BC members taking place on Thursday, 31st of March 2011 at 10am ET (15.00 UTC). Full agenda and dial in details to follow. Thank you, Kindest regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0

Business Constituency statement on the Board Reply to GAC Scorecard
by Steve DelBianco 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

Attached is a written statement of the BC on the Board – GAC negotiations over the new gTLD Scorecard. This was provided to ICANN staff today, in time for their guidebook redline work. Kurt & Karen - As officers of the BC, Marilyn Cade and I prepared a written statement summarizing comments made by the BC last week in SFO regarding the GAC Scorecard. We understand this statement may be of help as you and the Board develop the Guidebook redline and response to the GAC Scorecard.

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Hackers exploit chink in Web's armor
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC comment on ICANN proposed budget for 2012
by Chris Chaplow 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

To Mikey, Thanks for the suggestion, I will incorporate into the document. To All members, In my submission is the list of ten projects that are published in the framework (total cost 11.1m$ or about 20%) Although some are obvious, there is no detail or references in the framework as to what exactly these project are. I want to order them in BC member priority, so have made a first attempt below. Any suggestions? . WHOIS Studies SLA Monitoring System Development DNSSEC Deployment and Training IANA Business Excellence Global DNS SSR Symposium Security Program Certifications Affirmation of Commitments reviews and Recommendations Implementation IDN Variant New gTLD project DNS Measurement & Metrics ---end--- Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia Web Solutions 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.andaluciaws.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

3 4