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

Request from Chair/rename of posting going forward: posts regarding new gTLD TAS
by Marilyn Cade April 15, 2012

April 15, 2012

COMMENT FROM BC CHAIR: RE: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14apr12-en.htm On April 14, the following announcement appeared on ICANN, and was transmitted to various lists. It is copied in complete form below, followed by a comment by the BC Chair. >From ICANN's announcements: "TAS Interruption - Update (14 April 2012 06:50 UTC)14 April 2012Statement by Akram Atallah, COOAs we have reported, ICANN has learned of a technical issue with the TLD application system software, or TAS, that allowed a limited number of users to view some other users' file names and user names in certain scenarios. We temporarily shut the system down on 12 April 2012 to protect applicant data, and to look into the technical issue and fix it.As part of that process, we are sifting through the thousands of customer service inquiries received since the opening of the application submission period. This preliminary review has identified a user report on 19 March that appears to be the first report related to this technical issue.Although we believed the issues identified in the initial and subsequent reports had been addressed, on 12 April we confirmed that there was a continuing unresolved issue and we shut down the system.We are still aggressively looking into the issue, and we will publish additional information as soon as it can be confirmed. We recognize the importance of reopening the application system as soon as possible. We will announce no later than 23:59 GMT/UTC on Monday, 16 April, whether we will be able to reopen on Tuesday, 17 April 2012.Thank you for your patience as we work to resolve this issue." Chair's comment: If members who are following this topic, or are engaged in applying for, or supporting an applicant wish to comment on the BC list, I ask that you use the following Subject for such posts: Subject: Comments on new gTLD TAS. I ask that because many members are interested, or concerned about how ICANN deals with failures in a major system within the new gTLD process, even if not an applicant, but not all on the BC list want to deal with details on the application process itself. Use of a standard Subject line will help the BC members as they prioritize other posts regarding urgent BC items, such as SSR comments; planning for Prague, etc. thanks, Marilyn Cade, Chair, BC Chair

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board
by Benedetta Rossi April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10apr12-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board 10 April 2012 *Establishment of New gTLD Program Committee* Resolved (2012.04.10.01), the Board hereby establishes the Board New gTLD Program Committee as follows: (i) the voting members of the Committee will consist of: Rod Beckstrom, Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Bill Graham, Erika Mann, Gonzalo Navarro, Ray Plzak, R. Ramaraj, George Sadowsky, Mike Silber, and Kuo-Wei Wu; (ii) the liaisons to the Committee will be Thomas Roessler; and (iii) the Chair of the Committee will be Cherine Chalaby. Resolved (2012.04.10.02), the Board hereby delegates to the Board New gTLD Program Committee all legal and decision making authority of the Board relating to the New gTLD Program (for the round of the Program, which commenced in January 2012 and for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round) as set forth in its Charter, which excludes those things that the Board is prohibited from delegating by law, or pursuant to Article XII, Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws. Resolved (2012.04.10.03), all members of the New gTLD Program Committee reinforce their commitment to the 8 December 2011 Resolution of the Board (Resolution 2011.12.08.19) regarding Board member conflicts, and specifying in part: "Any and all Board members who approve any new gTLD application shall not take a contracted or employment position with any company sponsoring or in any way involved with that new gTLD for 12 months after the Board made the decision on the application." Resolved (2012.04.10.04), the Board directs the CEO to prepare a document setting forth a process for the creation of Board Committees to address future situations where there may be multiple Board members with perceived, potential or actual conflicts of interest on an issue. Rationale for Resolutions 2012.04.10.01-2012.04.10.04 /In order to have efficient meetings and take appropriate actions with respect to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook, the Board decided to create the "New gTLD Program Committee" in accordance with Article XII of the Bylaws and has delegated decision making authority to the Committee as it relates to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program which commenced in January 2012 and for the related Applicant Guidebook that applies to this current round./ /Establishing this new Committee without conflicted members, and delegating to it decision making authority, will provide some distinct advantages. First, it will eliminate any uncertainty for conflict Board members with respect to attendance at Board meetings and workshops since the New gTLD Program topics can be dealt with at the Committee level. Second, it will allow for actions to be taken without a meeting by the committee. As the Board is aware, actions without a meeting cannot be taken unless done via electronic submission by unanimous consent; such unanimous consent cannot be achieved if just one Board member is conflicted. Third, it will provide the community with a transparent view into the Board's commitment to dealing with actual, potential or perceived conflicts./ /This resolution should have a positive impact on the community and ICANN as a whole as the New gTLD Program Committee will be able to take actions relating to the New gTLD Program for the current round of the Program and as related to the Applicant Guidebook without any question of conflict arising. No fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of this action and there will be no impact on the security, stability no resiliency of the domain name system./ Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Statement on TLD Application System
by Benedetta Rossi April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-12apr12-en.htm Statement on TLD Application System 12 April 2012 We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some other users' file names and user names in certain scenarios. Out of an abundance of caution, we took the system offline to protect applicant data. We are examining how this issue occurred and considering appropriate steps forward. We apologize for any concern this may have caused and will communicate on a regular basis on our website, which can be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org Akram Atallah Chief Operating Officer ICANN 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: Period of 12-22, April 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date
by Benedetta Rossi April 13, 2012

