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

Announcing that the BC will meet with the 2013 Nominating Committee members and Chair/Chair-Elect in Toronto - date and time to be confirmed/Background Reports for Nominating Committees - 2011, 2010, 2009 [2012 will be available soon]
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 1, 2012

Oct. 1, 2012

Dear BC Members The BC will meet with the 2013 Nominating Committee Chair, Chair-Elect, and our own appointees, and hopefully other members of the 2013 NC in Toronto. We are finalizing time slots, but at present, it appears that Monday, during our lunch time session, or Wednesday, during our lunchtime session are the available time slotsfor our full BC members. We will try to confirm one of these asap. In any case, if that does not work, we will work out a different time to interact with the full BC attendance. In the meantime, we all have homework to do on this important topic. For some of our BC members, the NC is perhaps a new item for discussion, so I'll suggest that we use our list to exchange views and perspectives and share information. We are very fortunate that we have several current BC members with past experience on the NC, including: Mike RobertsPhil LodicoMarilyn CadeWaudo SigangaSarah Deutsch[apologies if I have missed anyone]*Some other NC reps no longer are BC members due to having made job changes - Graham Forsyth and Chris Martin, as examples. Another BC rep has retired and declined my efforts to recruit him as 'emeritus' participant. :-) Some of our members are relatively new, and I thought that you might want to have some discussion on a few background items: Possible exchange of view topics: What does the NomCom do? Why is it important? Who appoints the Chair? What reforms were instituted based on its last Review? Did the ATRT affect the NomCom and if so, how? Have those improvements been put in place? What criteria should the NomCom apply for selection of its appointees? Why? What transparency and accountability mechanisms guide the NomCom's work? The BC has just announced its two participants in the 2013 Nominating Committee. While they will carry participation inside the NC, all BC members should be aware of and concernedabout the Nominating Committee's functions. I hope we can demystify what it is, and why it is important to understand for our broader BC membership. Appointees to the NC do not represent a Constituency, but work independently, once appointed. This is a hard, and responsible role for all appointees. The Nominating Committee carries a high degree of responsibility, but at present is still working to implement the recommendations of the ATRT. I want to call all BC members attention to critically important background about past NC reports and bylaw and code of conduct. information about the Nominating Committee -- see below. The 2012 Report is not available, but I have assurances from the 2012 Chair of the NC that it willbe available shortly. I will be sure it is posted to the full BC at that time. While the following are 'required' reading for our two appointees, some of the rest of us will be interested, so I am sharing with all. Other Background Materials: 2011 Report http://dakar42.icann.org/meetings/dakar2011/presentation-nomcom-28oct11-en.… 2010 Report http://cartagena39.icann.org/meetings/cartagena2010/presentation-nominating… 2009 Report http://sel.icann.org/meetings/seoul2009/presentation-nomcom-chair-30oct09-e… In addition to the Bylaws and reports listed above, the following documents are reviewed and updated as necessary for each NomCom and may also be useful information. Nominating Committee Procedures http://nomcom.icann.org/procedures-2012.htm Nominating Committee Guidelines http://nomcom.icann.org/guidelines-2012.htm Nominating Committee Code of Conduct http://nomcom.icann.org/conduct-2012.htm Thanks for your ongoing participation in the BC and your participation in the ICANN governance issues. ICANN governance improvements strengthen the BC's ability to encourage others from business to support and engage in ICANN and to participate in the BC. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

3 2

Announcement of BC NomCom representatives to 2013 NomCom
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 30, 2012

Sept. 30, 2012

Dear BC Members The Nominating Committee for ICANN will be convening in Toronto for the 2013 Nominating Committee (NC) process. The work of the NomComm will be especially time consuming this year, due to the high number of important appointments -- 3 Board members and 2 Councilors to GNSO Council, plus additional ccNSO and ALAC appointees. The ExeComm has conducted a process to determine the two BC representatives to the 2013 NC. We invited self nomination from members who proposed to assume these importantand very time consuming roles for the BC. The ability to fully commit to the online and face to face meeting work of the NC is a high demand on time of our representatives. We were pleased to have 3 self nominees, and the ExComm considered all three nominees with full appreciation that all bring considerable strengths and different aspects of BC expertise and understanding, but also each volunteer brings strengths in interaction within ICANN, and external to ICANN, especiallyin regard to networks that access leaders from developing countries. We took into account the unusually high demands of workload for NC members, due to the number of appointments to be made. The ExComm has made appointments of two BC representatives to the NomCom. For 2013, the BC will be represented by : Waudo Siganga, WITSA: WITSA has a strong and diverse network with over 80 associations; the majority of which are from developing countries. Waudo is an experiencedparticipant in the NomCom for the BC, and we appreciate that he has accepted a second term for 2013. We ask Waudo to carry the responsibility for small and medium enterprizes views,and to ensure that there is broad outreach into developing and emerging economies, with a special focus on awareness about ICANN and the NC. He will carry the Small Business designation to ensure that there is recognition of the concerns of small businesses, whether represented by associations, or independently and will collaborate closely with our second representative. Waudo is the senior executive in the Kenyan Computer Society; and is on several Boards, including AfriICA, and WITSA. Ron Andruff, RNApartners: . Ron will carry the responsibility to represent large businesses and associations that are focused on large businesses, and will be available to collaborate with BC entities related to encouraging awareness and interest by such parties, and far beyond for large business and for associations that specialize in their focus on large/global corporations. Ron is the past CEO of .travel; and the current CEO of RNAPartners; in addition, he has held additional senior leadership positions in business. Ron brings an extensive network within ICANN's structure, and externally with business. Ron has carried several key collaborative leadership roles for the BC as a volunteer, including steering roles within the last GNSO restructuring; playing a leadership role in Charter redrafting. He also carries an additional role within the BC in the STI in the GNSO, where he has demonstrated strong skills of leadership, involvement, and leadership within challenging situations, and has build strong relationships which may be leveraged toward collaboration within the NC. 2013 is a unique challenge for the BC, and the ExComm took all of the challenges that we face to ensure effectiveness within ICANN into account, as well as our other work demands on our members. All candidates brought skills, and capabilities to this appointment, and we once again thank all who submitted their interest statements. I do want, as Chair to note that while the NC is important to ICANN and to the BC, many other issues are vitally important to the BC, and we must be effective on all fronts. The work load that we will carry as the BC going forwardare considerable, and you will see other emails from me, as Chair, with support of the ExCom, asking for more engagement by our BC members on many other fronts of work at ICANN. Time commitments for our NC Reps: The importance of full commitment to attending and fully participating in the NomCom is a significant commitment. That means that our BC reps have to be absent to us, and often to their daily job demands during the NomCom meetings. This is a high bar for our representatives, and we ask that all BC members show their support to our two representatives to 2013, who will be with us in Toronto, and will be joining the 2013 Nominating Committee on our behalf. 2013 appointments/selections that the 2013 Nominating Committee will be responsible for: 3 Board members2 GNSO Council Appointments, including who of these appointees gets to hold voting seats on the GNSO policy CouncilCCNSO appointmentsALAC appointments I am separately circulating a long list of reports and documents that support the work of the Nominating Committee. I know that many of you are strongly interested in the NC work, so am posting it to the full BC list, but the Secretariat will also put the links on the BC WIKI, for later and further reference. [See separate email]. Marilyn Cade, BC ChairOn behalf of the BC ExComm

2 1

Announcement of Strat Plan 2013-2016: If you are interested in joining a small internal BC WG on analyzing the Strat Plan, please send a confirming email to the BC list.
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 28, 2012

