February 2012 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

PUBLIC COMMENT: Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 24, 2012

Feb. 24, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an alert regarding a new open public comment of interest to the BC: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb12-en.… Steve DelBianco will advise on the BC's next steps on any BC comments. Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Comment/Reply Periods^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 23 February 2012 *Comment Close:* 3 April 2012 *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23feb12-en.htm> *Reply Open:* 4 April 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:cctc-draft-advice-letter@icann.org> *Reply Close:* 24 April 2012 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/cctc-draft-advice-letter/> *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* GNSO Council Consumer Metrics Working Group *Categories/Tags:* ICANN Board/Bylaws; Transparency/Accountability *Purpose (Brief):* The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council's Consumer Metrics (CCTC) Working Group requests community input on thedraft Advice Letter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cctc-draft-advice-letter-22feb12-en.pdf>[PDF, 234 KB] on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition at the request of the ICANN Board. *Current Status:* This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on the proposed definitions of Consumer, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition with in the draft Advice Letter. The CCTC Working Group will host a public session in Costa Rica and the close of the comment period will extend after the meeting to allow the community adequate time for comment. *Next Steps:* The CCTC Working Group will consider the comments received as part of their deliberations and creation of the final Advice Letter. The final version will be submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration. If it is approved the GNSO Council will submit the Advice Letter to the ICANN Board. *Staff Contact:* Julie Hedlund *Email:* policy.staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy.staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Draft%20Advice%20Letter%20on%20Consumer%20Trust,%20Consumer%20Choice,%20and%20Competition%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The Consumer Metrics Working Group produced a draft Advice Letter defining Consumer, Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, & Competition at the request of the ICANN Board Resolution (2010.12.10.30) to Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). The Working Group is seeking community feedback on the draft, which will be considered by GNSO Council. If it is approved the GNSO Council will submit the Advice Letter to the ICANN Board. *Section II: Background* The GNSO Council chartered the CCTC Working Group on 22 September 2011. It was intended that theCharter <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf>[PDF, 642 KB] could also be formally endorsed by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), but their endorsement was not a requirement for participation in the Working Group. The charter Drafting Team understood that its goal was to produce advice for consideration by GNSO, ccNSO, Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and ALAC, each of whom was asked for advice as part of the Board resolution discussed above. Each AC/SO may act independently on the CCTC Working Group's draft advice, and may endorse all, part, or none of the draft advice as it decides how to respond to the Board resolution. The CCTC Working Group understands that the purpose of this advice is to provide ICANN's Board with definitions, measures, and targets that could be useful to the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) Review Team that will convene one year after new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are launched. However, the CCTC Working Group understands that this advice cannot pre-determine or otherwise limit the scope of the future AOC review team. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* 1. 22 September 2012 GNSO Council Resolution Chartering the CCTC Working Group:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Se… 2. CCTC Charter:http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf[PDF, 642 KB] 3. Draft Advice Letter:http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cctc-draft-advice-letter-22feb12-en.pdf…, 234 KB] *Section IV: Additional Information* None -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: PUBLIC COMMENT Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process – Recommendation 8 Concerning Standardizing and Clarifying WHOIS Status Messages
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 22, 2012

