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

flash report: ICANN Board resolution results, 18-Mar-2011
by Steve DelBianco March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

The ICANN Board approved resolutions on new gTLD, ATRT Recommendations, and XXX. Resolution to approve new gTLD Applicant Guidebook on 20-June-2011 in Singapore: RESOLVED THE BOARD ADOPTS A WORKING TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK AND LAUNCH OF THE NEW gTLD PROCESS, AND THAT WILL BE POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE, BUT THE PICTURE IS AS YOU HAVE SEEN IT ON THE SCREEN. RESOLVED, AS SET FORTH IN THE TIMETABLE, ICANN WILL TARGET 15th OF APRIL 2011 AS THE DATE FOR PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RESPONSE TO THE GAC SCORECARD, ALONG WITH APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK EXTRACTS SHOWING CHANGES. RESOLVED, THE BOARD INTENDS TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS SET FORTH IN THE TIMELINE IN TIME FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE NEW gTLD IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AT AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE ICANN BOARD TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, THE 20th OF JUNE 2011, AT THE ICANN MEETING IN SINGAPORE. NOTE: THE BOARD ALSO INTENDS TO HOLD ITS USUAL MEETING ON FRIDAYMORNING, 24th OF JUNE 2011, TO CONCLUDE THE MIDYEAR MEETING. Cherine: Board wants a mature & responsible relationship; want a responsible launch with the right safeguards. Rita: we can talk forever. There will be further refinements but we owe it to applicants. PDT: want a launch party in Singapore. We intend to stick to this timeline. Adopted unanimously (including GAC) Resolution to implement ATRT final recommendations: RESOLVED, THE BOARD RECEIVES THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND DIRECTS STAFF TO PUBLISH THEM AS SOON AS FEASIBLE.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT ICANN PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH FINAL PROPOSED PLANS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS IN TIME FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS INPUT ON THE COST OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THE ATRT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ADVICE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE APRIL 2011 BOARD MEETING CONCERNING THE ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR '12 BUDGET; RESOLVED, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WORK WITH THE BOARD ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS INVOLVING THEIR ORGANIZATIONS; RESOLVED, TO FULLY RESPOND TO THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE AFFIRMATION OF COMMITMENTS, THE BOARD REQUESTS THAT ICANN STAFF DEVELOP PROPOSED METRICS TO QUANTIFY AND TRACK ACTIVITIES CALLED FOR IN THE AFFIRMATION AND ATRT REPORT, AND BENCHMARKS THAT ENABLE ICANN TOCOMPARE ITS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY-RELATED EFFORTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENTITIES' BEST PRACTICES. Adopted unanimously, with one abstention. XXX Contract Approval: WHEREAS, ON THE 17TH OF MARCH 2011, THE BOARD AND THE GAC COMPLETED A FORMAL BYLAWS CONSULTATION ON THOSEITEMS FOR WHICH ENTERING THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT MIGHT NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH GAC ADVICE. NOW RESOLVED, THE BOARD AUTHORIZES THE CEO OR THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT FOR THE XXX sTLD IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM POSTED FOR PUBLICCOMMENT IN AUGUST 2010.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD ADOPTS AND FULLY INCORPORATES HEREIN ITS RATIONALE FOR APPROVING THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT WITH ICM FOR THE XXX sTLD. AND THERE'S A LINK PROVIDED. TO SUPPORT THE ENTERING INTO THE PROPOSED REGISTRY AGREEMENT.; RESOLVED, THE BOARD AND THE GAC HAVE COMPLETED A GOOD-FAITH CONSULTATION UNDER THE BYLAWS -- AND THE SECTION IS GIVEN -- AS THE BOARD AND THE GAC WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE BYLAWS, THE BOARD INCORPORATES ANDADOPTS AS SET FORTH IN THE RATIONALE THE REASONS WHY THE GAC ADVICE WAS NOTFOLLOWED. THE BOARD'S STATEMENT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF GAC MEMBERS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES FALLING WITHIN THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. Bruce abstained due to Melbourne IT conflict of interest. Ram abstained due to Afilias conflict of interest. Sebastien abstained due to conflict since he is on board of ICM. George Sadowsky: oppose this motion because: insufficient proof of broad-based support from the designated community. Board should not have accepted the review panel decision. . XXX will encourage blocking of the TLD by governments. An incitement to fracture the root. A convenient excuse for