Sept. 28, 2012

Skip to main content ICANN Home Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers About Us News & Press Resources Groups Contact Help Search Google Appliance Enter the terms you wish to search for. You are here NEWS & PRESS › ANNOUNCEMENTS Draft 2013-2016 Strategic Plan for Public Comment 24 September 2012 Strategic Plan (clean version) [PDF, 765 KB] Strategic Plan (redline against previous plan) [PDF, 821 KB] The Draft 2013-2016 Strategic Plan is posted for public comment in accordance with the previously established timeline. (The timeline can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/stratplan2013-04jun12-en.htm.) This draft takes into consideration community feedback gathered through consultations and submitted public comments. A Strategic Planning session is scheduled for Toronto that will be organized to take comment on this document and also raise for discussion future strategy formulation as well as a model for ICANN planning and execution. With regard to those last two items, community feed back also indicated that ICANN should undertake a full-scale strategy development for the next planning cycle to cover 3 to 5 years and that there be clear linkage of strategy and execution. Future planning cycle: Focus on developing and implementing a strategy that will: Develop a shared vision and define ICANN's mission, to be followed consistently. Consider environmental forces and new developments that will impact the multi-stakeholder model. Formulate "macro-level" organizational objectives and goals that are clearly derived from ICANN's vision and mission. Linkage of strategy and execution: ICANN's Strategic Plan is linked to the annual Operating Plan and Budget. The Execution Structure is a management system methodology that will ensure that strategy is translated into actionable and measurable goals, programs, projects and activities by: Facilitating understanding of organizational objectives and goals that form the basis of the annual Operating Plan and Budget. Measure effectiveness of initiatives and programs by implementing a management system of clear ownership, timelines, metrics and accountability. These are the critical elements that will ensure that ICANN's execution plan support the vision and mission articulated in the Strategy and that the execution plan is implemented with accountability and transparency. Announcements Public Comment For Journalists Newsletter Correspondence Presentations In Focus Dashboard RSS Feeds RFPs Litigation Independent Review Process Stay Connected News Alerts: HTML Plain Text Newsletter: HTML Plain Text Compliance Newsletter: HTML Plain Text Policy Update: HTML Plain Text Follow us @icann Videos Photos on Flickr Facebook ICANN Blog Community Wiki Planet ICANN RSS Feeds © 2012 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers. Press | Site MapICANN HomeIPv6 ICANN Network Help Acronym Helper

1 0

REMINDER: BC Appointment of Nominating Committee Representatives: Closing today
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 26, 2012

Sept. 26, 2012

Dear BC Members, This is a reminder of the currently open BC Appointment of the 2 Nominating Committee representatives closing today. So far I have received 3 nominations. Other members may still be interested in self nominating; if that is the case, please submit your nomination by CoB PST today. 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

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: RFI for URS Providers
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

Thanks very much for this heads up and good news. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:52:49 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: RFI for URS Providers FYI, yesterday ICANN finally issued a Request for Information (RFI) for potential URS providers. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm> Written responses are required by November 20th, with the aim of announcing one or more selected providers by February 28, 2013. 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: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

.WTF application
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

It seems this Donuts application has not received nearly as much specific public scrutiny as it perhaps should, given the larger issues around Donuts entire application portfolio. We have filed the following comment today on behalf of the World Trade Center Association, and would appreciate hearing other companies views on this issue, particularly we would like to hear them expressed to ICANNs public comment forum and to GAC representatives --------------------------------- Our law firm represents the World Trade Center Association with respect to ICANN matters. WTCA is a leading trade association in the promotion of international trade. The WTCAs licensed members operate the well-known World Trade Center facilities around the world. The WTCA is a long-established and famous multinational corporation, with more than 40 years of history. It was incorporated in 1969 and officially established in 1970. WTCA is currently comprised of more than 325 licensed members, carrying out business in over 90 countries. WTCA is concerned about the application of a Donuts, Inc. company (Hidden Way, LLC) to register the .WTF gTLD. As typical of the 300+ other applications filed by Donuts companies, this application says very little about Donuts plan for this TLD. In response to Question 18, they only state: Donuts believes in an open Internet and, accordingly, we will encourage inclusiveness in the registration policies for this TLD. In order to avoid harm to legitimate registrants, Donuts will not artificially deny access, on the basis of identity alone (without legal cause), to a TLD that represents a generic form of activity and expression. [¶] WTF is a pop-culture term that is attractive to registrants seeking new avenues for expression on the Internet, and who are perhaps interested in demonstrations of irony, skepticism, humor, and critique. Individuals and groups will register names in .WTF when interested in editorializing, providing input, interacting with other communities, and publishing commentary. >From this it is only clear that the primary purpose of the unrestricted TLD is to refer to the pop-culture term represented by the WTF TLD string What the Fk? Indeed, many people, organizations and governments likely will be asking that question of ICANN, if this TLD application is approved. The common pop culture meaning of the WTF acronym focuses upon a word that is deemed by many people as one of the most offensive words in the English language, which further has transcended into most non-English speaking cultures. Generally, ICANN ought not be allowing an accredited TLD operator to sell domain names specifically centering on that "F-word," which is vulgar and offensive to so many people. There are plenty of other ways for people to express themselves, even among Donuts other hundreds of TLDs, and further by using references to that word in domains at the second and higher level. There simply ought not be an ICANN-accredited TLD registry focusing its sales efforts around such a word. ICANNs Applicant Guidebook states that a TLD should not be approved if the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law. To be sure, use of the F-word in public discourse is not generally accepted as morally appropriate or orderly, even if legal in some contexts. Merely saying that word, particularly in a public or social context, can bring penalties under the laws and/or broadcast regulations of many if not most nations. The lead sentence in the Wikipedia entry for the word states that it is almost universally considered vulgar. Further: The word's use is considered obscene in social contexts. In the modern English-speaking world, the word [] is often considered highly offensive. Most English-speaking countries censor it on television and radio. A [year 2000] study of the attitudes of the British public found that [the word] was considered the third most severe profanity and its derivative [mother-] second. The term remains a taboo word to many people in English-speaking countries. The word also carries a sacrilegious connotation to some. Many religious people oppose the use of profane, vulgar, and "curse" words which they see as offensive to a deity. It is considered highly offensive to utter the word in the presence of children. Therefore, WTCA urges ICANNs Independent Objector to further explore this issue, to file a Limited Public Interest Objection against this application as soon as possible, and for ICANNs designated resolution panel to sustain that objection. WTCA also encourages GAC representatives to issue early warnings to Donuts, and formal advice to ICANN to reject the application on this basis. Ultimately, WTCA would urge the ICANN Board to reject the application on the same basis. WTCA is further concerned about potential negative associations between this TLD string and the .WTC TLD which WTCA seeks to operate. But the WTCA hopes that its specific concerns need not be expressed as the general community concern is so obvious and significant. Failing rejection via ICANN process, WTCA reserves all other rights it may specifically have with respect to the .WTF application and proposed registry business. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com

1 0

FW: RFI for URS Providers
by Phil Corwin Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

FYI, yesterday ICANN finally issued a Request for Information (RFI) for potential URS providers. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-8-24sep12-en.htm Written responses are required by November 20th, with the aim of announcing one or more selected providers by February 28, 2013. 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: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: ICANN - Toronto annotated agenda - with PUBLISHED/UNPUBLISHED agendas
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 25, 2012

Sept. 25, 2012

The BC Secretariat quickly put together a summary of where there are agendas, and not for the Toronto meeting of ICANN.ICANN is already 10 days late in publishing the agenda, according to their bylaw commitment. This appears to be a placeholderschedule and it lacks the detail for many of the critical sessions for the BC. However, it is at least a place for us to start, and we will be pushing forward with ICANN senior staff to try go get more agendas for workshops published asap. Bene, thanks for this quick turn around to help the BC understand what is going on at ICANN Toronto! Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

