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

proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

As discussed on our 8-Feb members call and on the BC list, we have an opportunity to comment on staff's proposed implementation of recommended changes to domain name transfer policies. Several BC members were very involved in the IRTP-B working group and we endorsed the WG Report last year (see our Aug-2011 comment below). Specifically, this is about IRTP-B Recommendation 9, Part 2. As explained by staff (Link<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec9-part2-23jan12-en.htm>) the main elements of the proposed modifications are: * Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the Registered Name Holder: and * Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar Lock" status Today, Phil Corwin and I reviewed the staff proposal (here<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf%…>) and compared changes to the WG's May-2011 report we endorsed last year (here<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf%20>). We found 3 changes proposed by Staff: On page 6, staff inserted language from the WG report regarding express objections to transfers. Verbatim from the WG report, so this looks good. On page 7, staff struck language that is replaced by the above change. Looks good. On page 8, staff inserted language on registrar requirements on setting the lock status of domain names. Phil and I could not find verbatim language in the WG Report, but we believe staff's proposed language will appropriately implement the policy intended by the WG Report. Would appreciate some review by anyone more familiar with transfers and locks. But if we don't hear otherwise by 12-Feb, the BC will submit a comment that endorses the Staff Proposal. Thanks, Steve DelBianco and Phil Corwin From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:16:54 -0400 To: <irtp-b-recommendations(a)icann.org<mailto:irtp-b-recommendations@icann.org>> Cc: "'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> GNSO list'" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations The Business Constituency (BC) endorses the recommendations made by the IRTP-B Working Group and encourages ICANN Board members to vote in favor of the motion as drafted. If Board members have issues which prevent them from supporting the motion, the BC urges the Board refer the issue back to the GNSO Council which can ask the IRTP-B working group to review the Board's feedback, and perhaps modify recommendations where appropriate. This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our charter. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12

2 1

Transcript BC Members Call Feb 8 2012 & Candidate Call Feb 7 2012
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the transcripts from the following BC Calls: 1. BC Candidate Call for the open Officer Elections for 2012: Feb. 7th 2012 2. BC Members Pre Council Call: Feb. 8th 2012 The transcripts and call schedule can also be found on the BC wiki, which is updated regularly. Please feel free to email me any suggestions regarding information you'd like to see on the wiki. 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

FW: [bc-gnso] : For discussion and review: proposed BC list of implementation improvements for new gTLD program
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Here are comments from BC Member CADNA. From: Yvette Miller <yvette(a)CADNA.org<mailto:yvette@CADNA.org>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:07:11 -0600 To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] : For discussion and review: proposed BC list of implementation improvements for new gTLD program I'd like to submit the attached comments on behalf of CADNA. Please let me know if you have any questions! Best, Yvette -- Yvette Miller Director, Communications and Marketing The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) 1632 Wisconsin Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20007 Office: +1 202 223 9355 Mobile: +1 202 341 3799 yvette(a)cadna.org CADNA: http://www.cadna.org This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message 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 e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and all attachments from your system. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:55:18 -0500 To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE-SEND: For discussion and review: proposed BC list of implementation improvements for new gTLD program BC members, We've discussed this list of implementation improvements for several weeks. And we want BC members to have a full 14 days to review and approve the final list before we deliver to ICANN Board and management ahead of the Costa Rica meeting. So please review the attached list, which includes two sections: Section 1: Existing BC positions that are re-stated as implementation changes. For these items, please indicate any comments or suggestions regarding continued BC advocacy. Section 2: Recommendations that are not directly take from established BC positions. Please indicate whether you Support or Oppose these implementation changes. You may also offer any relevant comments. If, by 16-Feb-2012, more than 10% of paid BC members indicate they do not support any of the Section 2 items, we will conduct voting on those items. That voting would be managed by the newly-elected BC officers -- after they take office on 17-Feb-2012. Thanks for reviewing these items. I'm available if you have questions about substance or process. -- Steve DelBianco BC vice chair for policy coordination +1.202.420.7482

3 2

Business Constituency response to WHOIS Review Team questions
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Attached is the response of the Business Constituency (BC) to questions from The WHOIS Policy Review Team. This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our charter. Sarah Deutsch served as Rapporteur for this response. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency http://Www.bizconst.org <http://Www.bizconst.org/>

4 6

Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

John Berard asked me which options the WG is likely to pursue. Can't really predict that, but it would be good to express what BC members think are the best options. Would any BC members object to endorsing these options that I would recommend? Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow letter of non-objection. Q2: Option 2. Give GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the listed names. Q3: Option 3. Reserve policy would apply in this round, with no decision on subsequent rounds. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO Working Group on answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red Cross and the Olympics. Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level. We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the questions below, with respect to just top-level domains: --Steve Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review. · Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered “Reserved Names” b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. · Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 4a – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 4b – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. · Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. · Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.” c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.

7 10

Interesting Blog Post
by Smith, Bill Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Of possible interest to members: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com.