political regimes. ICANN has duty to uphold global public interest, which includes 6.5 billion people with diverse views and cultures. IT'S MY OPINION THAT WE MUST PROCEED CAREFULLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE DELEGATION OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, GLOBAL-LEVEL DOMAINS, CONSISTING OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS THAT MAY RUN COUNTER-TO THE SENSIBILITIES OF SIGNIFICANT SEGMENTS OF THE WORLD'SPOPULATION. IN RETROSPECT, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF ICM'S APPLICATION -- THAT IS, THE sTLD PROCESS -- DID NOT INCLUDE A FORMAL OBJECTION PROCEDURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIVERSE CULTURAL CONCERNS THAT COULD ARISE. IF DOT XXX WERE APPROVED, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE A VICTORY OF COMPULSORY ADHERENCE TO PROCESS RATHER THAN A SERIOUS DISCUSSION REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE OF THE DNS AND THE INTERNET. IT WOULD BE A VICTORY OF PROCESS OVER GOALS AND OF MEANS OVER ENDS. AND IF, IN THE FUTURE, THERE ARISE SIGNIFICANT UNANTICIPATED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, WILL OUR DEFENSE BE LIMITED TO THE EXCUSE, "BUT I JUST FOLLOWED THE PROCESS"? SO IN SPITE OF SOME POSSIBILITY OF RESULTING IN SOME USEFUL CHANGE, I BELIEVE ON BALANCE THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION CURRENTLY BEFORE THE BOARD THREATENS THE LONG-RUN INTEGRITY OF THE DNS AND WORKS AGAINST THE GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST. IT SHOULD BE DEFEATED. Katim: oppose resolution because it harms relations with the GAC, endangering ICANN. BUT FOR ME, I THINK THE DEAL-KILLER HAS BEEN THE -- MY OWN EVALUATION AND MY ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT THAT I PERCEIVE THIS WOULD HAVE ON ICANN'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE GAC IS A VERY IMPORTANT AND VITAL CONSTITUENCY OF ICANN, AND THE GAC WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GAC THAT ICANN WAS DEALING WITH THREE YEARS AGO AND, DARE I SAY, FIVE YEARS AGO. THERE HAS BEEN A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE CENTRAL GRAVITY, AS IT WERE, OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE GAC IN ICANN. MANY GOVERNMENTS ARE NOW WAKING UP TO THE REALITY OF THE NEED FOR THEM TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN WHAT ICANN IS DOING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE GLOBAL INTERNET COMMUNITY. AND SO IT IS FOR THIS VERY REASON THAT I THINK THAT FOR ICANN TO, ON THIS MATTER, PUT ASIDE THE ADVICE OF THE GAC AND ITS MEMBERS WOULD, I THINK, BE UNCONSTRUCTIVE AND, IN THE END, POISONOUS TO THE ATMOSPHERE THAT WE NEED TOBUILD AND A POSITIVE ONE AT THAT, BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF -- AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD. AND I SAY THIS ALSO BECAUSE IN MY MIND, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC AND GOVERNMENTS AND GAC IS PROBABLY THE MOST SINGLE EXISTING RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE. I SAY EXISTENTIAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS ONE RELATIONSHIP THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT ON ICANN. YOU AND I KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUSHING AN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUMS AROUND THE WORLD FOR THE TRANSFER OF SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY ICANN TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES AND TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE MANY GOVERNMENTS THAT WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO SEE ICANN GONE. AND SO FOR THAT VERY REASON, NOT THAT I -- I SEE THIS AS A PANIC MOVE OR WHATEVER, BUT I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF ENGAGEMENT AND OF CONSTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNWISE FOR US TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION. AND IT'S FOR THAT VERY REASON, I INTEND TO VOTE AGAINST IT. Bertrand: voting in favor of resolution. Share George and Katim’s conerns. If we did not approve this contract, we will surely get a .xxx application in the upcoming round – without control of a sponsored TLD contract. Global public interest is satisfied because it is not insulting to other cultures. Erika Mann: voting yes. Wants to take the risk and face the challenge. XXX is not going away. Ray Plezak: voting Yes. We are not slaves to process. Kuo Wei: voting No. Concerned about global community and the ICANN mechanism. Steve Crocker: We have been attentive to the GAC. Rita Rodin: Voting Yes. Voted against .xxx in 2007. IRP said that was an improper vote. This is a lose-lose for board. Either we ignore the IRP or ignore the GAC. This is a debate about respect for processes. We can join together and stumble forward with this TLD. Suzanne Woolf: Blocking / filtering is not unique to this TLD. Carries with 4 no votes.