2 1

FW: URS Implementation to Commence -- New ICA Webpost
by Phil Corwin Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

FYI--- http://internetcommerce.org/URS_Implementation URS Implementation Finally to Commence Under GNSO Direction For more than a year ICA has been asking ICANN when it will commence with the task of implementing the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for the new gTLD program as it currently stands in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). The URS is a required rights protection mechanism (RPM) that must be in place before any new gTLDs can open, and the current model balances trademark holder and registrant rights and is the result of a laborious two-year process resulting in recommendations that were unanimously adopted by the GNSO Council and subsequently by the ICANN Board. Each of our inquiries about the commencement of URS implementation have received the same general response of "soon", but no perceptible progress had been made since the new gTLD program launched in the spring of 2011. We have just learned that ICANN senior executive Kurt Pritz has sent a publicly available e-mail to GNSO Council Chairman Stephane Van Gelder advising him that URS implementation will finally begin in earnest within a few weeks. That exchange is below, and here are our key take-aways: * ICANN continues to assert that the present URS model does "not appear to meet cost requirements". Yet, so far as know, and our knowledge includes a targeted document disclosure request filed on this and related subjects (see http://internetcommerce.org/WIPO2ICANN_URS_Summits) ICANN has no documented cost analysis proving this assertion and is instead relying on the feedback of the two principal UDRP providers, WIPO and NAF, who have their own separate rationales for making such an assertion. At the conference held yesterday in Washington held to discuss Melbourne IT's HARM proposal (about which we shall post separately) there was a fairly broad consensus that ICANN should publish an RFP for the URS and solicit bids from a broad range of credible arbitration providers beyond the thin ranks of WIPO and NAF, based on the common sense belief that a URS focused on slam dunk infringement should not require a great deal of expert time or associated cost (if it takes more than 15 minutes to render a decision, it's not a black-and-white case and belongs in a UDRP proceeding). There was also considerable support for the notion that, if the price target of $300-$500 simply cannot be met, ICANN should consider at least short-term subsidization by using some of the $350 million it has collected in new gTLD application fees. ICA believes it is premature to "flesh out some of those [alternative] models for possible implementation", and thereby contemplate significant revisions of URS, until we have market testing of the true cost of implementing the present model. Before there is any consideration of "potential solutions", let's determine if there really is a cost problem that needs to be solved. * A meeting on URS implementation, possibly in the form of a webinar, will be scheduled for the first week of October. We are unsure who will be invited to speak at the webinar and whether it will include adequate representation of the registrant community, both commercial and non-commercial. Let's wait and see. * A second meeting will be scheduled during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Toronto. We believe it's is essential that this critical meeting result in a credible path to timely implementation. * ICANN has stated that "the meetings we are having are open to all". This is consistent with the open and transparent approach to URS implementation that ICA has consistently advocated, and we intend to be intimately involved. * ICANN understands the key role played by the GNSO Council in developing and approving the present model and "that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way", and is willing to "work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed". From our viewpoint, this position is an extremely positive development because it respects the key policymaking role that the Council plays for gTLDs, puts the ICANN community as represented by the Council rather than ICANN staff in the driver's seat on designing and managing the implementation process, and is a far better approach than the "Summit" concept contemplated earlier this year. It also undercuts potential efforts by some brand interests to try to circumvent the Council through direct lobbying of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, through it, the ICANN Board. * ICANN aims to "seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the URS was designed" and to balance that with a commitment to "seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model". Assuring that registrants enjoy the essential due process rights written into the current policy, and that they are not diluted in pursuit of complainant cost reduction, will be ICA's foremost goal as this discussion ensues. All in all, these are overdue but overall positive developments. Again, it's our belief that any substantial alteration of the URS based on cost goals should not even be considered until we have some accurate, market-tested idea of the cost of implementing the current model -- and that does not yet exist. Even then, we are wary of reopening this carefully constructed RPM because some of the ideas floating around for reducing cost could substantially reduce registrant rights in new gTLDs and convert the URS from a narrow supplement to the UDRP into a cut-price, rights-gutting alternative to it. That's an unacceptable bait-and-switch. But ICANN's recognition of the central role to be played by the GNSO Council in considering any alteration is positive. It is critically important that whatever is done on URS implementation get off to a sound launch in Toronto, because there is an unusually long half-year gap between it and the next, April 2013 ICANN meeting in Beijing. A botched process could lead to further pushback in the launch date for new gTLDs, while one that results in evisceration of registrant rights could fatally undermine their prospects for success. The e-mail exchange follows: From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]> On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:08 AM To: Kurt Pritz Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Uniform Rapid Suspension Discussion Thanks Kurt. I am copying the Council for their information. The Council will no doubt follow-up on this in the near future. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM NetNames France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director NetNames T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51 F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61 Le 18 sept. 2012 à 22:09, Kurt Pritz a écrit : Hi Stephane: I am writing to let you know that we are planning a set of discussions on Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) implementation in the near future and seek the input of GNSO leadership. As you know, a meeting in Prague we indicated that URS, as currently designed, did not appear to meet cost requirements. In Prague, contributors in the meeting described briefly several potential solutions. In the next set of meetings, we want to flesh out some of those models for possible implementation. We want to have one meeting in about two weeks (probably a webinar type of format with a possibility for some face-to-face interaction), and then we have a meeting in Toronto is scheduled. The first meeting will be announced shortly. I am writing you because some of the proposed solutions, while feasible, do not match up with the specific conclusions of the STI team when it did its work. We recognize the role of the GNSO in those discussions. While the meetings we are having are open to all, we understand that the GNSO leadership might want to conduct the URS discussions in a certain way. Having the twin goals of developing a solution in time for use by new gTLDs and ensuring that all those interested can participate in the discussion, we can work in whichever way the GNSO wishes to proceed. (Of course, we also seek to meet the cost and timeliness goals for which the URS was designed and also seek to ensure that registrants enjoy the protections written into the current model by the IRT and STI.)The output of the next meetings can inform GNSO discussion or we can carry on in a way acceptable to the GNSO. I am also copying Olivier as ALAC members participated in the STI. I hope you find this helpful. Contact me anytime with questions. Regards, Kurt 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: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2437/5263 - Release Date: 09/11/12 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

We need advice. What are implications? Suspending is "okay" if we can block suspension is we disagree. I can't read materially. But do read as much as I can. Can you and Angie make a two sentence case why I shld support this? I am suspicious - just a bit- abt why this. But recognize "suspend" is not "cancel". Shld suspension have a 3, 6, 9, 12 month "revisit? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:15 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear Fellow BC Members, On behalf of Angie Graves and myself (BC SCI reps), I am forwarding (see below) the Standing Committee on Implementation's recommendation on suspension of a PDP that will be sent to the GNSO Council for approval once the SCI signs off. If any BC members have opinions, comments or questions on this matter, please bring them to the list as soon as possible. Hearing no comments, Angie and I will give BC approval to this amendment in the PDP Manual. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. ---------------- From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:37 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications (in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika =============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]

2 2

FW: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP
by Ron Andruff Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