April 13, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-12apr12-en.htm Period of 12-22, April 2012: Public Comment Periods Approaching Closing Date 12 April 2012 The Following Public Comment periods are approaching their *Comment or Reply Period Close *dates,*April 12-22 2012*. As a member of the ICANN community, your timely feedback is critical to our accountability and transparency efforts. For your convenience, we have included direct links below to comments that will soon close. During the Reply period for Public Comments, participants should only address previous comments submitted and new posts concerning the topic should not be introduced. When constructing Replies, contributors are asked to cite the original poster's name, comment date, and any particular text that is pertinent. Please note that comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once that period ends. For more information please refer to the ICANN Public Comments page at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment Open for Comments Now *Title* *Comment Period Close Date [UTC Time]* *Reply Period Close Date [UTC Time]* Initial Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/universal-acceptance-idn-tlds-0…> Extended to 23 March 2012 [23:59] 13 April 2012 [23:59] Proposal to Protect International Red Cross and International Olympic Committee Names at the Top Level in New gTLDs <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.htm> 23 March 2012 [23:59] 14 April 2012 [23:59] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process -- Recommendation 8 Concerning Standardizing and Clarifying WHOIS Status Messages <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-b-rec8-21feb12-en.htm> 25 March 2012 [23:59] 15 April 2012 [23:59] Interim Report on Support Significantly Interested Parties for ccTLD Delegation or Redelegation Requests <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/foiwg-interim-report-2012-03feb…> 30 March 2012 [23:59] 20 April 2012 [23:59] ICANN Board Conflicts of Interest Review - Revised Conflicts of Interest Policy and Related Governance Documents <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/board-coi-review-11mar12-en.htm> 2 April 2012 [23:59] 24 April 2012 [23:59] Draft Advice Letter on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb1…> 17 April 2012 [23:59] 8 May 2012 [23:59] Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssrt-draft-report-15mar12-en.htm> Extended to 15 April 2012 [23:59] 7 May 2012 [23:59] Fake Renewal Notices Report <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21m…> 20 April 2012 [23:59] 11 May 2012 [23:59] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

TAS Crashes/New gTLD Application Deadline Extended to April 20
by Phil Corwin April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

FYI, for those BC members who may be unaware that the TAS system has crashed and that as a result the deadline for submitting new gTLD applications has been extended. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120412_icann_takes_fail_to_a_whole_new_leve… 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

ALERTS From the Secretariat: REVISED GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012
by Benedetta Rossi April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below the GNSO Council resolutions passed today. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Dear All, The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting today, 12 April 2012. A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen *1. Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process* Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.p…) Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO; Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on 'thick' Whois is still required. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012. *Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs* Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants; Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team; Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any; Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program; And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Now therefore be it resolved, The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues: - Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and - Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: TAS Temporarily Offline
by Benedetta Rossi April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement released today: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12apr12-en.htm TAS Temporarily Offline 12 April 2012 ICANN constantly monitors the performance of the TLD Application System (TAS). Recently, we received a report of unusual behavior with the operation of the TAS system. We then identified a technical issue with the TAS system software. ICANN is taking the most conservative approach possible to protect all applicants and allow adequate time to resolve the issue. Therefore, TAS will be shut down until Tuesday at 23:59 UTC - unless otherwise notified before that time. In order to ensure all applicants have sufficient time to complete their applications during the disruption, the application window will remain open until 23:59 UTC on Friday, 20 April 2012. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. If you have any questions, please contact the gTLD Customer Service Center (CSC) via the CSC portal. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ICC input on SSR RT draft report
by HASSAN Ayesha April 10, 2012