Feb. 22, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an announcement released yesterday regarding a new open public comment. Steve DelBianco will advise on the BC's next steps on any BC comments. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec8-21feb12-en.htm Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process – Recommendation 8 Concerning Standardizing and Clarifying WHOIS Status MessagesComment/Reply Periods (*)Important Information LinksComment Open:21 February 2012Comment Close:25 March 2012Close Time (UTC):23:59 UTCPublic Comment AnnouncementReply Open:26 March 2012To Submit Your Comments (Forum)Reply Close:15 April 2012View Comments SubmittedClose Time (UTC):23:59 UTCReport of Public CommentsBrief OverviewOriginating Organization:ICANN BoardCategories/Tags:Policy Processes, ICANN Board/Bylaws, Contracted Party AgreementsPurpose (Brief):Public notice is hereby provided of the proposed change related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy to standardize and clarify WHOIS status messages that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy change, prior to ICANN Board consideration.Current Status:Following adoption by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council of IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 and the related staff proposal, a public comment forum is now opened as required by the ICANN Bylaws prior to ICANN Board consideration.Next Steps:Following the closing of the public comment period, the ICANN Board will consider the comments received in conjunction with its consideration of the proposed change to the IRTP.Staff Contact:Marika KoningsEmail:policy-staff@icann.orgDetailed InformationSection I: Description, Explanation, and PurposeThe Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B presented its recommendations to the GNSO Council last year. For one of those recommendation, #8 ("The WG recommends standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status. The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Based on discussions with technical experts, the WG does not expect that such a standardization and clarification of WHOIS status messages would require significant investment or changes at the registry/registrar level."), the GNSO Council requested ICANN staff to provide a proposal. In consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group, ICANN Staff prepared a proposal that, together with the IRTP Part B recommendation, has now been approved by the GNSO Council.The ICANN Staff proposal [PDF, 290 KB] agrees that the standardization and clarification of WHOIS status messages does not require significant investment or changes at the registry/registrar level. As outlined in the IRTP Part B Final Report, it is possible to associate each EPP status value with a message that explains the meaning of the respective status value. Registrars would be required to display a link to information on each status code directly next to the status in the output, for example: "Status: ClientLock http://www.internic.net/status/html/clientlock". This link would then direct to an ICANN controlled web page where the relevant status code information as described in the ‘EPP Status Codes, what do they mean and why should I know?’1 is posted. ICANN will also post translations of the status information. The web page can make use of localization information from the browser the user is using to display the web page in the related language. The requirement for registries and registrars to provide this link and ensure uniformity in the message displayed could be implemented as a standalone ‘WHOIS Status Information Policy’ or as an addition to the IRTP. In order to avoid potential blocking or stripping out of URLs from WHOIS output for valid reasons, registrars would be required to not remove Internic.net hyperlinks (or particularly the Internic.net status hyperlink) from their WHOIS output. In addition to the link, registrars would be required to include in the WHOIS output a note that would state "For more information on WHOIS status codes, please visit Internic.net” where the link to the information would be posted.You are invited to submit comments until 25 March 2012 before final consideration by the ICANN Board.Section II: BackgroundThe Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO.The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) was the second in a series of five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The GNSO IRTP Part B Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and "lock status". The WG delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 31 May 2011. The GNSO Council acted on a number of the recommendations at its meeting on 22 June 2011. In relation to recommendation #8, a proposal from staff was requested. Following consultations with the IRTP Part B Working Group and a public comment forum on the Staff Proposal, the ICANN Staff proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council on 3 January 2012. On 10 January 2012, the IPC provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html) Based on the review of the IPC Proposal, ICANN staff provided an updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html) which was approved, together with the IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 at its meeting on 16 February 2012. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the policy that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy, prior to consideration by the ICANN Board of these recommendations.Section III: Document and Resource LinksICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8 [PDF, 290 KB]GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #8GNSO Council Resolution on the adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and RecommendationsIRTP Part B Final Report [PDF, 972 KB]IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 734 KB]IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report [PDF, 765 KB]IRTP Part B Issue Report [PDF, 260 KB]Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)Section IV: Additional InformationNone Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariatwww.bizconst.orgbc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom
by Phil Corwin Feb. 21, 2012

Feb. 21, 2012

FYI-- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.h… * FEBRUARY 21, 2012 The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom Top-down, international regulation is antithetical to the Net, which has flourished under its current governance model. By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL<http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ROBERT+M.+MCDOWELL&bylinese…> On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year's end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish "international control over the Internet" through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices. If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet's flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. Since the Net's inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a "multi-stakeholder" governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net's phenomenal success. In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online-and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere. Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly-and more fundamentally-than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards. [Description: mcdowell] Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny. The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control. Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling: * Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control; * Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries; * Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering." * Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world; * Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work; * Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices. Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control. And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly. Merely saying "no" to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model. Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing. A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body. Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet-no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous-should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU. Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation-a mere seven short of a majority. While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe. Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