Dear Fellow BC Members, On behalf of Angie Graves and myself (BC SCI reps), I am forwarding (see below) the Standing Committee on Implementation's recommendation on suspension of a PDP that will be sent to the GNSO Council for approval once the SCI signs off. If any BC members have opinions, comments or questions on this matter, please bring them to the list as soon as possible. Hearing no comments, Angie and I will give BC approval to this amendment in the PDP Manual. Thank you. RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:37 AM To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] For review - proposed language to address suspending a PDP Dear All, As discussed during the last meeting, please find below the proposed modifications (in bold) to the PDP Manual to address suspension of a PDP. As with any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures of which the PDP Manual is part, once approved by the SCI, these would need to be put out for public comment for a minimum of 21 days followed by GNSO Council approval. If you have any further comments / edits, please share these with the mailing list. With best regards, Marika =============== Proposed Language to address suspending a PDP (modification in bold of section 15 of the PDP Manual) The GNSO Council may terminate or suspend* a PDP prior to the publication of a Final Report only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a Supermajority Vote in favour of termination or suspension. The following are illustrative examples of possible reasons for a premature termination or suspension of a PDP: 1. Deadlock. The PDP Team is hopelessly deadlocked and unable to identify recommendations or statements that have either the strong support or a consensus of its members despite significant time and resources being dedicated to the PDP; 2. Changing Circumstances. Events have occurred since the initiation of the PDP that have rendered the PDP moot, or no longer necessary, or warranting a suspension; or 3. Lack of Community Volunteers. Despite several calls for participation, the work of the PDP Team is significantly impaired and unable to effectively conclude its deliberations due to lack of volunteer participation. * Suspension is a time interval during which there is a temporary cessation of the PDP, i.e. all activities are halted upon a decision of the GNSO Council until further notice. A mere change in milestones or schedule of the PDP is not considered a suspension. [to be included as a footnote]

1 0

Technical issues with Adobe Connect
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 18, 2012

Sept. 18, 2012

Dear BC Members, I just wanted to notify you that there seems to be a technical issue on Adobe Connect. Technicians have been contacted, but it doesn't prevent this impacting our meeting taking place right now. Please be aware that I am doing my best to ensure participants do not get disconnected, but if you do get disconnected please just log in again. Once again please accept my apologies for this technical issue. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1

For expedited review by 17-Sep-2012: proposed expansion/clarification of BC's position on TM Claims Notices
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 18, 2012

Sept. 18, 2012

To all BC members: Your executive committee is seeking member review and approval of an incremental change to the BC's present position on rights protection mechanism (RPMs) for new gTLDs. We have authorized an expedited review since this is a small change and it would be useful to know the BC position during new gTLD discussions in Washington DC on Tuesday 18-Sep. The proposed change would allow TM owners to specify variants on their TM that would generate TM Claims notices to registrants. This change was suggested at the Brand Summit participants in their letter to the US Govt (link<http://www.aipla.org/advocacy/intl/Documents/JointLetter-BrandOwners-Second…>). The proposed change is to: Require the TM Claims Service to issue warnings for any registration that consists of the mark and a generic term from the description of goods and services in the registration deposited with the Trademark Clearinghouse. For example, Paypal is a registered TM that includes "payments" in its description of goods and services, so TM Claims notices would be issued to anyone that registered paypalpayments.tld. Same would apply to verizon-phones.tld, yahoomail.tld, etc. You may ask, How does this proposal differ from the existing BC position? Here's how: In Jan-2012 the BC approved the attached ballot of RPMs, which was then summarized in our letter<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implement…> to ICANN leadership in Feb-2012. The BC voted to require that any domain name recovered in URS/UDRP be added to TM Clearinghouse, which would therefore automatically generate TM Claim Notices to subsequent registration attempts of those strings. See item 3.4 on page 2: (3.4) Successful URS complainants should have option to transfer or suspend the name, and such names should generate TM Claims Notice for subsequent registrations. The BC also went well beyond exact matches for allowing TM owners to acquire Domain Blocks. See item 8 on page 4: (8) Add a “do not register/registry block” service to the Trademark Clearinghouse, allowing any trademark holder to pay a one time fee to permanently prevent registration of names that are an identical match or include the identical match trademark name. So please reply to me (or reply all) to indicate whether you approve or oppose the change by 17-Sep-2012. If by that date 10% of BC members oppose the change, we will follow the process described in our charter: 7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement. If there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or discussion at a physical meeting. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 1

RE: [Bc-private] [bc-gnso] For expedited review by 17-Sep-2012: proposed expansion/clarification of BC's position on TM Claims Notices
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com Sept. 17, 2012

Sept. 17, 2012

Thanks MJ, I had similar thoughts but hadn't got to draft them yet. I believe the BC has previously proposed (at least in the STI if not also elsewhere) that TM owners could self-select the brand/keyword combinations that they wish to register in the TMC, so long as the keyword is present in a national trademark registration somewhere. This approach seemed to work well with the dotAsia launch. If there is some slight incremental cost to registering each combination, that would provide some disincentive for TM owners to overreach. Perhaps the BC could coalesce around a proposal like this again now? Also, putting this back to the public BC list where it belongs. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mari Jo Keukelaar Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:25 AM To: 'bc-private icann.org' Subject: Re: [Bc-private] [bc-gnso] For expedited review by 17-Sep-2012: proposed expansion/clarification of BC's position on TM Claims Notices After reading and considering the proposal made here, we find it difficult to understand how this would work as a practical matter. First, particularly in the EU, goods and services descriptions can go on for hundreds of words; and second, how do you define the "a generic term from the description of goods and services?" Just taking the example provided, and applying reality, the G&S description for one of the PAYPAL registrations is: ----- "PAYPAL" Clearing and reconciling financial transactions via a global computer network; Providing a wide variety of banking services and providing financial services, namely, credit card services, processing and transmission of bills and payments thereof, and insurance for financial transactions conducted via global computer network ---- >From this we get such strings as: paypaland paypalvia paypalwide paypala paypalnamely paypalthereof paypalconducted paypalcomputer And other senseless things. Of course, "PAYPAL" is a fanciful mark and other marks come with a different set of problems. When you consider the fact that there are trademarks for things like "O", claimed by Oprah Winfrey, Oakley sunglasses, and Overstock.com, then every time someone registers a domain name beginning with the letter O, there will be hundreds of queries and notifications required. Now, you could, and most likely will, say "we only mean the words in the G&S which actually relate to the goods and services." In that instance, the answer presumes that someone is going to go through all of the G&S descriptions and flag those which duly relate. That cannot be done on an automated basis. Furthermore, which language are we looking at for the G&S for EU registrations? If the proposal intends all languages, then the problem of large EU G&S descriptions is again multiplied. Then there is an implementation issue: The TCH is thus far envisioned as a blackbox which matches "inputstring" to "mark". If someone is registering "paypaland" what is the input query to the TCH? If the query is "paypaland", it comes back "no match". The question is, in querying the TCH, how is the software at either end supposed to know which part of the input string is a mark? Finally, the TCH is envisioned to enable identification of trademark strings. I may own five different trademark registrations for "EXAMPLE" encompassing five different sets of goods and services. There are, of course, a number of "PAYPAL" trademark registrations. Whereas before I believed I would only have to submit one of my trademark registrations to the TCH in order to enter the mark into the TCH, under this scheme I am being told I should submit five different registrations of the same mark (since I now wish to protect all of my listed goods and services)? Name Administration agrees that the TCH should be a more flexible database capable of implementing a variety of operations. There is significant pushback on the possibility of it becoming a source of public trademark registration data in competition with commercial providers of such information. We believe that is the primary tension which prevents any number of innovative solutions to be implemented. Mari Jo Keukelaar, M.A./J.D. On behalf of Name Administration, Inc. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:08 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] For expedited review by 17-Sep-2012: proposed expansion/clarification of BC's position on TM Claims Notices To all BC members: Your executive committee is seeking member review and approval of an incremental change to the BC's present position on rights protection mechanism (RPMs) for new gTLDs. We have authorized an expedited review since this is a small change and it would be useful to know the BC position during new gTLD discussions in Washington DC on Tuesday 18-Sep. The proposed change would allow TM owners to specify variants on their TM that would generate TM Claims notices to registrants. This change was suggested at the Brand Summit participants in their letter to the US Govt (link <http://www.aipla.org/advocacy/intl/Documents/JointLetter-BrandOwners-Second LevelRights-gTLDProgram.pdf> ). The proposed change is to: Require the TM Claims Service to issue warnings for any registration that consists of the mark and a generic term from the description of goods and services in the registration deposited with the Trademark Clearinghouse. For example, Paypal is a registered TM that includes "payments" in its description of goods and services, so TM Claims notices would be issued to anyone that registered paypalpayments.tld. Same would apply to verizon-phones.tld, yahoomail.tld, etc. You may ask, How does this proposal differ from the existing BC position? Here's how: In Jan-2012 the BC approved the attached ballot of RPMs, which was then summarized in our letter <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implement ation%20improvements.pdf> to ICANN leadership in Feb-2012. The BC voted to require that any domain name recovered in URS/UDRP be added to TM Clearinghouse, which would therefore automatically generate TM Claim Notices to subsequent registration attempts of those strings. See item 3.4 on page 2: (3.4) Successful URS complainants should have option to transfer or suspend the name, and such names should generate TM Claims Notice for subsequent registrations. The BC also went well beyond exact matches for allowing TM owners to acquire Domain Blocks. See item 8 on page 4: (8) Add a "do not register/registry block" service to the Trademark Clearinghouse, allowing any trademark holder to pay a one time fee to permanently prevent registration of names that are an identical match or include the identical match trademark name. So please reply to me (or reply all) to indicate whether you approve or oppose the change by 17-Sep-2012. If by that date 10% of BC members oppose the change, we will follow the process described in our charter: 7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement. If there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or discussion at a physical meeting. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