April 10, 2012

Dear BC colleagues, Attached please find the ICC's informal preliminary comments on the SSR RT draft report. We will be watching to see if it is useful for ICC to provide additional comments during the 'reply comment' period as others post their inputs. Kind regards, Ayesha Ayesha Hassan International Chamber of Commerce Senior Policy Manager Digital Economy Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy 38 Cours Albert 1er 75008 Paris, France tel: +33 1 49 53 30 13 fax: +33 1 49 53 28 59 Email: ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org website: www.iccwbo.org <http://www.iccwbo.org/> BASIS website: http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/ <http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/>

1 0

FW: New ICA Webpost on Alleged Misrepresentation re:Thick WHOIS @.Com
by Phil Corwin April 9, 2012

April 9, 2012

FYI-- http://internetcommerce.org/WHOIS_Misrepresentation%3F GNSO Council to Discuss Whether ICANN Engaged in "Misrepresentation of the Truth" on Thick WHOIS for .Com Submitted by Philip Corwin on Mon, 04/09/2012 - 17:09 In our recent post on the proposed renewal draft of the .Com registry contract we noted that, in addition to appropriately rejecting IP sector urgings that the untested URS be foisted on 100-million-plus .Com domains through contractual fiat, and to continuing the price increase cap provisions of the current contract, the document contained other significant provisions including "Deferral of 'thick WHOIS' implementation, with that matter shunted to the GNSO policy process". (http://internetcommerce.org/DotCom_Deja_Vu) ICA policy calls for its members to provide correct WHOIS contact information and to comply with lawful requests for data placed under privacy protection. And our understanding has been that VeriSign is neutral on whether .Com should continue to have "thin WHOIS" - with the more detailed registrant data still available but residing at their registrars -- or should be required to convert to the "thick WHOIS" database maintained by other gTLDs. So we thought the issue of "thick WHOIS" at .Com was relatively non-controversial. But perhaps not. We were reviewing the agenda (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm) for the upcoming April 12th meeting of ICANN's GNSO Council and were somewhat startled to come across this agenda item: Item 5: GNSO Council comment on .COM contract renewal (10 minutes) In its announcement on the .COM contract renewal dated 27 March 2012 (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm) ICANN states that the question of transitioning a large existing registry to thick WHOIS has been recognised by the GNSO as raising operational and other issues that require further discussion and consideration (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm) So Council discussions are being cited as the rationale for the fact that the 2012 .COM contract contains no obligations on the registry operator to switch to a thick WHOIS format. Considering the debate that went on at Council level on this issue, the Council may deem this to be a misrepresentation of the truth. If so, the Council may then wish to draft a statement outlining this and direct the Chair to send it to the Board. 5.1Discussion 5.2 Next steps (Emphasis added) We don't know the full background on why some members of the GNSO Council may view ICANN's announcement as having 'misrepresented the truth' in regard to their debate on this matter, so we'll await review of the meeting transcript of the upcoming Council discussion. But we think it's worrisome when ICANN's gTLD policymaking body schedules a discussion of such an internal communications matter. Given the upcoming challenges of processing hundreds (or thousands) of new gTLD applications, the imminent installation of a new CEO and any resulting management alterations, the uncertainty about whether ICANN will be re-awarded the IANA contract and what new obligations and commitments that may entail, and the ongoing global debate regarding the future shape and substance of Internet governance, ICANN's senior community members need to be working cooperatively on these major challenges - not exchanging bickering views over whether one side misrepresented the position of the other as a rationale for its own action in regard to an important yet secondary issue that should be amenable to reasonable resolution. We hope the GNSO Council will quickly resolve this with ICANN staff in a way that minimizes bruised feelings and future miscommunications. Given the current stakes for ICANN, can't we all just get along? 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

Business Constituency (BC) comments on Roadmap for SAC 051 (Whois)
by Steve DelBianco April 8, 2012

April 8, 2012

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comments on the draft roadmap for SAC 051 implementation of a replacement protocol for Whois. A general note regarding ICANN comment periods: These are initial comments of the BC on this topic, which we acknowledge filing during the portion of comment period designated for reply comments. While the BC supports a two-part comment period, we are finding that the time for initial comments should be lengthened. In addition, we believe that comment periods should be extended whenever an ICANN public meeting occurs during the comment period. Public meetings require intense participation for several a days, leaving little time to prepare public comments. A simple solution would be to add 7 days to any public comment period that includes dates of an ICANN public meeting. Submitted by: Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0