1 0

bc comments in Public Forum/
by Marilyn Cade March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

Dear Members, please note the BC comment on the ATRT in the Public Forum. This is the statement as written. There are a few differences in the early introduction. I apologize for that, but it isn't a substantive difference.Chris will post his comments separately. As noted, all statements will be put on the website as soon as we can. We are postingthem to the bc-gnso list because it is an archived list and you will be able to find the powerpoints and public statements there,as well as on the BC website itself. As an update, I am still editing the comments during the Monday and Wednesday Public Forum on the as i gave them Monday and Wednesday, but in that case, I am going to go to the transcript and put in exactly what I said. Those comments are also being submitted as a document with an introductinn of who the BC is, to the staff, at the request of the Chair/Board. You will all see them, of course. UPDATE on the meeting Report: Chris and Benedetta and I will be working on the main report, with sections provided by Steve/Zahid/John. We will have a transcript, but we will also give you a short meeting report, with the PowerPoints. There are some work items which willbe described in the Meeting Report, and individual follow up with members on a few topics/action items, especially regardingpublic comments on various open public comment items. We had a members discussion on the Board Seat process, as all of you know. There will be a posted update separatelyfor the members. It is possible that further decisions on relevant topics may emerge tonight or early tomorrow. We will do our best to keep you informed of any decisions affecting the BC's interests. This was a highly confusing meeting with all the scheduling changes. I want to express my appreciation for the patienceof all of you, as I kept delaying in finalizing the schedule due to lack of information. I was very regretful about that situation,and please know that all our officers worked hard to minimize the negative impacts on you.We owe a word of thanks to the speakers who showed such great flexibility as I moved them around several times. Special thanks to the other officers and councilors, and to all of the members who came in person and who participted online with us. And a very warm welcome to Benedetta Rossi, our new secretariat. Benedetta was with us from Saturday later afternoonthrough mid day Wednesday and met many of you. Join me in thanking her as well for jumping into the deep end of the ICANN waters, and helping to make us all moreeffective and smoothing our organizing tremendously. It is possible that we may have one more BC huddle, if new information develops on the election process for the Board seat. Marilyn CadeBC Chair

1 0

Public Comment by BC for FY12 Operating Plan & Budget Framework
by Chris Chaplow March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

Dear Members, Please find below my notes for my comment in the public forum relating to the FY12 Operating Plan & Budget Framework Chris Chaplow - Vice Chair of Finance and Operations and Finance for the Business Constituency. BC welcomes this opportunity to comment on the FY12 Operating Plan & Budget Framework. Many of our members have an deep interest in this subject. The BC submitted 5 key requests for budget support as part of the new AC/SO/SG request process last January. Externally we underlined our support for budget increases in Compliance, and are please to hear that two vacant positions have just been filled but our members remain concerned that staffing need to be brought up to FY10 budget levels of 15 staff supported by the best technology tools to and in the words of the FY11 plan ICANN will continue to aggressively enforce contractual compliance of registrar and registry agreements. We support the work on organizing the Whois Studies, and of course all resources to support the excellent work of the Policy staff. Internally we requested budget support via the constituency toolkit of services and for an Outreach project. This was last January. The framework plan has now been published and is open for public comment until 6th April. It is presented in a very user friendly 17 slide ppt deck format, last year it was a 70 page document. So I am going to underline our request for more detail. I support the new idea of separating in the budget core activity and project activity. Twelve projects are identified but only a sum total (of 11.1 million $ - 20% of the ICANN Budget) has been provided. This makes it difficult to offer meaningful feedback. Thank you. 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

1 0

statement on ATRT
by Marilyn Cade March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