4 3

BC letter of objection to changes proposed by Staff regarding the objection filings
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

Dear Chair The attached letter from the BC is detailed and substantive objection to what appears to be a staff proposal to change the timeline, provided in the April Guidebook. We ask for an acknowledgement, and a response which accepts our proposal to not change the dates, or at a minimum, post a 30 day public comment period which would allow those affected as users to raise their views about the staff statement for making a change. We have posted this on our public site. NOTE: we ask that our correspondence be posted on the Correspondence page of the Board correspondence, as soon as possible. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair

1 0

Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse
by Phil Corwin Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

On today's BC call there was a brief discussion relating to the GNSO Council's upcoming consideration of further steps on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse. I thought BC members might be interested in reviewing the comment letter that ICA filed, and our further observations, on this subject --- http://internetcommerce.org/Registration_Abuse_Time_to-Fish_or_Cut_Bait The ICANN Policy and Decision Making Process is Seriously Flawed Submitted by Philip Corwin on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 22:03 ICANN's policy and decision making process is supposedly based upon a bottom up, community consensus model. While we are all for careful deliberation before major policies are adopted and implementing actions are taken, we cannot support endless process for its own sake - especially when no concrete action ever results. ICA has just filed a comment letter regarding the July 2012 Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse. We favor the concept of uniformity in related provisions of complementary contracts, and we certainly are against "registration abuse" (although we note that the most extensive study of this subject ever undertaken, by the Registration Abuse Policy Working Group, failed to identify a single registration abuse for which it recommended uniform contract language as a response). ICANN staff's response to an October 2011 GNSO request was to recommend the initiation of yet another Policy Development Process assisted by yet another Working Group. But the subject of registration abuse has already been under study for nearly four years and has resulted in the issuance of three separate reports totaling 212 pages! So our response to this recommendation is "Enough is enough" and that it's time to "fish or cut bait" - especially when the proposed PDP would be unlikely to result in any final action but just more bureaucratic paper shuffling "to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse". ICANN's expert and well-compensated legal staff already has more than enough information to propose draft uniform contract language for whatever registration abuses it believes are taking place, and if they think this is an important subject they should do so and put that specific language out for community comment. And if not, then discussion of this subject should be terminated. We don't fault ICANN staff for producing a report requested by the GNSO. But we do perceive them as weighing in for repetitive inquiry on subjects in which there is little evidence of "bottom up" community interest, and against action on subjects where there is, based upon internal organizational objectives as well as outside political pressure. We hope our suggestion will be adopted. As for the time and effort that won't be expended by ICANN staff and community members on yet another repetitious inquiry into a well-examined subject, we can think of one very important subject that is way overdue for review and action to which it could be devoted, and which large elements of the community have already expressed support for. And that subject is procedural UDRP reform, with the primary objective being development of a standard contract for all UDRP arbitration providers. The UDRP is the only major ICANN policy that has never been subjected to review and reform. We believe that ICANN's empowerment of select organizations to transfer or extinguish domains without enforceable standards and limitations is inherently subject to abuse, and that addressing it should be a high priority. That's a discussion of uniform contract language we'd be happy to enthusiastically engage in. ICA's comment letter follows --- VIRTUALAW LLC Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell psc(a)vlaw-dc.com August 15, 2012 By E-mail to: uoc-prelim-issue-report(a)icann.org<mailto:uoc-prelim-issue-report@icann.org> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Re: Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Dear ICANN: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) in regard to ICANN's Comment Period on the Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse. This Comment Period opened on July 25th and closes today, August 15th. ICA is a not-for-profit trade association representing the domain name industry, including domain registrants, domain marketplaces, and direct search providers. Its membership is composed of domain name registrants who invest in domain names (DNs) and develop the associated websites, as well as the companies that serve them. Professional domain name registrants are a major source of the fees that support registrars, registries, and ICANN itself. ICA members own and operate approximately ten percent of all existing Internet domains on behalf of their own domain portfolios as well as those of thousands of customers. Executive Summary * ICA supports the creation of a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions for all in scope ICANN agreements, so long as such provisions are devoted solely to registration abuses and do not stray into the area of use abuses that are the proper province of national governments, law enforcement, and similar entities. * However, ICA opposes the initiation of yet another PDP to further extend the consideration of a subject that has already been under study for almost four years - especially when the proposed PDP would not constitute the final step in this process. * Overall, ICA views this issue as symptomatic of serious flaws in the ICANN policy development process in which important matters are subjected to endless study and debate without any final determination or action, and community members are asked to devote innumerable hours to participation in working groups that create reports which in turn just lead to the initiation of additional reports and working groups. * Rather than initiate another PDP, we suggest that ICANN's legal staff prepare draft provisions for the relevant in scope ICANN agreements that are as uniform as possible and that address the limited number of registration abuses at issue, and that these draft provisions should be put out for comment by contracted parties as well as the ICANN community. Discussion This Issue has Already Been Subjected to Multiple Processes that Reexamined Identical Ground and Failed to Reach a Conclusion or Result in Concrete Action The consideration of whether ICANN should create a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse, has been under study for nearly four years. This has already resulted in the issuance of three separate reports totaling 212 pages in length: * On 25 September 2008, the GNSO Council requested an issues report from ICANN Staff that resulted in the issuance, on October 29, 2008, of the 49 page "GNSO Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies" * More than one year later, in December 2009, the GNSO Council agreed to charter a Working Group to investigate the open issues identified in Registration Abuse Policies report, before deciding on whether or not to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); and a Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) was chartered in February 2009. The RAPWG issued its 129 page Final Report on May 29, 2010. (Note: I participated in the RAPWG on behalf of ICA and in affiliation with the Commercial and Business Users Constituency.) * More than one additional year subsequently passed until, on October 6, 2011, the GNSO requested yet another report "to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse". That request resulted in the issuance of the 34 page "Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse" on July 25, 2012. * ICANN staff is now suggesting that yet another working group be formed to address this topic, stating, Staff recommends that the Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic. Should the PDP proceed, Staff suggests that the working group conduct further research, as follows: * Understand if registration abuses are occurring that could be addressed more effectively if consistent registration abuse policies were established; * Determine if and how (registration) abuse is dealt with in those registries (and registrars) that do not have in place any specific provisions or policies to address abuse; and * Identify how registration abuse provisions, where they exist, are implemented in practice and whether they are effective in addressing registration abuse. If the results of this research reveals that there is value in having uniform provisions to address registration abuse, the PDP WG should also consider a set of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or framework of provisions to battle registration abuse, and define potential reporting requirements to track progress toward those goals. * If the recommended PDP was initiated and a new WG formed, it appears that it would be largely tasked with reexamining issues that have already been addressed by the prior efforts. Further, it would likely lead to yet additional study, rather than the adoption of uniform contract provisions, given that the main task envisioned for the WG would be to "consider a set of initial benchmarks for developing an initial baseline or framework of provisions to battle registration abuse". With all due respect, enough is enough. To the extent that registration abuses create serious problems it is inexcusable to address the issue through a hyper-bureaucratic and seemingly never-ending process that after nearly four years only seems to promise yet multiple additional working groups and reports without any foreseeable conclusion. And it is frankly abusive to request that volunteers from the ICANN community devote hundreds of additional collective hours to participation in new WGs that reexamine already examined issues and are unlikely to lead to any near-term results. The ICANN Policy/Decision Model Compares Unfavorably to both Private and Public Sector Counterparts ICANN is a unique organization - a non-profit sector entity making decisions with public policy implications. Yet, whether measured against private or public sector models, the ICANN policy and decision making process is clearly deficient and in need of some serious reform. We are all for careful deliberation, but only up the point where it devolves into pointless repetition of effort and the absence of any final conclusion to act or not. If ICANN were a pure private sector entity that perceived that its various contracts with third parties required revisions to address specific issues in a uniform matter it would request that its in-house or outside counsel to prepare draft language -- and such changes would likely be approved and implemented within months. If ICANN were a U.S. government agency with a similar perspective it would issue a preliminary notice of proposed rulemaking and solicit public comment. It would subsequently issue a proposed final rule and again solicit public comment. While the entire process would take longer than for a private sector entity, it would likely be concluded in less than two years before the final rule was implemented. ICANN Legal Staff Should Prepare Uniform Draft Contract Provisions for Comment by Contracted Parties and the Community The most extensive study of registration abuses was undertaken by the RAPWG. We have reviewed the entirety of the RAPWG's May 2012 Final Report and note that it does not identify a single registration abuse for which it recommended alterations of ICANN contract language. We cannot imagine any successor WG unearthing new registration abuses or making alternate consensus recommendations. On the precise subject of Uniformity of Contracts, the RAPWG made the following recommendation (which had strong support but also significant opposition): The RAPWG recommends the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse. That Issues Report was undertaken and is the document that is the focus of this comment letter. As that Report notes: Earlier reports on this topic (see October 2008 Issues Report and the RAPWG Final Report), describe the lack of uniformity of abuse provisions among the currently delegated gTLD registry agreements, as well as the absence of specific abuse provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Across the spectrum of existing registry agreements, there are elements of similarity but each contract (currently) is customized to the uniqueness of the respective registry's business model and operating conditions. Clearly, the work required to identify existing anti-abuse provisions in relevant contractual agreements, and the lack of uniformity thereof, has already been done and there is no need or justification for revisiting that subject. ICANN staff, in preparing the July 2012 Preliminary Issues report, already surveyed a variety of existing contracts to analyze the extent to which registration abuse was addressed and whether that was done in a uniform manner. ICANN is the contracting party for all four of the contract types implicated - Registry Agreement (RA), Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA), Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), and Registration Agreement (RtA). And ICANN has a highly qualified and well compensated legal staff, as well as access to prestigious outside counsel. We can see little potential gain from the initiation of a new PDP and the establishment of yet another WG on this subject, and do not believe the community should again be asked to expend countless hours on something that has already been exhaustively examined. ICANN has more than enough information to proceed if it believes that uniform contract provisions to address registration abuses should be developed. In our view, the proper next step, if there is to be one, is to have ICANN inside and/or outside counsel develop proposed such proposed draft language and thereby provide potentially affected contracted parties, as well as the overall community, with concrete draft provisions to focus their comments on. In the absence of such proposed contractual language, the entire subject should be dropped rather than embark on yet another chapter of a seemingly never-ending process that does not result in conclusive action. Conclusion ICA appreciates this opportunity to file this reply comment regarding Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse. As stated above, while we support the concept of such uniform contract language we believe that after almost four years of inquiry into this subject it is time to "fish or cut bait". We therefore cannot support the initiation of yet another PDP and the creation of a related WG. ICANN legal staff has more than enough information to prepare proposed draft contractual provisions for public comment. They should either do so, or further consideration of this entire matter should be terminated. Thank you for considering our views in this matter. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Counsel, Internet Commerce Association 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: Reminder & Materials: BC Pre Council Members Call Today @ 11 am EDT
by Phil Corwin Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