ICANN Names WIPO as Exclusive Arbitrator of Legal Rights Objections to New gTLDs – But When Will ICANN Begin Work on Implementation Details of the URS?
by Phil Corwin Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

FYI -- http://internetcommerce.org/WIPO_LRO ICANN Names WIPO as Exclusive Arbitrator of Legal Rights Objections to New gTLDs – But When Will ICANN Begin Work on Implementation Details of the URS? Submitted by Philip Corwin on Fri, 02/17/2012 - 20:15 ICANN has designated the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as the exclusive provider of arbitration services to resolve disputes when a Legal Rights Objection (LRO) is lodged against a proposed new gTLD. An LRO can be lodged by a trademark owner or intergovernmental organization when an applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym. As noted in WIPO’s explanation of its LRO arbitration role (available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/) this is but one of several new objections that can be raised by various parties against a proposed new gTLD: To address potential disputes over new gTLD applications, ICANN offers three other types of pre-delegation objection-based dispute resolution procedures which are not administered by WIPO, namely, “String Confusion Objection,” “Limited Public Interest Objection,” and “Community Objection.” For the latter two types of objections, ICANN is also making available an “Independent Objector” by way of public service. ICANN has furthermore established a process for the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to provide “GAC Advice on New gTLDs” concerning applications identified by governments as problematic. LRO disputes will generally be decided by a single expert, unless the parties to the dispute agree on a 3-member panel. In either case, the panel will determine whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant: • takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym, • unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or • otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym. In a single expert proceeding, each party will pay a $10,000 fee. Of that fee, $2,000 from each party will go to WIPO to cover administrative costs; the prevailing party will receive an $8,000 refund, with that amount being charged to the losing party for the expert’s fee. ICANN is obliged to accept WIPO’s LRO determinations. We believe it is reasonable for ICANN to select a single provider of LRO dispute resolution services as the likely number of cases should be limited. Notwithstanding the pre-launch concerns voiced by some trademark interests, it’s likely that the multiple types of objections that can be raised against new gTLDs, as well as the prospect of losing an $185,000 application fee and other considerable preparatory costs, will likely keep such disputes to a minimum. As noted, the LRO and other objection processes are pre-delegation remedies, and once a new gTLD actually launches it is subject to additional rights protection mechanisms. They are described by WIPO as follows: Beyond the above-described pre-delegation objection procedures (available prior to any new gTLD being approved and becoming operational), ICANN has established a range of “Rights Protection Mechanisms” (RPMs). These include a Trademark Clearinghouse (for use in connection with Sunrise periods and Trademark Claims services), a Uniform Rapid Suspension system (URS), and a Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). In addition, the existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP<http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm>) will be applicable to all new gTLDs. More information on these RPMs can be found in the WIPO Center’s overview of Trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms for New gTLDs<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/>. ICA has been participating in and monitoring the work of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) for the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), which has been dealing with technical and process issues arising from the creation of a large global database of protected marks. However, ICANN is woefully behind on developing the implementation details for Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), the expedited supplement to the UDRP that is of most relevance and concern to domain registrants and portfolio owners. ICANN staff had indicated at the Dakar meeting that a URS IAG would be launched within a month after that October 2011 gathering, but more than a quarter year later we have yet to see any progress on this front. That unexplained delay may well be due to ICANN’s implausible promise to trademark owners that the URS would carry a fee of only $300 for objections to one or more domains held by the same registrant. ICA consistently questioned whether any credible due process could be provided at such a bargain basement price. Both WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum NAF have publicly stated that, with IP attorney arbitrator fees averaging $650 per hour, there is no way they can procure the services of credible experts at that price, much less cover their own administrative costs. In this regard we note that that Rapid Evaluation Service (RES), now available for suspension of infringing .xxx domains exclusively through NAF, carries the same price tag as a UDRP - $1200. If an implementation process for URS has not been announced by the time of the ICANN meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica next month, ICA will be asking ICANN’s Board and staff to explain the delay, and ask when steps will be taken to assure that the URS is a credible process affording adequate due process to domain registrants. We will also continue to insist that any URS provider be placed under a standard binding contract that sets forth the extent of its powers and provides ICANN with flexible and escalating enforcement tools, and that protections are included to prevent forum shopping if more than one URS provider is designated. And, needless to say, ICA will participate in the URS IAG once it is initiated to assure that this new process is fair to registrants and is truly a limited supplement to, and not a broad substitute for, the UDRP. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

