October 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Policy calendar for 8-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 4, 2013

Dec. 4, 2013

There's a lot happening so I prepared a Policy Calendar for tomorrow's BC call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 12-Aug). Current working draft is attached. I started with Stephane, J Scott and Bill Smith's version fmor 5-Aug and added the two paragraphs by Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. Let's discuss on the call. Issues on the table include: Are Bill and others okay with Marie's language to express concerns about SSR? Are we comfortable with Stephane's gentle suggestion that this could apply to ccTLDs, too? Should "Commercial entities" be prevented from using privacy/proxy services? 2. Renewal of .org registry agreement (reply comments close 12-Aug) 3. Draft report on universal acceptance of IDN TLDs (reply comments close 16-Aug) 4. Postponement of GNS review (reply comments close 29-Aug) 5. .mobi and .pro request to remove cross-ownership restrictions (initial comments by 16-Aug) 6. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (initial comments by 23-Aug) 7. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug) 8. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug) 9. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch so far. Would the volunteer drafters be willing to circulate a letter for member consideration? --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Report on Council telecon meeting held 1-Aug-2013. (agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-01aug13-en.htm>) Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)

14 21

CALL FOR DRAFTERS: BC Comment on Accountability & Transparency Team's Draft Review
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 18, 2013

Nov. 18, 2013

We discussed this on yesterday's member call. Anjali Hansen volunteered (thank-you, Anjali), and we want to cast a broader net for help in drafting these comments. The second Accountability sand Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) was convened as part of the Affirmation of Commitments. (ATRT2 page<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-e…>) The ATRT2 just published its draft review/recommendations (here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13…>), including these recommendation: • establish clear metrics and benchmarks against which improvements in accountability and transparency can be measured; • communicate clearly and consistently about its accountability and transparency mechanisms and performance; and • improve and prioritize its AoC Review processes. Initial comments are due 22-Nov so we want draft comments circulated to BC members before 8-Nov. The BC offered several suggestions to the ATRT2 when they began in Jun-2013 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20ATRT-2%20q…>) Who else can help Anjali with review and drafting? -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 2

FOR REVIEW: Draft BC comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 1, 2013

Nov. 1, 2013

During last 2 BC member calls and in the 3-Oct email below, we called for volunteers to draft a BC comment on the new independent Study<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/news/pub…> of Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en…>) Fortunately, Elisa Cooper and Susan Kawaguchi volunteered to review the study and draft our comments. The first draft is attached, giving BC members 12 days to review and comment before the 11-Nov deadline. Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions. Thanks again to Elisa and Susan for taking the lead. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, October 4, 2013 11:09 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Cc: BC Executive Committee <bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-excomm@icann.org>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>> Subject: Business Constituency comments on new study of privacy/proxy abuse On today's BC call, we talked about the new independent Study<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/news/pub…> of Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse. The BC advocated for this study several years ago. And these Results verify BC suspicion that bad actors use P/P to avoid identification. But there are many important findings here, and we need volunteers to analyze and draft BC comments.

3 2

Election Results: BC GNSO Councilor & NomCom Small Business Seat Elections
by Benedetta Rossi Nov. 1, 2013

Nov. 1, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is an election announcement regarding the BC GNSO Councilor Seat & Nominating Committee Small Business Seat elections which concluded yesterday, October 30th, 2013. Out of 51 BC Members, 33 members voted in this election. Upon reception of each vote, as Voting Officer I tallied each vote and applied the BC weighted voting according to each member's category. Once the tallies were completed and the voting period closed, Glen De Saint Gery (Returning Officer) and Rob Hoggarth (Verifying Officer) verified all votes, and the tally. The confirmed results are the following: BC GNSO Councilor Seat: . Philip Corwin: 31 votes in favor . Gabriela Szlak: 39 votes in favor Nominating Committee Small Business Seat: . Ron Andruff: 36 votes in favor . Anjali Hansen: 34 votes in favor The winners of the elections are therefore: Gabriela Szlak (GNSO Councilor) and Ron Andruff (Nominating Committee Small Business Seat). Please join me in congratulating Gabriela and Ron. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

11 10

RE: [bc-gnso] Election Results: BC GNSO Councilor & NomCom Small Business Seat Elections
by Jimson Olufuye Oct. 31, 2013

Oct. 31, 2013

1 0

LAST CALL: BC Comment on IGO-INGO protections
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 31, 2013

Oct. 31, 2013

This is a LAST CALL on a comment we discussed on our last 2 calls and in several emails. ICANN posted the working group Draft Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (comment period closes 1-Nov) The attached document includes draft BC positions on the WG recommendations, based on assessment by Elisa Cooper and Steve DelBianco. This was first circulated to BC members on 3-October. (see below) I will submit this comment tomorrow, 1-Nov-2013, unless more than 5 members object to this comment by COB EST tomorrow. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2013 1:54 PM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Policy calendar for 4-Oct-2013 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for Friday's BC call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: 3. Draft Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (initial comments due 11-Oct) The attached document includes draft BC positions on the WG recommendations, based on assessment by Elisa Cooper and Steve DelBianco. (shows in grey tex at bottom of each table row. e.g. "CBUC: Support" ) Thru page 9, we said "Support" based on previous BC positions and our support for TM Clearinghouse improvements to help "brands" --incl IGOs/INGOs-- at the second level. The tricky part is how to protect acronyms for groups other than Red Cross and Olympics, starting on page 10. There are several hundred acronyms to consider (link<http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf>). e.g., CAN, ISO, SCO, IFC, ECO. The WG proposal is to place all these in the Guidebook as "ineligible for delegation". The attached draft says this is too hard a line and would prefer these orgs use Rights Objection mechanism to stop a TLD application they oppose. If their objection failed, we have seen how the GAC could exercise its power of Advice to stop a TLD, too. Please review and indicate your agreement or objection to the attached draft positions by 6-October. Then we need a volunteer to draft the text of our comments — based on whatever recommendations are approved. Thus far, 8 BC members signaled support for the draft position. (Elisa, Steve, Stephane, Rodenbaugh, Yahoo, Chris Chaplow, Google, Phil Corwin ) Marilyn Cade does not agree with "a blanket statement of objection", although that's not what this draft position would entail.