Marilyn Cade, Chair of BC Appreciate that you have ensured the continuation of the Public Forum, and also note with appreciation that you share our awareness that ICANN nas many critical issues and activites. In general, the BC is pleased with the focused attention on the new gTLDs in the specialized public forum on M and W, and in the open approach taken in the Workign sessions between the Board and GAC, but we also are very appreciative of this Public Forum to address the rest of the critical breadth of other issues and topics. The AoC was welcomed by the BC, and we welcomed the Review Team approach established for the four topical areas. We have previously thanked the ATRT members for their hard work. It is very clear that the staff have also decided a significant amount of work to the ongoing fulfillment of how the implementation is going. The BC applauds the work of the ATRT and looks forward to the implementation of the recommendations, as committed by the Board. We have not focused in on the substantive detail of the ATRT recommendations with comments, but have a very few thoughts; We consider the AoC of critical importance to ICANN’s success. It would b eard to overemphasize how important this agreement was upon tis signing, and continues to be as a commitment that was made and needs to be fulfilled. We took note of a statement during Monday’s session and wish to reinforce our views on ensuring all necessary resources. In his opening remarks, the CEO said that fulfilling ICANN's Affirmation responsibilities was "...subject to receiving appropriate resources." The BC advises the Board and the community that we believe that the ATRT recommendations are expected by the community to be fully implemented. If there are budget or resource constraints that are putting the recommendations at risk, that should be identified immediately, and shared with the Community. In its report, the ATRT asks the Board to provide a status report on all the recommendations at the March 2011 ICANN meeting in San Francisco. The Board should also provide a more formal report at the June 2011 ICANN meeting in Amman detailing: 1) Which recommendation(s) have been fully implemented; 2) The status and schedule for implementing the remaining recommendations; and 3) The recommendations which the Board has concluded it cannot implement including a detailed explanation as to why the recommendation(s) cannot be implemented. We apologize for not noting this issue earlier, but it is of some concern to us that item 3 seems to indicate that the Board can decide that recommednations cannot be implemented and after explaining why, no further initiative would be undertaken to find a way to implement the recommendation. It may be appropriate not to act on a recommendation if it is indeed not possible to implement; on the other hand, the community may believe that with adjustment, a recommendation could be met. Since the Report in June is actually the conclusion of the ATRT process, this would indicate that it would be important to put the Discussions on this topic up very early in the Singapore agenda and to make sure that the more formal report is provided to the community well before the Singapore meeting. This has been a busy time for ICANN since Cartegena, but the ATRT recommendations are critical to ICANN’s fulfilling the AoC itself. We also supported the ATRT request that the Board provide a status report on all the recommendations at the March 2011 ICANN meeting in San Francisco. We have not been able to identify the promised Status Report on all the Recommendations. Resources issues/concerns:--

1 0

Knujon Internet Security Report
by Chris Chaplow March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

Dear Members, You may be interested to review the latest Knujon Internet Security Report. Chris Chaplow -------------------------- Chris, We have just issued a new report detailing abuse of the Domain Name System and Registrar contract compliance issues. It is available on our home page: http://www.knujon.com or directly at http://www.knujon.com/KnujOn_security_abuse_report_031411.pdf The report specifically discusses: 1. Registrars with current legal issues 2. Illicit Use of Privacy-Proxy WHOIS Registration (also detailed http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110310_proxy_privacy_user_higher_for_illicit _domains/) 3. A study on the contracted obligation for Bulk WHOIS Access 4. Policy Failures and Malware (also detailed here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100922_policy_failure_enables_mass_malware_p art_i_rx_partners_vipmeds/) 5. A study of where counterfeiters go to buy trademarked domain names 6. And an introduction to our new statistical methods for measuring Internet abuse. Please contact me with any questions, Garth Garth Bruen at Knujon.com [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com]

1 0

Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today
by Steve DelBianco March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

As we discussed extensively in Tuesday's BC meeting, there were 2 motions on Whois studies before GNSO Council today. Here's what happened: Tim Ruiz withdrew his motion for more information. Registrars then asked that the BC resolution be deferred to the next meeting. Zahid described the urgency of these studies, explaining that they are a consolidation of studies requested by the GAC and by the community. And that his question on Sunday brought a firm response from GAC Chair: Yes, they are disappointed that Whois studies they requested in 2008 have not yet begun. John Berard reiterated his argument for studies to support fact-based policy development. Steve DelBianco went to the mic to amplify our Councilors’ points: At this meeting we have a “Perfect storm” of pressure to begin these Whois studies: 1) AoC Review of WHOIS; 2) KnuJon report on Illicit Privacy-Proxy WHOIS; 3) a reminder to “Mind the GAC” (as the T-Shirt says) To rebut Tim Ruiz’ point that studies will not change any minds,we explained that every community study suggestion had to explain policy implications of its hypothesis. e.g., the Priv/Proxy study #3 had this Hypothesis: Of ICANN-accredited registrars who offer their own proxy services, some are failing to reveal shielded registrant data in accordance with the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and/or their own Terms of Service (TOS). And this “Utility”: If the hypothesis were verified, ICANN should improve its contractual compliance efforts for registrars offering proxy services. ICANN's response should be proportional to the quantity of registrars and affected registrants where compliance was found to be deficient. If non-compliance is confined to a small number of registrars, increased contract enforcement efforts could be limited and targeted. On the other hand, a widespread lack of compliance might indicate that ICANN should amend the RAA to increase penalties for non-compliance. To emphasize "Mind the GAC", we read these 2 study requests from the Apr-2008 GAC Letter: 1: To what extent are the legitimate uses of gTLD WHOIS data curtailed or prevented by use of proxy or privacy registration services? 11: What is the percentage of domain names registered using proxy or privacy services that have been associated with fraud or other illegal activity versus the percentage of domain names not using such services that have been associated with fraud or illegal activity? We also responded to Tim Ruiz claim that we already knew there was “some” fraud and abuse hiding behind privacy/proxy services. Without facts on the magnitude of abuse, Council would lack data to justify significant compliance expenses or policy changes. Jeff Neuman indicated he only wanted to tighten the language for some of the studies, and proposed a small group to convene before next Council meeting. Steve DelBianco volunteered for this. So it's deferred to next Council meeting, with some work left to do before then.