These are some additional thoughts about some of the issues raised at last week's NTIA-USPTO meeting. Even if there are disagreements on substance, I would hope that BC members could collectively raise process concerns that even now, almost three months after the URS session in Prague, there is no evidence that ICANN has taken even initial steps toward URS implementation. The continued delay on this required RPM is inexplicable. If this persists then strong questions should be raised in Toronto. From: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; bc-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> CC: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; excomm(a)bizconst.org<mailto:excomm@bizconst.org> Subject: RE: [Bc-private] Reminder & Materials: BC Pre Council Members Call Today @ 11 am EDT Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:47:50 +0000 Thanks Marilyn. The most important issue for ICA is that the URS remain a distinct and narrow supplement to UDRP for rapid addressing of slam dunk, incontrovertible cases of cybersquatting and not become a lower-priced substitute for UDRP. That was never the intent of those who proposed it and it was accepted by the community on the basis of having a narrow focus. The other point I made is that most potential registrants are unsophisticated and are unlikely to seek advice from a TM attorney, so that if the list of terms in the Trademark Clearinghouse that generate warning notices is too broad it will spook a lot of those registrants and they will refrain from using new gTLDs even though they have no intent to use their desired website in an infringing manner. Finally, in regard to process, I made the point that the participants in the URS session in Prague, while disagreeing on some aspects of substance, were pretty much of a uniform mind that ICANN really needed to start the process of URS implementation. It's been nearly three months since the Prague meeting and so far as I know nothing has been done to even initiate implementation, even though there are plenty of stakeholders who are willing to meet in good faith and just need the blessing of and some modest staff support to go forward (the same kind of approach that ICANN used for TMC implementation). The situation is inexplicable and should be unacceptable, and hopefully will be a major focus for Toronto. Best regards, Philip 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 From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:34 AM To: Phil Corwin; bc-secretariat @icann Cc: Steve Delbianco; excomm(a)bizconst.org<mailto:excomm@bizconst.org> Subject: RE: [Bc-private] Reminder & Materials: BC Pre Council Members Call Today @ 11 am EDT Phil, thanks so much, and also for coming to the NTIA/PTO event on short notice. I apologize about that but when I learned it was happening, insisted BC have opportunity to participate. Thanks for joining that meeting. When we do the debrief, Steve or I will note that you did raise some concerns, and note that you will post those to the bc list. M ________________________________ From: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: bc-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> CC: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Subject: RE: [Bc-private] Reminder & Materials: BC Pre Council Members Call Today @ 11 am EDT Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:09:35 +0000 Bene: I have a conference call scheduled with a client that starts at the same time. If it breaks before the end of the BC call I will dial in and join late. Best, Philip 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 From: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:53 AM To: bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org> Subject: [Bc-private] Reminder & Materials: BC Pre Council Members Call Today @ 11 am EDT Dear BC Members, Please find below a reminder of the dial in details for today's BC Members Pre Council call taking place at 11 am EDT. Materials for this call are attached, including the agenda. More materials will follow shortly to be used during the call. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org<http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> Passcodes/Pin codes: Participant passcode: BC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5260 - Release Date: 09/10/12 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5260 - Release Date: 09/10/12 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5260 - Release Date: 09/10/12