1 0

COMMUNITY INVITE TO POST-BALI INTERNET GOVERNANCE WEBINARS - 8 NOVEMBER 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 30, 2013

Oct. 30, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an invitation for the Community to join two webinar sessions on Friday, Nov. 8th, 2013 with ICANN Senior Executives, following the IGF which took place in Bali. All details regarding the two sessions can be found below, including the dial in details. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Internet Governance Webinar Conversation Opportunity With ICANN Senior Executives Dear SOAC Leaders; Based on recent discussions within the broader community and your feedback over the past couple of weeks regarding the Montevideo statement, we think it would be most useful to have a community call before everyone departed for the ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss recent Internet governance developments - specifically the Montevideo statement - and plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil next year. Fadi has had or is planning a few individual conversations with community groups, but we thought some broader community engagement opportunities with ICANN senior executives would also be helpful so that Fadi, Tarek and Theresa could: Provide background and context of the recent I-Star discussions leading to the Montevideo statement; Explain the Board/Staff partnership in this effort; Explain what has been done to date and share perceptions of the recent IGF-Bali meeting; and Highlight next steps/prep plans for Brazil next April. As a result, we have arranged for two community webinars scheduled for next Friday, 8 November at 1200 UTC and 1900 UTC so that the team can share its thoughts and field community questions and comments. We are scheduling two separate sessions to cover the global geographic spread of the community and hope that you will be able to share information about the opportunity with your communities. Each session will be an hour long and any questions or comments that the team can't get to on the calls will be saved for further discussion in Buenos Aires. The call details are as follows: Adigo Conference Bridge No. Conference ID: 45151321; Adobe Connect: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icann-soac To help the team prepare for the sessions, please feel free to share any pre-session questions that you have with me. I will pass them on to the ICANN Strategy Team in preparation for the sessions. Best regards, David -- David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters -Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611

1 0

Election Reminder: Voting Period closed today, Oct. 30th 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 30, 2013

Oct. 30, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please note that the one-week voting period for the currently open election process for the BC GNSO Councilor seat and Small Business Seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee closes today, Wednesday, Oct. 30th, 2013 COB Pacific Time. If you have not yet submitted your votes and wish to, please submit your completed ballot form to the voting email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. Please note that when submitting your ballot you should also complete your name and company name on the ballot for it to be valid. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

ICANN Names New Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 29, 2013

Oct. 29, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the announcement of the new Chief of Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer following Jeff Moss’ stepping down at the end of the year. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29oct13-en.htm _____ ICANN Names New Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer Jeff Moss Announces His Departure as Chief Security Officer 29 October 2013 Los Angeles, California… John Crain has been named ICANN's new Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer. In this newly created position Crain will assume the responsibilities of Jeff Moss, who announced he is stepping down from his position as Chief Security Officer at the end of the year. More broadly, Crain will lead a team focused on the security, stability and resiliency (SSR) of the Internet's unique identifier systems. They will work closely with the ICANN community to enhance SSR and increase understanding of its importance. Crain, who has been at ICANN for 13 years, has served most recently as ICANN's Senior Director of Security, Stability and Resiliency. In his new role he will report to Akram Atallah, President of the Generic Domains Division (GDD). "John was a natural pick for us," said Atallah. "He knows ICANN, he is well respected across the community and his extensive expertise in the arena of SSR has been firmly established." Moss, who was appointed to his current position in April of 2011, said even though he is leaving ICANN, he intends to stay an active part of the community. Most recently, Moss and Crain worked together to help ICANN devise ways to study and address the "name collision" issue with measures and procedures aimed at mitigating any potential problems. "We are taking a slow and careful approach to this issue and since the roll-out of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) will be very gradual, I'm confident that name collisions will not pose any major issues that can't be responded to responsibly," said Moss. "Now that we have a clear path forward, I feel like this is a good time to announce my departure." "Jeff has been at the forefront of protecting the Internet's addressing system during his tenure at ICANN," said Atallah. "We are grateful for his contributions and wish him the best moving forward." ICANN also announced the formation of a new Security, Stability and Resiliency Executive Committee, led by Chief Executive Officer Fadi Chehadé and made up of members of ICANN's executive team. The committee will keep abreast of emerging SSR issues, track potential risks and develop mitigation strategies. ### To download a high-resolution photograph of John Crain, please visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/10332605796/sizes/c/ To download high-resolution photographs of Jeff Moss, please visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/5658860869/sizes/l/in/photostream/ To watch a video interview with John Crain, please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-crain-security-stability-17se… MEDIA CONTACTS: James Cole ICANN Global Media Coordinator Washington, D.C. Tel. +1 202.570.7240 james.cole(a)icann.org Andrew Robertson Edelman Public Relations London, U.K. Tel. + 44 (7811) 341 945 andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=923889&act=AJLG&r=23976196&c=…>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Webinar October 30 - ICANN48
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2013

Oct. 27, 2013

Gabi, congratulations! You and Celia have, like Jimson, done tremendous outreach in your region! I look forward to the webinar, and to being in Brazil just before ICANN with the WITSA associations, and in Brazil ICANN. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:44:17 To: <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Webinar October 30 - ICANN48 Dear all, I wanted to share with you that for the webinar organized by ICANN with the support of the CSG and eInstituto - eGobernanza Initiative, we already have 105 registered attendes from all over the region with business backgrounds. We are having a second email marketing campaign for this week so probably more will join. We are very excited to learn that the efforts from different organizations, groups and initiatives to bring awareness in the Latin American business sector are getting to results. The ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires is of course a great incentive to this increased interest. Thanks to all of you that are contributing to these efforts. Gabi Gabriela Szlak Regional Director eInstituto Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2013/10/24 Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com <mailto:gabrielaszlak@gmail.com> > Thanks Bene and please forward this invitation to any contact you might have that might be interested in participating, learning about the work of the CSG and the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires! Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2013/10/24 Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> > Dear BC Members, Please find attached a flyer in Spanish sent by Chris Mondini regarding a Webinar taking place on Oct. 30th, 2013 to preview ICANN48, explain the role of Private Sector Stakeholders in ICANN and to briefly explain the CSG Constituencies. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <http://bc-secretariat@icann.org> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org>