2 1

CSG Budget and Operating Plan Update
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Dear Members, Following up from my CSG Budget and Operating Plan WG Here is a link to the FY13 framework plan. http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2013-en.pdf It contains 13 - ICANN Priorities - page 6 14 - Core Operations page 11 15 Ongoing Strategic Projects page 13 22 New Strategic Projects page 13 Framework p24 and assumption p25 to 29 Revenue p30 and assumptions p31 to 32 Contingency p33 and Investment and Reserves The Budget Group's Wik which Bene maintains for usi: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092 Which includes call notes and transcripts from previous calls as well as current deadlines and background documentation Looking forwards to receiving any member comments when we circulate the draft. An new members welcome to help comment either globally or more specifically on any Core operation or Strategic Project. 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.

1 0

WHOIS RT Public Meetings
by Smith, Bill Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Sunday 13:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Meeting Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… 17:30-18:30 -- WHOIS Review Team – GNSO Council meeting Monday 14:00-15:30 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community Description: Presentation of draft final report recommendations for the community's consideration and feedback. For more information please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm Tuesday 11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting

1 0

FW: Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations
by Phil Corwin Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

FYI--- http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/07/raa-investigation Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations by Kieren McCarthy | 7 Feb 2012 | Starting this week and ending on 15 February when a revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) is expected to be published for public review, .Nxt will take you inside the secret negotiations to update the domain name system's key contract. In response to a failure by ICANN to provide sufficient openness or transparency regarding the negotiations, despite promises otherwise, we have been in contact with many of those in and surrounding the negotiations, all of whom have spoken on the condition of anonymity. [Description: http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/raa-signing.jpg] Signing the last RAA revision in 2009. The smiles are not there in 2012. Our investigation has uncovered: * The depth of disagreement between registrars * That ICANN is willing to "throw registrars under the bus" in order to keep governments happy and look as if it is solving the problem * The pressure placed on ICANN's negotiating team to force through results dictated from above * A conscious effort by ICANN to force registrars' hands by making public statements about what changes will be included, despite having no idea how to introduce them * A refusal on some registrars' part to acknowledge that the world has changed, to the extent that some are advocating walking away from the whole process Our investigation also highlights a significant number of failures on the part of ICANN staff, including: * Agreeing to a fast-track negotiation despite the likelihood of failure * Insisting on closed-doors discussions, despite a past history of it failing * Failing to keep the community adequately informed * Putting forward the wrong negotiation team * Undermining negotiations through public pronouncements * Failing to fully understand registrar realities but expecting registrars to work in good faith to make changes work shortly after refusing to listen to their concerns We will begin our review later this week with the most contentious part of RAA negotiations - the insistence that there be some kind of verification of registrant data for domain names. But first some quick history When the ICANN Board ordered a fast-track negotiation over the key contract that the organization has with registrars - the RAA - it used unusually strong language. It called for staff and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and to do so "as a matter of extreme urgency""The Board wishes to convey its sense of urgency on this issue," began the resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> of 28 October. Another part read: "The Board requires action." It called for staff and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and to do so "as a matter of extreme urgency". Equally strong language had come from the world's governments earlier that week. They were sick of the delay in changes to the RAA to the extent that they threatened to walk away<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/24/governments-registrars-fight> from the entire decision-making structure that ICANN embodies. A few months later, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not to mention two Congressional hearings and several business coalitions focussed in on one of the issues tied up with RAA negotiations - the issue of accurate registrant data. Open, transparent? Nope. Both parties were aware this did not please anyoneDespite ICANN's own obligation to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner", it decided to hold negotiations over the RAA in secret, with just ICANN staff and registrar representatives present. Both parties were aware this did not please anyone. In an announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02dec11-en.htm>, ICANN noted: "To promote transparency and timely communications, ICANN has created a dedicated Wiki to describe the communications plan, publish regular status updates on the amendment topics under consideration, and provide comment opportunities to the broader ICANN community." The registrars promised the same<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12335.html>: "To ensure transparency, registrars and ICANN will update the community regarding the substance and progress of negotiations. Decision rationale will be included as part of those communications and at the time the new agreement is published for public comment." As soon as negotiations began, however, the promise of openness and transparency into the discussions was jettisoned. Not only are the meeting reports<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/RAA+Negotiation+Meeting+Reports> largely meaningless but ICANN has stopped producing them. As of today, 7 February, the last report available is from 5 January. There have been at least two meetings between the parties since 5 January; none are listed. Uncovering the discussion ICANN counted on its negotiations being secretICANN counted on its negotiations being secret. However such is the level of concern at the tactics used, and the failure of key parties on both sides to approach the negotiations in good faith, that those concerned about the process have spoken to us on the condition of anonymity. What results is as damning as the letter<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/16/ftc-letter-to-icann> sent to ICANN recently by the Federal Trade Commission, which found that ICANN had "neglected to respond to the needs of this community both in the accuracy of Whois data and in response times for access and action". Yet again, ICANN has failed to effectively carry out its job. When the revised RAA is published - which should be on 15 February - we will publish what changes we believe ICANN needs to make in order to maintain confidence in its ability as an organization to look after the domain name system 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

1 0