1 0

Report from NTIA-USPTO meeting with Industry, September 5, 2012
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Here's my report from the 5-Sep meeting at US Commerce Department. The Commerce Dept hosted a meeting on 5-Sep to discuss recommendations from the June-2012 “Brand Summit” for improving the existing Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs). Attending were many brands, their trade associations, and law firms. Marilyn Cade, Steve DelBianco, and Phil Corwin attended from the BC, and Susan Kawaguchi was on the phone. Larry Strickling and David Kappos (Director, USPTO) ran the meeting, though David ran all the Q&A with RPMs. Laura Covington of Yahoo described the purpose of their "Brand Summit" -- to get a "unified voice" on TM concerns. Brian Winterfeldt ran thru the RPMs in the attached letter. Fabricio Vayra (TimeWarner) said that all these RPMs have been discussed before, even during the STI process a few years ago. Fab said the brands agreed to drop many of these RPMs in exchange for globally protected marks list (GPML). But ICANN killed the GPML so these RPMs are now needed. Kappos talked about implementation of RPMs, noting it would be easier to implement close-matches thru the TM Clearinghouse, as opposed to some new mechanism or algorithm. Kristina Rosette pushed the idea of TM + any generic term from the brand's description of goods and services (it's in the letter). Fabricio suggested algorithms of related terms, like many registrars do now to suggest domains "close" to the one you request. (brought some laughs) Kappos asked about implementaility of these RPMs. DelBianco noted that TM Claim notice services will be fully automated and carry very low incremental costs to keep them running after the 60 day required period. And that the BC recommends that names recovered in UDRP/URS should be added to the variants in TM Clearinghouse. Kappos asked why not expand the Watch Services you use now? Suzanne Kawaguchi (Facebook) said Watch Services work only for registrars that allow access and are just for exact matches. Facebook has 60,000 domains we are tracking now, and few of them are exact matches — which are easy to shut-down or recover. To protect users, we need more than exact matches. Marilyn Cade noted that watch services will become much more expensive if they're watching over a thousand TLDs. Marilyn added that the BC supports most of these RPMs but that we have our own suggestions too. Phil Corwin (ICA) said that TM Claims Notices could scare some potential registrants so they won't buy the name. If the warning extends to (TM+generic terms) it could suppress demand for names in new domains and "impair the success" of the TLD expansion. DelBianco noted that the expansion's success won't be reviewed just on the number of names. Cited the Affirmation review criteria of consumer trust, consumer choice, and competition, etc. Marilyn explained the BC recommendations from Jan-2012, including enforceability of changes/promises made by applicants to overcome Warnings or Objections; standardized Sunrise process; centralized URS managed by ICANN. Jonathan Zuck talked about WHOIS accuracy, and suggested registrars be forced to honor an amended RAA that includes WHOIS verification. Josh Bourne said of 700 "open" TLDs, half will offer "blocking" like ICM does in .xxx. Donuts will also offer a DPML. He thinks brands won't simply scale-up their TM monitoring work to cover the TLDs that don't offer blocking. Just too expensive. So consumers will be subject to more fraud in those TLDs. Larry Strickling: we're sensitive to critics saying US dominates the Internet. So please get non-US governments to weigh-in with these concerns. Larry: I need to know what's changed since my letter to ICANN in Jan-2012. How do I explain why USG wants these additional second-level RPMs when we didn't insist on them in January? The only answer anybody had for that was: in January we thought it was 200-300 TLDs. Now we know it's 1400+ -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Pre-Toronto ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below the invitation to the Pre-Toronto ICANN Policy Webinar scheduled to take place on *Thursday 4 October at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 4 October at 19.00 UTC. *Please follow the instructions below to RSVP to this webinar to the GNSO Secretariat if you wish to attend the meeting. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-07sep12-en.htm Pre-Toronto ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 7 September 2012 *In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (**gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>**) to receive the call details.* Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Toronto remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on *Thursday 4 October at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 4 October at 19.00 UTC*, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy * WHOIS * RAA Improvements * Protection of International Organization Names * Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group * Participation and Engagement activities in Toronto In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Trademarks and new gTLDs p.m. session - Washington, DC - 18 September 2012.
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Dear BC Members, As mentioned in the agenda for today's BC Members Call, please find below the invitation and RSVP details for the Trademarks & New gTLDs Session in Washington DC on the 18th of September, 2012. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda / 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below the GNSO Council Agenda for the upcoming GNSO Council call on the 13th of September, for use during today's BC Member's call. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Dear All, The Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC**is posted on page http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#sep http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-13sep12-en.htm** and on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+13+September… Reminder: Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 8 days in advance (i.e.WEDNESDAY, 5 September 2012) of the GNSO Council meeting on 13 September 2012 at 15:00 UTC. This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. _Meeting Times 15:00 UTC <http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx> _*http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx* Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 16:00 London; 17:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo. Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. *GNSO Council meeting audiocast * *http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u* *_Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)_* 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 July 2012 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-council-20jul12-en.htm> approved on 22 August 2012. 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. *_Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)_* A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. 2.1 Approve proposed IRD-WG letter from GNSO Council to ICANN Board <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/van-gelder-faltstrom-to-icann-board…>. 2.2 Approve consent agenda <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/consent-agenda-09jul12-en.pdf> in the GNSO operating procedures <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-…>. *_Item 3: _**_RAP recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting_**_10 minutes)_* At its meeting on 6 October, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: indentify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its report on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April. Refer to the report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-un… The Council must now decide what next steps to take, if any. 3.1 Update <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/rap/comments-rap-uniformity-of-reporting-30…> from Mikey O'Connor. 3.2 Discussion. 3.3 Nest steps. *_Item 4: Whois Review Team Final Report (10 minutes)_* At its July 20, 2012 meeting, the Council created a small group to draft a letter in response to ICANN Board resolved #2012.06.23.26 (see Board resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#5) The August 31, 2012 deadline set by the Board for receiving input proved too short for the Council, and on August 30, 2012 GNSO Chair Stéphane Van Gelder sent Chairman of the ICANN Board Steve Crocker and Interim ICANN CEO Akram Attalah a letter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/33821> informing them that the Council would hopefully be providing further input very soon. A draft has been proposed by the group. The Council must now decide whether to send this draft as-is or not. 4.1 Update from group (Brian Winterfeldt) 4. 2 Discussion 4. 3 Next steps. *__* *_Item 5: _**_WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Report _**_(10 minutes)_* This survey evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. The Interisle Consulting Group has completed this survey and initial results have been reported, and explored in a community webinar held on 13 August. This item is an overview of the final report to be published in mid-September, and an examination of possible next steps for the GNSO Council to consider. 5.1 Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps *_Item 6: _**_Fake Renewal Notices_**_(10 minutes)_* The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to help inform its deliberations on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). Once the drafting team submitted its report to the GNSO Council and the comment period was completed, the GNSO Council requested the Drafting Team to review the comments received, update the report if deemed appropriate and report back accordingly. The DT has reviewed the comments received and submitted its updated report to the GNSO Council on 21 June 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-updated-report-20jun1…) and the DT Chair presented this report to the Council at the July 20 meeting. At that meeting, the Council opted to have further consultations with the**Registrar Stakeholder Group to find out what solutions the Registrars can offer to deal with bad actors and return to the Council with proposals for options, or solutions, or next steps on this issue. This agenda item is an update on those consultations. 6.1 Update from RrSG (Mason Cole) 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps *_Item 7: _**_Final Issue Report on Protection of International Organizations_**_(15 minutes)_* The Preliminary Issue Report on the protection of international organization names requested by the GNSO Council on 12 April was published and a public comment forum was opened on 4 June. http://gnso.icann.org/issues/intl-org-names-prelim-issue-report-04jun12-en.… The GNSO Drafting Team is evaluating possible recommendations to protect the Red Cross and IOC names at the second level and staff has now published the Final Issue Report, since the Public Comment forum has closed. This item is an overview of that report and an examination of possible next steps. 7.1 Update from Staff (Brian Peck) 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Next steps *_Item 8: _**_Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure_**_(10 minutes)_* The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the functioning of ICANN and its structure. The Board has called for an in-depth community discussion to identify early the corresponding challenges and possible evolutions. A call has been put out for the community to share a one-pager on this topic to gather preliminary views and help prepare a dedicated session in Toronto. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to respond to this call and a small group has been created to draft a response. Although the Board has called for a response by September 10, this is not a hard deadline so the Council will now consider whether to approve the proposed response. 8.1 Update on draft response (Thomas Rickert) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Call to approve sending response to the Board *_Item 9: Overview of schedule for Toronto (10 minutes)_* As usual, work is ongoing on preparing the GNSO's work schedule for the upcoming ICANN international meeting. This includes the GNSO's weekend working sessions and Wednesday's Open Council Meeting. 9.1 Update on Toronto agenda (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 9.2 Discussion and review of any amendments to agenda *_Item 10: Toronto GAC High Level Meeting (15 minutes)_* The GAC is organizing a High Level Meeting on October 15 in Toronto. The agenda for this meeting includes an exchange with SO/AC leadership. Following a clarification request by the GNSO leadership, the GAC leadership has given the following explanation on its expectations for the meeting: "I would recommend preparation of Qs and lining up speakers in advance. I trust that the GNSO leadership will work with the GAC, as well as my Canadian colleagues, to find a balance between the differing cultures of the GNSO, and senior officials and politicians unfamiliar with the ICANN environment, to have a positive and productive exchange to reinforce and improve the multi-stakeholder model." The Council should therefore plan for this meeting and discuss possible questions it may want to raise. 10.1 Introduction and overview of meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder) 10.2 Discussion *_Item 11: Management of work (10 minutes)_* Recent discussions on the Council list have raised concerns about the volume of documents published prior to an ICANN meeting and how these can best be managed by the volunteer community that makes up the GNSO Council as it struggles to read a substantial amount of reports and other documents in order to better inform its own decision making processes with regards to policy. 11.1 Discussion *_Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes) _* *Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,**Section 3)* 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House." *Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (**GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4 <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>**) * 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election. 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present. 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) UTC-8+1DST 08:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 11:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) UTC-3+0DST 12:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 16:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 17:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.…>) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China _(HKT_ ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) UTC+9+0DST 00:00 Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>) UTC+12+0DST 03:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.comand *http://tinyurl.com/bojlrbx* Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Policy calendar for 5-Mar-2012 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during our 5-Mar-2012 BC member call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> 1. FY 13 budget framework (reply comments close 26-Mar) Chris Chaplow is managing BC comments. Filed initial comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2013/msg00003.html>. 2. Defensive Applications for new gTLDs (reply<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/> comments close 20-Mar) BC filed comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/msg00022.html>. 3. Bylaw changes on GNSO policy development process ( reply comments close 23-Mar) 4. Draft roadmap to implement SAC 51 protocol for WHOIS (initial comments close 18-Mar) 5. IDN Variant Issues Project plan (initial comments close 18-Mar) 6. WHOIS Policy Review Team (AoC) Draft Report (comments close 18-Mar) Elisa Cooper is managing BC comments. 7. Initial Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs (initial comments close 23-Mar) 8. IRTP-B PDP on WHOIS status messages (initial comments close 25-Mar) 9. Interim report on ccTLD re-delegation requests (initial comments close 30-Mar) 10. Draft Advice on definitions & targets for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Competition in new gTLD program (initial comments close 3-Apr) (link to advice<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cctc-draft-advice-letter-22feb12-en.pdf> ) 11. Status report on protecting Red Cross & Olympics at top-level and 2nd-level (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02mar12-en.htm>) (initial comment opens 2-Mar) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors GNSO Project Status available here<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf> Agenda for Council meeting in Costa Rica has not yet been published. (link<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-14mar12-en.htm>) John and Zahid can update us on possible motions, including something on UDRP providers. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Elisa Cooper, CSG Liaison, and Marilyn Cade (alternate) Messages for meeting with ICANN Board on 13-Mar --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Lynn Goodendorf, Bill Smith) Affirmation review team for SSR (Security, Stability, & Resilience) (Jeff Brueggeman) Remaining implementation work for gTLD expansion plan, incl BC requests for specific improvements (here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds-defensive-applications/msg00022.html>)