1 0

Webinar October 30 - ICANN48
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 27, 2013

Oct. 27, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached a flyer in Spanish sent by Chris Mondini regarding a Webinar taking place on Oct. 30th, 2013 to preview ICANN48, explain the role of Private Sector Stakeholders in ICANN and to briefly explain the CSG Constituencies. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

2 2

Pre-Buenos Aires ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation - 7 November 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the invitation to the Pre-Buenos Aires ICANN Policy Update Webinar taking place on Nov. 7th, 2013. Please follow the RSVP instructions below if you wish to take part in the webinar. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Pre-Buenos Aires ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 7 November 2013 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires, remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of 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 7 November at 12.00 UTC (for other places see: <http://tinyurl.com/mygn6xx> http://tinyurl.com/mygn6xx) and Thursday 7 November at 19.00 UTC. (for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/lj8jqep) 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: * Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation * Thick Whois * Protections of IGO/INGO Identifiers in gTLDs * Policy & Implementation * Draft Guidelines on ccTLD's Financial Contribution 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 <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC (for other places see: <http://tinyurl.com/mygn6xx> http://tinyurl.com/mygn6xx) or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (for other places see: http://tinyurl.com/lj8jqep) 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

Minutes, Transcript & Recording: BC Members Call on Thursday, Oct. 17
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 24, 2013

Oct. 24, 2013

Dear BC members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript from last week's BC members call which took place on Thursday, Oct. 17th, 2013. The MP3 Recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/bip5ntwmlte2v55ugf19.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/bip5ntwmlte2v55ugf19.mp3 Additionally, all of these materials are available on the BC Wiki Teleconference Section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 31 October 2013 at 11:00 UTC.
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 23, 2013

Oct. 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting taking place on Oct. 31st 2013 at 11 a.m. UTC. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 31 October 2013 at 11:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-31oct13-en.htm The agenda is also posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+31+October+20 13 And the motions are posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+2 013 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated. <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf%20> > 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. <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=council+meeting&is o=20131031T11&ah=2> Meeting Times 11:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/py4mo84 Coordinated Universal Time 11:00 UTC 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 00:00 Wellington next day Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audio cast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 mins) 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 10 October 2013 <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg15059.html> will be posted as approved on 23 October 2013 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics Include review of <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf> Projects List and <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items> Action List. Comments or questions arising. Item 3: Consent agenda (5 mins) Item 4: MOTION To approve a charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group (10 mins) On 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council. The drafting team has submitted the charter and so the GNSO Council, having reviewed the charter, will vote on whether to approve it as submitted by the Drafting Team. 4.1 - <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+ 2013> Review motion 1 4.2 - Discussion 4.3 - Next steps Item 5: MOTION Adoption of the Thick Whois Policy Development Process Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf> and Recommendations (10 mins) The <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf> Final Report on Thick Whois has been prepared as required by the GNSO PDP in the ICANN Bylaws. The Final Report is based on the Initial Report of 21 June 2013 and has been updated to reflect the review and analysis of the Public Comments received by the Thick Whois Working Group, in addition to further deliberations. The report is submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration. The conclusions and recommendations for next steps on the issues included in this PDP are outlined in Section 7 of the report. 5.1 - Review <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+ 2013> motion 2 5.2 - Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: MOTION To approve a charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) (10 mins) The GNSO Council approved the original charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) in 2011. Recently, the SCI determined that the Charter no longer reflected its current role as a standing committee, and furthermore did not contain procedures for selecting its Chair and Vice-Chair. The SCI requested guidance from the GNSO Council as to how to proceed with revisions to the Charter and at its meeting on 05 September 2013 the GNSO Council endorsed the SCI as a standing committee and further requested that the SCI proceed to revise the Charter as it may deem necessary, with the exception of the section on Decision Making. The SCI has since revised the Charter to reflect its role as a standing committee and to include procedures to select the Chair and Vice Chair. 6.1 - Review <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+ 2013> motion 3 6.2 - Discussion 6.3 - Next steps Item 7: MOTION A charter for the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation PDP WG (10 mins) ICANN staff prepared <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/negotiations-conclusion-16sep13-en.pdf> a paper to summarise the outcomes of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) negotiations in order to set the scene for subsequent associated policy development work to be managed by the Council. This is an ICANN Board initiated PDP. The staff paper contained a draft charter for the PDP WG and the Council has discussed this. Refinements to the charter have been proposed as has a title for the PDP WG. Here the Council needs to decide to move ahead with the revised draft charter prepared by staff or to institute a drafting team to revise and / or develop the PDP WG charter. 7.1 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+31+October+ 2013> Motion 4 7.2 Discussion 7.2 Next steps Item 8: INPUT & DISCUSSION Prospective improvements to the Policy Development Process (10 mins) The Council is committed to on-going enhancements to the methods of working of the Council and the work initiated and managed by the Council. The PDP process is a cornerstone of policy making within the GNSO and, as such, the work of the Council. The PDP outcomes and associated processes are the subject of focus and attention both within the GNSO and the broader ICANN Community. The Council has previously discussed a <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-22aug13-en.pdf> paper prepared by ICANN staff on potential improvements to the PDP process. The discussion is now encapsulated in a table form and further work needs to be done on reviewing the table and agreeing concrete next steps. 8.1 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-23sep13-en.pdf> Review of table of prospective PDP Improvements (Marika Konings) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: DISCUSSION Policy issues surrounding string confusion (10 mins) The Council previously discussed issues associated with the string confusion decisions that have been taken e.g. relating to plural and singular versions of the same term and the apparently contradictory decisions on identical strings. The Council agreed to <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-18sep13 -en.pdf> write to the ICANN board and new gTLD programme committee and to consider appropriate additional action. Further, the Council subsequently (10 October 2013) agreed that additional action will be contingent on receiving advice from ICANN legal counsel as to whether or not any additional GNSO work on the topic will have the potential to be used in a timely and effective manner within the new gTLD programme. Here the Council needs to hear if any such advice, requested via ICANN policy staff, has been forthcoming and, if so, what further action to take. 9.1 - Update on advice received 9.2 - Discussion 9.2 - Next steps Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Policy Development Process (10 mins) The WG Chair will provide an update on status of WG deliberations and the public comment <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> solicitation process for the draft Final Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf> . This PDP WG was formed to develop a set of policy recommendations to address the issue of whether and if so, what types of protections should be provided for the identifiers of certain IGOs and INGOs including the RCRC and IOC at the top and second levels in all gTLDs. For further information please see: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo. 10.1 Review of proposed WG recommendations (Thomas Rickert) 10.2 Discussion 10.3 Next steps Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION Planning for Buenos Aires (10 mins) Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires will take planning. GNSO Council Vice Chair, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has again volunteered to lead this and will be working with the Council and staff on this effort. Here the Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on past experience. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the approach to and substance of the Councils proposed meetings with other groups in such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 11.1 Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 11.2 Discussion 11.3 Next steps Item 12: Any Other Business (5 mins) 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> Annex A): 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 ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf> GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 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 meetings 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 October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 11:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html> PDT) UTC-7+1DST 04:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-4+1DST 07:00 Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 Montevideo, Uruguay ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html> UYST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 Abuja, Nigeria ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html> WAT) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 Istanbul, Turkey (EEST) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel. html> IST) UTC+2+0DST 13:00 Karachi, Pakistan ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Perth, Australia ( <http://timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/au/wst.html> WST) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 Wellington, New Zealand ( <http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.htm l> NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 (next day) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2014, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see <http://www.timeanddate.com> http://www.timeanddate.com - http://tinyurl Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Buenos Aires BC Attendees
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