BC Outreach at Costa Press Club, Marbella, Spain
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Hi there Thanks to everybody for your trust in re-electing me, much appreciated. Here is a newspaper report of an outreach presentation I gave last week at a local press club. I placed a copy of the BC newsletter on every seat and all were taken away. This was REAL outreach to the 46 attendees most of who had never heard of ICANN before. Thanks to Marilyn for helping with the presentation and Cheryl for creating a super keynote presentation. Two photos attached for our next newsletter. One of the end of the presentations where I urge people to follow ICANN and BC, and another of my best shot at recruiting younger members to the BC. I am aware of one person who has signed up for the pre CR policy webinar. Local TV was also present for a documentary and I expect to be able to offer You Tube link for this. Happy to report that the event was better attended (40 according to Kevin Murphy) that the one that Burson Marsella organised in London and was presented by Kurt. <http://domainincite.com/icann-has-100-new-gtld-applicants/> http://domainincite.com/icann-has-100-new-gtld-applicants/ I will try and get a one page PDF but this report that appeared in page 29 of today edition of local weekly paper. <http://services.surinenglish.com/virtual/20120217/> http://services.surinenglish.com/virtual/20120217/ best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

Update to the BC Wiki
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please note that the BC Wiki has been updated and now also includes information on currently open public comments in ICANN, and upcoming public comments. This space will be updated regularly, for members to access up to date information. The public comment wiki page can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/ICANN%27s+Open+Public+Comments As a reminder, the BC wiki can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home Comments or suggestions about the BC Wiki are most welcome! Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Seven ICANN directors have new gTLD conflicts
by Phil Corwin Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