2 7

Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 7, 2012

Sept. 7, 2012

The Secretariat of the BC is off today, so I am forwarding relevant ICANN postings. this is an important one. I would ask that our BC members with particular interest and expertise in this topic to advise Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair of Policy Coordination. We will discuss this on our next BC call. Best regards, Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear SO/AC Chairs,Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA negotiations, we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received from the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the complex issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations. Several meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts on several specific issues. There is also an agreement among the negotiation teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the ICANN wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regi… Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)

1 0

UDRP-Locking WG - Update and Public Comment period
by Gabriela Szlak Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

*Dear BC Members, As part of the UDRP-locking WG that was recently formed last March, we would like to give you an update on the work of the WG so far. Some background on this WG:* * - The group was chartered as a PDP WG on March 5, 2012 to develop an Initial Report and a Final Report addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings to be delivered to the GNSO Council. - The membership list can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/4.+Members - And the attendance here: https://community.icann.org/display/udrpproceedings/Locking+of+a+Domain+Nam… The first comment period for this group is closing today. There are only 4 comments to date, but in July the WG did a survey worth reviewing. A summary of the survey can be found here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31174551/Survey+Findings+-… We believe that this matter is relevant to the BC. The group is at a very early stage and is seeking for feedback from experts for these basic questions: · 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. [Note from the WG: only the UDRP Provider can notify a Registrar that a complaint has been officially filed and in the vast majority of cases, Registrars will only implement a lock based on the request by the UDRP Provider] · 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. · 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. · 4. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. · 5. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. · 6. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. Further to question 5, we believe that one of the most interesting discussions to date for the work of the BC are those related to the question of Whois privacy/proxy services. Can the registrar “unmask” when locking? The WG survey referenced above showed, among others, a difference in the way that registrars deal with locking and unlocking and in the way they deal with privacy and proxy services when locking domains subject to UDRP proceedings. In these sense, it was argued that unmasking might involve risks of misuse of UDRP procedures. We know several members of the BC are experts in whois and other related matters and we encourage those members to give us their feedback regarding these issues. As noted before, the comments are closing today. We will submit comments from our organization, eInstituto. We apologize as we haven't been able to focus on the need for BC comments, mainly because this is our first working group experience and we are still new to the procedure. Other constituencies, such as the IPC had individual members post comments, and we have sent comments ourselves. We look forward to having a discussion with the BC on our next call about the importance of advancing a wider BC position for future interactions, and for the benefit of WG further activity. * *Celia Lerman & Gabriela Szlak www.einstituto.org*

1 0