Dear BC Members, In preparation for the upcoming meeting in Buenos Aires, could you kindly let me know if you are planning on attending the meeting and if so, provide me with the information below : * Arrival/Departure dates * Hotel Name * Contact details on site * Extra guests Thank you ever so much, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

2 1

Invitation to Domain Name Collision Workshop, 29-Oct-2013, Herndon, Virginia
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 22, 2013

Oct. 22, 2013

BC members — I mentioned this on last week's call. The Online Trust Alliance (OTA) has organized a 1-day workshop to assess ICANN's new plan to manage domain name collisions with new gTLDs. Sponsors include BT, Internet Identity (IID), Symantec, US Telecom, and Verisign. There's no charge to participate, and there will be remote participation capability. See registration page at http://gtld-collision.eventbrite.com When: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (EDT) Where: Westin Hotel - Dulles Airport, 2520 Wasser Terrace, Herndon, VA 20171 BC members who are participating so far: Jim Baskin and Sarah Deutsch, Verizon Marilyn Cade Phil Corwin Steve DelBianco Anjali Hansen Join OTA and industry leaders for a discussion on the risk and consequences of domain collisions resulting from the delegation of new gTLDs. This full-day multi-stakeholder workshop will review the open issues and help develop remediation plans to address the impending risk of Domain Collision. Not unlike Y2K and the recent efforts to address the threats of DNSChanger exploit, the business community, industry and infrastructure providers need to work together to understand the risks and how to prepare for them. AGENDA 8:00 AM Breakfast 9:00 AM Welcome - Opening Keynote Setting the Stage – Overview of gTLD expansion, plus advice from SSSAC, GAC, and ICANN Community Working Session: Probability & Consequences of Name Collisions Working Session: Technical Discussion – ICANN's Collision Management Proposal Lunch & Keynote: Lessons Learned from Y2K Working Session: Mitigation of Collisions on ISPs, Infrastructure Providers & Business Working Session: What Happens After Delegations Begin? Open Dialog & Audience Discussion: The Way Forward Wrap Up & Next Steps 5:00 PM Reception

2 1

Candidate Statements - BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on NomCom Elections
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 21, 2013

Oct. 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the candidate statements submitted by the four candidates nominated during the nomination period of the GNSO Councilor & NomCom Small Business seat for the BC. As a reminder please note that the call with candidates will take place tomorrow, Tuesday Oct. 22nd at 11 a.m. EDT (3 p.m. UTC) for one hour, and that members are kindly asked to submit questions today to the Voting Officer to be aggregated and asked during the candidate call. So far no questions for candidates have been received. Questions submitted prior to the call (by COB today) will take priority over questions asked during the actual call, which may not be addressed if time does not suffice. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions about the election process. Thank you ever so much, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Reminder: Buenos Aires BC Attendees
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 21, 2013

Oct. 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, If you have not already confirmed your attendance in Buenos Aires, please do so asap for planning purposes in preparation for the Buenos Aires meeting. If you do not have all of the information required below, please still do let me know if you are in fact planning on attending. * Arrival/Departure dates * Hotel Name * Contact details on site * Extra guests Thank you ever so much for your help, From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: jeudi 17 octobre 2013 08:58 To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Buenos Aires BC Attendees Dear BC Members, In preparation for the upcoming meeting in Buenos Aires, could you kindly let me know if you are planning on attending the meeting and if so, provide me with the information below : * Arrival/Departure dates * Hotel Name * Contact details on site * Extra guests Thank you ever so much, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

2 1

ccNSO Council Resolutions + Names of Countries and Territories Study Group
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 21, 2013