http://domainincite.com/seven-icann-directors-have-new-gtld-conflicts/ Seven ICANN directors have new gTLD conflicts<http://domainincite.com/seven-icann-directors-have-new-gtld-conflicts/> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, February 17, 2012, 14:41:33 (UTC), Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy/> Seven members of ICANN's board of directors have self-identified conflicts of interest when it comes to the new generic top-level domains program, according to a report from its last meeting. Chair Steve Crocker, CEO of the consulting firm Shinkuro, appears to be newly conflicted. He was among the directors to excuse themselves before the board discussed a resolution on new gTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-07feb12-en.htm#4> last week, but he did vote on a new gTLD resolution at its December meeting. Crocker has previously revealed that new gTLD applicant and registry services provider Afilias has an investment in Shinkuro. Vice-chair Bruce Tonkin is chief strategy officer at Melbourne IT, which is a registrar as well as a new gTLD consultancy, and he also excused himself. Ram Mohan and Suzanne Woolf, both non-voting directors, excused themselves because they work for registry service providers (Afilias and Internet Systems Consortium respectively). Non-voting liaison Thomas Narten also declared a conflict, which is a heavy hint that his employer, IBM, is poised to apply for a dot-brand gTLD. The other conflicted directors were Sébastien Bachollet, CEO of BBS International Consulting, and Bertrand de La Chapelle of the International Diplomatic Academy. Two directors appear to be newly unconflicted. Kuo-Wei Wu and Thomas Roessler declared new gTLD program conflicts at the board's December meeting<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-08dec11-en.htm#1> but did not excuse themselves last week. Erika Mann of Facebook missed the meeting (she also missed the December meeting) so it's not clear whether there's a ".facebook" conflict of interest yet. The board of directors has 16 voting members. Nine need to be present for its meetings to be quorate. ICANN introduced new conflict rules<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-governance/coi/> after former chair Peter Dengate Thrush took a job with new gTLD applicant/consultant Minds + Machines shortly after voting to approve the program last June. ________________________________ Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by mortenla＠wellsfargo.com Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Attached are my comments. Thanks. Lane Mortensen, CRC M SVP / Operational Risk Manager ISG Risk Management, Compliance & Web Governance Wells Fargo Internet Services Group | 333 Market Street, 27th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 MAC A0119-271 Tel 415-371-5884 Cell 925-642-8223 mortenla(a)wellsfargo.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:37 PM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: bc-secretariat @icann Subject: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan Dear BC colleagues I am attaching my individual responses to the BC position on Implementation Improvements to ICANN's gTLD expansion plan. While it was not technically prohibited for me to participate actively in policy development in my personal and individual capacity, I limited my personal and individual participation during the voting period for officers. As that period is closed,even though the results will be confirmed by the Voting Officer and Returning Officers tomorrow, I feel comfortable in participating in the discussion in my individual capacity. I apologize, though, for the lateness of my response which thus resulted as it limited the opportunity for dialogue on the list. These are my personal and individual views, as a BC member. I hope other members will post their views using the excellent format that was designed by our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination. There was a lot of email on the list since mid December, and I did try to reread it all to inform my understanding of all postings that are related. While that documented input from a few posters, this format seems an excellent approach to documenting and being able to then see comments in a single standardized 'approach'. Kudos, Steve, for that 'improvement', which I personally, as a member found extremely helpful. I also wanted to thank you for the huge amount of work you did to document the existing positions! It was helpful to me in considering what the BC had previously confirmed as a position. BUT, I do recognize how much work it was for you, so wanted to say thanks. Marilyn Cade mCADE llc

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

I want to remind members that we wanted to review comments as incoming Officers/ExComm, and we wanted to start today on that, per Steve DelBianco's memo of 2/03, providing the format for input. Thanks to those who had a chance to respond. If you haven't responded using format and intend to, you will need to do that today. If you have only a short statement about general support, or non support, we will accept that, but again today only. Please post to bc-gnso list, which is the public list. If there is a confidential aspect, you can post only to Steve and to me. But it is preferable to post to the BC members. We will assess the inputs and comments received by today, COB US PST, and the ExComm will determine next steps by Monday and announce them. Again, if you have told me, or Steve, or any other officer of your views,we cannot reflect those for you onto the list, but your discussions have been useful and informative. And you can send a SHORT email as to the overall view as noted above. If you or your members feel the need for more information overall on ICANN's program and offerings, you can also say that. Best regards Marilyn Cade For the ExComm Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

mCADE comments on the Improvements to new gTLD expansion plan
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 17, 2012

Feb. 17, 2012

Dear BC colleagues I am attaching my individual responses to the BC position on Implementation Improvements to ICANN's gTLD expansion plan.While it was not technically prohibited for me to participate actively in policy development in my personal and individual capacity, I limited my personal and individual participation during the voting period for officers. As that period is closed,even though the results will be confirmed by the Voting Officer and Returning Officers tomorrow, I feel comfortable in participating in the discussion in my individual capacity. I apologize, though, for the lateness of my response which thus resulted as it limited the opportunity for dialogue on the list. These are my personal and individual views, as a BC member. I hope other members will post their views using the excellent format that was designed by our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination. There was a lot of email on the list since mid December, and I did try to reread it all to inform my understanding of all postings that are related. While that documented input from a few posters, this format seems an excellent approach to documenting and being able to then see comments in a single standardized 'approach'. Kudos, Steve, for that 'improvement', which I personally, as a member found extremely helpful. I also wanted to thank you for the huge amount of work you did to document the existing positions! It was helpful to me in considering what the BC had previously confirmed as a position. BUT, I do recognize how much work it was for you, so wanted to say thanks. Marilyn CademCADE llc

4 4