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today
by Marilyn Cade March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

Great team work on this! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:03:56 To: <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Outcome of Whois studies at GNSO Council meeting today As we discussed extensively in Tuesday's BC meeting, there were 2 motions on Whois studies before GNSO Council today. Here's what happened: Tim Ruiz withdrew his motion for more information. Registrars then asked that the BC resolution be deferred to the next meeting. Zahid described the urgency of these studies, explaining that they are a consolidation of studies requested by the GAC and by the community. And that his question on Sunday brought a firm response from GAC Chair: Yes, they are disappointed that Whois studies they requested in 2008 have not yet begun. John Berard reiterated his argument for studies to support fact-based policy development. Steve DelBianco went to the mic to amplify our Councilors' points: At this meeting we have a "Perfect storm" of pressure to begin these Whois studies: 1) AoC Review of WHOIS; 2) KnuJon report on Illicit Privacy-Proxy WHOIS; 3) a reminder to "Mind the GAC" (as the T-Shirt says) To rebut Tim Ruiz' point that studies will not change any minds,we explained that every community study suggestion had to explain policy implications of its hypothesis. e.g., the Priv/Proxy study #3 had this Hypothesis: Of ICANN-accredited registrars who offer their own proxy services, some are failing to reveal shielded registrant data in accordance with the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and/or their own Terms of Service (TOS). And this "Utility": If the hypothesis were verified, ICANN should improve its contractual compliance efforts for registrars offering proxy services. ICANN's response should be proportional to the quantity of registrars and affected registrants where compliance was found to be deficient. If non-compliance is confined to a small number of registrars, increased contract enforcement efforts could be limited and targeted. On the other hand, a widespread lack of compliance might indicate that ICANN should amend the RAA to increase penalties for non-compliance. To emphasize "Mind the GAC", we read these 2 study requests from the Apr-2008 GAC Letter: 1: To what extent are the legitimate uses of gTLD WHOIS data curtailed or prevented by use of proxy or privacy registration services? 11: What is the percentage of domain names registered using proxy or privacy services that have been associated with fraud or other illegal activity versus the percentage of domain names not using such services that have been associated with fraud or illegal activity? We also responded to Tim Ruiz claim that we already knew there was "some" fraud and abuse hiding behind privacy/proxy services. Without facts on the magnitude of abuse, Council would lack data to justify significant compliance expenses or policy changes. Jeff Neuman indicated he only wanted to tighten the language for some of the studies, and proposed a small group to convene before next Council meeting. Steve DelBianco volunteered for this. So it's deferred to next Council meeting, with some work left to do before then.

1 0

Cancellation of today's meeting
by Marilyn Cade March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

We will not do a 1:15 pm meeting today. The purpose of the meeting was to focus on public forum comments/ statements. Steve and I will draft statements for your review for the BC itself. Second item: If any of you want to make individual statements, please introduce yourself as your company/ speaking for my company or whatever. Because the BC's statements are FOR the BC, we can avoid confusion by new board members if we keep that distinction. Is that okay with all as a practice? Steve is available as always to help with any questions re BC positions. We (Steve and I) are recapturing the statements I made from our Monday drafted statement on Scorecard and you wi have it this pm! Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

update from the room/ICANN/Public forum on Scorecard
by Marilyn Cade March 15, 2011

March 15, 2011

Thanks to the BC members who threw yourselves into the editing of BC comments. Steve and Chris and I are especially appreciative that this was short notice but essential, and we met the opportunity. We will be talking more over the next days, as we hear what happens during the GAC and Board's discussions. I am asked to submit our comments in writing, so I will be cleaning up with help from transcript. Looking forward to seeing those of you here at Breakfast, or in the social events tonight. IF you have feedback, please use the list, or send to meetings(a)bizconst.org if it is just about the meeting here.

1 0

urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
by Marilyn Cade March 14, 2011

March 14, 2011

During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.

14 13