Oct. 21, 2013

Dear all, Please see below notice of outcome of the ccNSO Council resolution in regard to the Names of Countries and Territories Study Group report. I draw you attention to: Resolution 1 "Invite the ALAC, GAC and GNSO to establish a cross community working group" Excom/Councilors should be aware of this to ensure BC have a presence. We should also support Heather Forrest (IPC) who is an expert in the field. Resolution 2: In light of the need for further work on the treatment of country and territory names, the complexity of the issue at hand and the inconsistencies between various ICANN policies ..., the ccNSO recommends the ICANN Board to extend the current rule in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook regarding the exclusion of all country and territory names in all languages, for consecutive rounds of new gTLD applications, until such a time when the work of the envisioned cross community working has been concluded. best De: ccnso-nctsg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccnso-nctsg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Bart Boswinkel Enviado el: lunes, 21 de octubre de 2013 12:33 Para: ccnso-nctsg(a)icann.org Asunto: [ccnso-nctsg] ccNSO Council Resolutions + closure of the Study Group Dear all, As you may recall the Final Report of the Study Group was submitted to the ccNSO Council in time for its meeting on 8 October 2013 (see: Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories Final Report <http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227> ). As the Council was not quorate, the voting was done on line and closed last Friday, 18 October 2013. The following resolutions were adopted, unanimously (no vote against nor any abstentions): Resolution 1: The ccNSO Council accepts the recommendation of the Study Group to: Invite the ALAC, GAC and GNSO to establish a cross community working group, which is tasked to: . Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; . Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's; and . Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. The secretariat is asked to coordinate drafting of a strawman for the charter of the proposed ccWG to facilitate the invitation and discussion with the SO's and AC's mentioned . Resolution 2: In light of the need for further work on the treatment of country and territory names, the complexity of the issue at hand and the inconsistencies between various ICANN policies as identified by the Study Group, and taking into account the initiative to create a cross-community working group that addresses issues identified by the Study Group, the ccNSO recommends the ICANN Board to extend the current rule in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook regarding the exclusion of all country and territory names in all languages, for consecutive rounds of new gTLD applications, until such a time when the work of the envisioned cross community working has been concluded. The chair of the ccNSO is requested to submit the recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors after the relevant SO's and AC's have been informed and invited to participate in the envisioned cross-community working group. The third and final resolution was about the Study Group it self: The ccNSO Council wholeheartedly thanks all participants in Study group for their hard work and stamina, and in particular its chair Paul Szyndler and UNESCO for conducting the Survey. As a result of the adoption of the Final Report the Study Group is now closed. On behalf of the ccNSO secretariat, I also want to thank you for your hard work and the cooperative spirit and collaboration, and congratulate you with the end result. Finally, the study group email list will be closed and archived by the end of this week. The web-page will also be archived under Former Working Groups <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/formerwg.htm> ). Kind regards, Bart

1 0

BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on NomCom Election Announcement: Nominations
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 20, 2013

Oct. 20, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is an election announcement for the currently open process for the BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on NomCom Election. Following the closure of the two week nomination period, the nominations are the following, listed in alphabetical order by last name: GNSO Councilor: · Philip Corwin Nominated by Michael Castello · Gabriela Szlak Nominated by Jimson Olufuye Small Business Seat Nominating Committee: · Ron Andruff Nominated by John Berard · Anjali Hansen Nominated by Stéphane Van Gelder As a reminder, nominees should submit their candidate statements by tomorrow, Oct. 21st 2013 for them to be aggregated and submitted to BC Members prior to the Candidate call taking place on Tuesday, Oct. 22nd at 11 a.m. EDT (3 p.m. UTC). Questions for candidates should also be submitted to the me at bc-secretariat(a)icann.org by tomorrow for them to be used on the candidate call and aggregated and submitted to candidates in preparation for the call. Thank you ever so much, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on Nominating Committee Elections: Nominations close on Friday, Oct. 18th
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 17, 2013

Oct. 17, 2013

From: BC Secretariat Date: October 16th, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery, Returning Officer ,Robert Hoggarth, Verifying Officer, <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business NomCom Seat Elections: Reminder - Nominations Close on Friday, Oct.18th Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for one of the two BC GNSO Councilor seats and the Small Business Seat on the Nominating Committee . Please note that the nomination period will close on Friday, October 18th. If you would like to submit a nomination, please follow the procedure outlined in the election procedure attached, and submit your nomination to the <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com email address prior to Friday COB. Candidate statements should also be sent to the <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com no later than Sunday, Oct. 20th. Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election. Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi, serving as Voting Officer -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

9 13

RV: [bc-gnso] BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on Nominating Committee Elections: Nominations close on Friday, Oct. 18th
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 16, 2013

Oct. 16, 2013

Stephane, Thanks for your thoughts. I cant comment about historical aspects as I have only been a member a few years. You or the person nominated are at liberty to go public and post the nomination to the list. It is the voting officer who will not do so. Is it best to be bold and nominate at the beginning, or perhaps in the middle, or in the last few minutes at the very end when you know who the opposition is or isnt? I am not convinced it is a good idea to add the time dimension to the nominating process. Best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Stephane Van Gelder Consulting Enviado el: miércoles, 16 de octubre de 2013 22:40 Para: Benedetta Rossi; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business Seat on Nominating Committee Elections: Nominations close on Friday, Oct. 18th Hi everyone, I would like te reiterate that I find it very odd that as a group, we prefer to have private nominations. If I am willing to support someone, I have no qualms about making that support public. Moreover, I find it troublesome that as a BC member, I do not know until the nomination deadline has passed whether someone has been nominated for a position or not. I am left with having to try to read into a reminder message such as this one whether it is being sent two days before the deadline because there have been no nominations, or because it's just two days before the deadline. And if I did know what nominations had been made, especially if none had been made, I might be spurred on to reach out to other potential candidates and try to get them on board. But with the current private nomination system, I just don't know. Is there a historical reason for having private nominations? Do others feel, like I do, that it's time to put an end to the secrecy and to run fully transparent election processes? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ On 16 October 2013 18:47, Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> wrote: From: BC Secretariat Date: October 16th, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery, Returning Officer ,Robert Hoggarth, Verifying Officer, bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC GNSO Councilor & Small Business NomCom Seat Elections: Reminder Nominations Close on Friday, Oct.18th Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for one of the two BC GNSO Councilor seats and the Small Business Seat on the Nominating Committee . Please note that the nomination period will close on Friday, October 18th. If you would like to submit a nomination, please follow the procedure outlined in the election procedure attached, and submit your nomination to the bcvotes(a)hotmail.com email address prior to Friday COB. Candidate statements should also be sent to the bcvotes(a)hotmail.com no later than Sunday, Oct. 20th. Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election. Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi, serving as Voting Officer -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat <http://bc-secretariat@icann.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Cross-dot Cybersquatting Cases
by Andy Abrams Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

