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

BC Members call, May 18th 2011, 10am EST (2pm UTC)
by Benedetta Rossi May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Dear BC Members, Just sending out a reminder of the upcoming BC Members pre-council call taking place on Wednesday May 18th 2011 at 10am EST (2pm UTC).Dial in details will follow shortly. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you, Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

2 1

Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
by Steve DelBianco May 15, 2011

May 15, 2011

Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

6 8

RE: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
by john＠crediblecontext.com May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011

1 0

BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011
by Steve DelBianco May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

Recap of BC discussion and review of our comments on .net renewal: 21-Apr member call: BC members our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET This was 21 days before the comment due date of 10-May. 3-May: we circulated draft written comment by Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor. (8 days before deadline). This draft proposed two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) 4-May: Philip Sheppard offered a general principle: "The ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards." Rapporteurs accepted this proposal. 8-May: Phil Corwin questioned the rationale for requiring URS and TM Claims. I advised Phil that the BC charter calls for discussion and/or vote only when 10% of membership (5 members) object to a proposed position. Phil also pointed out that the URS and TM Claims proposals were circulated with 8 days of review period, which is less than the 14 days required per charter. Recommendation of vice chair for policy coordination: Today, I asked Elisa and Mikey to consider revising the draft comment to stick with Thick Whois, which was appropriately noticed (21 days) and for which no opposition was noted. Response from BC Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor: Elisa and Mikey quickly responded with the attached version 3, adding Philip Sheppard's principle, retaining the recommendation for Thick Whois, and dropping recommendations for URS and TM Claims Service in .net Next steps: Please review version 3 (attached) since this will be submitted 10-May unless 10% of members object. I also invite BC members to examine new gTLD registry contract requirements once the guidebook is finalized, so the BC can determine which requirements should apply when existing gTLD contracts are up for renewal. I encourage any BC member to submit their own individual / corporate views on this and all ICANN public comment items. Thanks to all members for conducting such a civil and practical discussion with due attention to the BC charter. Thanks especially to Elisa and Mikey for their work as our rapporteurs. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM To: 'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________

4 4

Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal
by Steve DelBianco May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco) On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements: - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating. - Add URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May. Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

6 14

FW: NCPH Election for BOARD SEAT 14: second round of voting results - Election outcome announced below
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2011

May 7, 2011

The Elections Officer, Glen de St. Gery, has posted the election outcome for the Board Seat 14. Bill Graham has received 8 votes, which meets the 60% threshold required, and is a duly elected Board member, via the agreed voting procedures within the NCPH. Thus, the election is concluded, with the outcome announced below. I am forwarding an exerpt from the message to the Councilors/officers of the House, to the BC-GNSO list for your information. I will craft a note to Bill and to Avri, thanking both for standing for this election. Should you wish to send private messages to either candidate, please do so to their individual emails, and not on the BC public list. We were fortunate to have two candidates, and I know that we all appreciate that both were willing to commit to the time commitment and responsibilities associated with being an ICANN Board member. As all of you know, Board members do not represent the entities that elect them, but have a broader responsibility to the full community of ICANN stakeholders. Only six Board members are actually elected. Eight are 'selected' via the Nominating Committee process, which will also be making decisions /deliberating in June. On a separate note, the BC will be convening a discussion with the Nominating Committee members pre and during Singapore to have discussions regarding the challenges facing ICANN. This election outcome will mean that Bill Graham, as a duly elected Board member via the NCPH [non contracted party house] will attend the May Board retreat, and be seated as a Board member at the conclusion of Singapore's Board meeting. As you all know, Peter Dengate Thrush, the Chair, and Rita Rodin Johnston will be leaving the Board at the end of the Singapore meeting. I will be announcing some ideas for how the BC might recognize departing Board members during the ICANN meeting. We will save that for later discussions. In the meantime, thanks to the BC members for your ongoing input on this important election, and to our BC Councilors for their service in representing the interests and views of the BC. This message below regarding outcome of the election was sent from the Elections Officer, as noted above. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second round of voting for the NCPH election for the ICANN Board Seat 14 closed on Friday, 6 May, 2011 at 23:59 UTC. As per the election procedures, the candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. The candidates have been notified of the results.· Eight (8) votes for Bill Graham· Five (5) votes for Avri Doria All thirteen votes were registered.

1 0

Antony Van Couvering on the upcoming Congressional hearing
by Mike O'Connor May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

here's a link to Antony's analysis of the hearing that's coming up tomorrow at 10am EDT. http://www.circleid.com/posts/2011050_intellectual_property_interests_lineu… does anybody know how to figure out where to watch/listen to the live stream of the hearing? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

2 1

Public Comment: Community Input Requested on Academia Representation on NomCom
by Benedetta Rossi May 2, 2011

May 2, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find below a note from the Chair, Marilyn Cade, following ICANN's request of community input on academia representation on the NomCom. Kindest Regards,Benedetta RossiBC Secretariat ============= Dear BC Members: As BC Chair, I do strongly recommend that the choice of academic representative to the NomCom is significant. An academic from a CIO role, or CTO role, or who engages in privacy or technical research will have a different perspective, and contacts, from an academic who is studying ICANN. We are more accustomed to that latter -- or academics who are studying Internet Governance. The vast majority of academics, and the CIOs/CTOs who might make a constructive contribution to ICANN are not aware of, or following its work. I am not sure that a single academic entity with presence/representation globally can be identified to play this role. In the US, EDUCAUSE/Internet2 would be a logical entity, but they would have to commit to undertaking global outreach. IF they would be willing to engage in an effective process, that might be useful. Internet2 might be the most logical to organize such an effort.... If it is not possible to have an effective and neutral approach, the seat on the NomCom will lapse. Marilyn CadeBC Chair ============= Public Comment: Community Input Requested on Academia Representation on NomCom30 April 2011On 21 April 2011, the ICANN Board approved the initiation of a 30-day period of public comment to obtain community input to inform the BGC's future work on the feasibility of identifying an entity to make appointments to the NomCom as called for in Article VII, Section 2.8.c of the Bylaws. The public comment will also address the potential proposed Bylaws amendments[PDF, 64 KB] regarding the removal of this Bylaws provision in the event that the public comment does not result in the identification of an appropriate entity or process for identifying such an entity.Staff Responsible: Amy A. Stathos, Deputy General CounselDeadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 30 April 2011 through 23:59 UTC, 30 May 2011, on this matter. During this period, the ICANN community and public are invited to submit comments via e-mail to academia-nomcom(a)icann.org.To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/academia-nomcom/.

1 0