Resurrecting this earlier thread with an update: http://www.thedomains.com/2013/10/09/in-a-udrp-with-wide-implications-in-ne… The decision is here: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DCO2013-0017 While UDRP decisions don't have direct precedential effect, I suspect that this is the start of a trend to consider TLDs when determining cybersquatting cases. As stated by the panel: Indeed, the WIPO Overview 2.0<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html#20> clearly contemplates the TLD being taken into account. There is nothing novel or improper in doing so. ... At paragraph 1.2<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html#12>, which deals with the test for identity or confusing similarity, it is said “[…] *The applicable top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., “.com”) would usually be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (as it is a technical requirement of registration), except in certain cases where the applicable top-level suffix may itself form part of the relevant trademark*.” [emphasis added]. On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > Thanks for the input, Mary Jo; I’m gaining new knowledge and insight as > this dialogue continues.**** > > ** ** > > Interesting that in the two non-.com cases that you cite six.net and > channel.tv, the visual appearance was sufficient to clear the first UDRP > hurdle but ultimately the respondent prevailed. That was the point of my > hypothetical federal.express example of a domain used to promote skateboard > clothing, that visual similarity (in fact identical visual match but for > the dot) is not sufficient to decide the elements of bad faith registration > and use.**** > > ** ** > > With all the new genetic terms coming along as TLDs this will certainly be > a most interesting area to watch and discuss – with preventing consumer > confusion, much less exploitation, as the main goal.**** > > ** ** > > 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:* Mari Jo Keukelaar [mailto:mj@johnberryhill.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:14 PM > *To:* Phil Corwin; 'Andy Abrams'; jscottevans(a)yahoo.com; 'bc - GNSO list' > > *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > ** ** > > Phil, where you state that**** > > ** ** > > these “side issues” are complex and would represent a fundamental change > in UDRP and subsidiary URS policy, which today only contemplates the name > to the left or the dot with no consideration of the top level domain on the > right side.**** > > ** ** > > The facts do not support your broad assertion to the effect that the UDRP > "only contemplates the name to the left of the dot". There have been many > cases in which that is just not an accurate assertion.**** > > ** ** > > In UDRP proceedings where a trademark ends in "NET", domain name > registrations in the .net TLD have been determined "identical or > confusingly similar" under the UDRP rules. For example, in WIPO Case No. > D2000-0008, the domain name "SIX.NET" was found to be identical or > confusingly similar to the registered trademark "SIXNET". That was in the > first year of operation of the UDRP. While the case was decided on other > grounds, it cleared the first element of the UDRP.**** > > ** ** > > In disputes under ".tv", which is one of the existing TLDs you mention, > the fact that the TLD is perceived to communicate "television" has indeed > been a factor in UDRP disputes involving .tv names. For example WIPO > DTV2011-0008 involved a dispute over "channel.tv" -**** > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DTV2011-0008 . > While the domain registrant had excellent legal representation and > prevailed on other grounds, under the first element of the Policy, the > domain name "channel.tv" was indeed found to be "identical" to the > alleged mark "Channel TV".**** > > ** ** > > What is generally true is that where the second-level domain name matches > the alleged trademark, the TLD is typically ignored. That has been > appropriate, since the bulk of disputes have involved .com names, and > ".com" has no particular meaning. For example in Cello Holdings v. > Lawrence-Dahl Cos., 89 F.Supp.2d 464, 472-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court > discussed a hypothetical situation in which "apple.com" were used to sell > apples, which would not violate the mark of the computer company. However, > it should be apparent that in a circumstance where .computers was a TLD, > and one was looking at the domain name apple.computers, then the TLD > signifies a class of goods such that the entire domain name > "apple.computers" unambiguously identifies a trademark owner. In other > words, where TLD's have had little or no meaning apart from signifying an > address of "something on the internet", they were not important. Likewise, > in forward comparisons of a domain name to a mark, the TLD itself was > generally not signaling anything of consequence. However, in "reverse" > comparisons of a mark to a domain name, in an environment where TLD's do > carry meaning, then it does not make sense to mechanically apply a rule > that was developed under a different set of assumptions about TLD's > themselves.**** > > ** ** > > There can be no question that domain names such as wal.mart or walm.art > both "look like Wal-Mart". Outcomes under trademark law have always been > based on consumer perception, not mechanical rules for parsing strings, and > it is not reasonable to expect mechanical application of a perceived rule, > when the rationale for the "general rule" is no longer valid. I am certain > that UDRP providers, and at least some panelists, have given this the > consideration it deserves. **** > > ** ** > > Just some thoughts, Mari Jo**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:25 AM > *To:* Andy Abrams; jscottevans(a)yahoo.com; bc - GNSO list > *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > ** ** > > You are most welcome, Andy. I’m glad that you thought my post captured the > LRO process well. **** > > ** ** > > In regard to your comment – “However, an interesting side-issue is whether > the UDRP and URS panels will start to include TLDs as a factor in > determining cybersquatting at the second level (e.g., cross-dot trademarks > such as federal.express or you.tube). And if so, perhaps cross-dot > trademarks should be included in Sunrise?’ – these “side issues” are > complex and would represent a fundamental change in UDRP and subsidiary URS > policy, which today only contemplates the name to the left or the dot with > no consideration of the top level domain on the right side. Consideration > of the right side in either UDRP or URS proceedings or as a matter of > sunrise protection would be, I believe, a significant change in policy that > requires extensive consideration, perhaps even a PDP, prior to any > contemplated change in the scope of these protections. This isn’t just a > new gTLD issue – there are existing TLDs, especially ccTLDs like .me and > .tv, that can raise similar questions. So far as I know there was > absolutely no consideration or discussion of inclusion of right of the dot > considerations in the development of the URS or TMC. Changes of this > consequence should not be considered, much less implemented, on the fly > absent adequate consideration.**** > > ** ** > > The GNSO decided in December 2011 that any PDP related to alteration of > the UDRP should not be initiated until eighteen months after the > introduction of new gTLDs. That may forestall any consideration of your > suggestion unless there is a broad community desire to accelerate the > timetable.**** > > ** ** > > 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:* Andy Abrams [mailto:abrams@google.com <abrams(a)google.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 8:22 PM > *To:* Phil Corwin; jscottevans(a)yahoo.com; bc - GNSO list > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > ** ** > > Thanks to Phil for forwarding us his article - it captures the LRO process > well. For what it's worth, I'm another trademark attorney that agrees with > J. Scott that the system is actually working well, and brand owners > shouldn't expect to preemptively stop the use of a generic term for an open > TLD prior to any commercial activity. However, an interesting side-issue > is whether the UDRP and URS panels will start to include TLDs as a factor > in determining cybersquatting at the second level (e.g., cross-dot > trademarks such as federal.express or you.tube). And if so, perhaps > cross-dot trademarks should be included in Sunrise?**** > > ** ** > > Andy**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:08 AM, J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> > wrote:**** > > Phil:**** > > ** ** > > The remedy provided is not more narrow than that provided under current > national and international laws. If trademark owners want an absolute > monopoly on a term then, yes, they will have to file for a top level domain > in round two. Paul McGrady has been saying that the first come, first > served method of distribution of top level domains by ICANN could lead to > "permanent string preclusion" for those brands who have a dictionary term > as a trademark. He has been saying this since 2008. Unfortunately, some > brands don't listen. Go figure!**** > > **** > > *j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com***** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> > *To:* J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> > *Cc:* "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> **** > > *Sent:* Monday, August 5, 2013 7:58 AM > *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > ** ** > > Agree that it’s working as intended, but doubt that most perceived how > narrow a remedy it would be. **** > > **** > > Main takeaway for TM owners is that if you want to control your generic > brand or product at top level of the DNS you need to submit a defensive > application in 2nd round.**** > > **** > > As for adding LRO to acronym list – well of course! **** > > **** > > *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:* J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 11:41 PM > *To:* Phil Corwin > *Cc:* bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > **** > > That's correct you don't, but the article seems to imply that the LRO sets > too high a burden or is somehow flawed and, for this reason, trademark > owners are getting the proverbial "shaft." I think a LRO would work if a > trademark owner could prove a likelihood of confusion or some actual harm. > I don't think you are sufficiently harmed just because someone plans to > use the a generic term (that may also serve as someone's trademark) for > non-infringing purposes. I would argue to you the the LRO is working > perfectly, much like the UDRP works perfectly when trademark owners that > can meet the high burden win.**** > > **** > > In sum, I think the system is working as it was intended. I know these > results are making some trademark owners unhappy, but trademark law is > basically a consumer protection statute, so a complainant should have to > show some consumer harm or confusion, not the angst of a marketing > department that was asleep at the wheel since June 2008.**** > > **** > > J. Scott**** > > **** > > *j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! > Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com***** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> > *To:* J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> > *Cc:* "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 4, 2013 8:14 PM > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO**** > > **** > > I don't disagree, and never said they were. > > 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**** > > **** > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:51 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> > wrote:**** > > I am not so sure any of these cases were wrongly decided. > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From: *Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; > *To: *bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; > *Subject: *[bc-gnso] FW: New ICA Post on the LRO > *Sent: *Sun, Aug 4, 2013 10:05:16 PM **** > > **** > > FYI/BC members may find my latest opinion piece of some interest---**** > > **** > > http://internetcommerce.org/LROlooksDOA**** > > **** > > *LRO Looks DOA***** > > * ***** > > The Legal Rights Objection (LRO) mechanism administered by the World > Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on behalf of ICANN is starting to > look like the reverse FISA Court of domain name system (DNS) rights > protection mechanisms (RPMs) at the top level. In FISA Court, the > government always wins – at WIPO, the LRO complainant always loses.**** > > The FISA Court is of course the venue in which the U.S. government > requests a surveillance warrant against a suspected foreign intelligence > agent and is never denied (well, almost never – since the process started > in 1979, 11 requests have been denied out of a total of 33,942 received > through the end of 2012[1] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn1>). > FISA Court proceedings are secret and non-adversarial, with only government > lawyers presenting arguments. In contrast, the decisions resulting from LRO > proceedings are published, and both complainant and respondent have equal > ability to present their arguments. Yet, as of Friday, August 2nd all 28 > of the decided LRO complaints, out of a total of 69 filed, resulted in > losses for the complainants[2] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn2>. > **** > > The lopsided results arouse suspicions that trademark interests may have > been fighting the last war and too intensely focused on potential > cybersquatting at the second level (a concern that we believe is overblown > due to the low traffic prospects for many new gTLDs). They consequently > sought and obtained the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), Uniform Rapid > Suspension (URS) RPMs – and also proposed other second level remedies such > as a Global Protected Marks List (GPML) that ICANN did not grant. Yet they > may have failed to adequately consider whether top level protections were > sufficient, and in particular whether the threshold standard for > successfully prosecuting a LRO was unattainably high. **** > > As Thomas O’Toole observed in an excellent analysis recently posted on > Bloomberg BNA’s E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog[3]<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn3> > :**** > > *[T]he only surprise the future might hold is the faint prospect that a > WIPO panelist might actually rule in favor of a trademark owner…The biggest > lesson so far has been that the Legal Rights Objection process is wholly > ineffective for trademark owners seeking to knock down proposed domains > containing generic strings. In many cases, companies owning marks for terms > such as EXPRESS, HOME, VIP, LIMITED, MAIL, TUNES have lost LROs to domain > applicants with no intellectual property rights in those terms whatsoever. > Pinterest's failed challenge to Amazon's proposed .pin domain was > particularly ominous for mark owners, because Amazon seems pretty clearly > to be moving in on Pinterest's business…***** > > *The reason for this dour outlook can be found in passages from two early > LRO rulings: the first one, Right at Home v. Johnson Shareholdings Inc., > No. LRO2013-0300 (WIPO, July 3, 2013); and the second, my favorite, Express > LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, No. LRO2013-0022 (WIPO, July 9, 2013)…***** > > *In Right at Home, panelist Robert A. Badgley offered the first > interpretation of key terms in Section 3.5 of ICANN's New gTLD Applicant > Guidebook <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. The guidebook > uses highly qualified language, directing LRO panelists to decide whether > the proposed new domain "takes unfair advantage" of the trademark owner's > rights, or "unjustifiably impairs" the value of the mark, or creates an > "impermissible likelihood of confusion" between the mark and the proposed > domain.***** > > *In Badgley's view, this language creates a very high burden for > trademark-based objections…Obviously, it is going to be very difficult for > any trademark owner to demonstrate that a proposed domain is so fishy it > satisfies the "something untoward ... if not to the level of bad faith" > standard…***** > > *The second opinion, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, was one of the better > opinions (and I am including the federal court stuff that we wade through > every day) I have read in a while. Panelist Frederick M. Abbott carefully > summarized the arguments on each side (there are good lessons here for > attorneys working on the next round of legal rights objections), and the > law that he was required to apply to the dispute. When Abbott turned to the > reasoning behind his decision to reject Express LCC's objection to the > proposed .express top-level domain, I got that sense that this panelist was > a teeny bit irked that ICANN itself had not made the hard policy choices > that the LRO had just dropped in his lap. It's one thing to ask a panelist > to transfer a domain name that might have cost the registrant $10 or so; > and it's quite another to ask a panelist to upset an investment of at least > a half-million dollars in a new top-level domain. All based on a trademark > registration for a generic term, in a single market, issued by a single > government entity. Abbott declined to do it…***** > > *These two opinions, taken together, look like a terminal diagnosis for > trademark owners with rights in generic terms. Right at Home creates a very > permissive standard for what constitutes "unfair advantage" by a domain > applicant. Express LLC states, almost categorically, that it is "not > reasonable" to allow a trademark owner for a generic term to prevent that > term from being used as a top-level domain.***** > > O’Toole goes on to speculate that a trademark owner like Express LLC will > have equally poor chances of success if it attempts to block others’ use of > such hypothetical second level domains as clothing.express, > fashion.express, or shoes.express using the traditional UDRP or the new TMC > and URS RPMs -- because all of them focus on the domain name to the left of > the dot and pay no heed to the gTLD to the right – and because Express > holds no trademark rights in those hypothetical generic terms on the left > side. We largely agree with his analysis, and suspect that this could be > the next big trademark protection issue looming on ICANN’s horizon as > brands complain about the necessity and cost of registering relevant > domains at a gTLD that matches one of its trademarks but is operated by a > third party (and, by the way, it’s not clear that a brand like Express > would have any special “sunrise” registration priority for potential second > level domains along the lines of O’Toole’s speculation). Other questions > arise, such as whether Federal Express should have priority rights to, or a > potential infringement claim against, federal.express.**** > > Of course, no one was reckless enough to pay a $185,000 gTLD application > fee, plus multiple related legal, consulting, and technical costs, to try > to “squat’ at the top level on a unique trademark like Google or Microsoft. > But when it comes to a dictionary word like Express, unless the applicant > was so clueless as to propose its use solely for fashionable clothing, the > LRO is essentially useless – and that may be the correct result. Indeed, > short of halting the program, it’s not really clear how one can have a > generic word TLD program without allowing the addition of top level domains > that are identical to someone’s trademark for something; and that alone is > not sufficient to prove trademark infringement.**** > > Domain industry observers such as Andrew Allemann have opined that “The > LRO is working just fine, thank you”[4]<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn4>, > weighing in with this analysis:**** > > *The LRO was created to assuage fears that someone would cybersquat on a > top level domain…Objections were filed against .VIP, .mail, and .home. Now, > you tell me: when you hear these terms, what brand do you think is being > cybersquatted?***** > > *Many of the objections were filed by competing applicants that engaged > in trademark frontrunning by obtaining dubious trademarks for the string. > Others, such as the United States Postal Service’s objection to .mail, were > based on stretched interpretations of a trademark (and that’s being > generous).***** > > Another industry analyst, Kevin Murphy, has just declared that he will no > longer report automatically on forthcoming WIPO decisions in LRO cases, > stating[5] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn5>:**** > > *The Legal Rights Objection has, I think, said pretty much everything > it’s going to say in this new gTLD application round. I’m feeling pretty > confident we can predict that all outstanding LROs will fail.***** > > *This prediction is based largely on the fact that the 69 LROs filed in > this round all pretty much fall into three categories.***** > > · *Front-running.** These are the cases where the objector is an > applicant that secured a trademark on its chosen gTLD string, usually with > the dot, just in order to game the LRO process…***** > > · *Brand v Brand.** The objector may or may not be an applicant > too, but both it and the respondent both own legit trademarks on the string > in question. WIPO’s LRO panelists have made it clear, most recently > yesterday in Merck v Merck (pdf<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0068.p…>) > and Merck v Merck (pdf<http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0069.p…>), > that having a famous brand does not give you the right to block somebody > else from owning a matching famous brand as a gTLD.***** > > · *Generic trademarks.** Cases where an owner of a legit brand > that matches a dictionary word files an objection against an applicant for > the same string that proposes to use it in its generic sense. See Express > v Donuts<http://domainincite.com/13691-donuts-beats-dot-brand-in-fight-over-express-…>, > for example. Panelists have found that unless there’s some nefarious intent > by the applicant, the mandatory second-level rights protection mechanisms > new gTLD registries must abide by are sufficient to protect trademark > rights.***** > > *In short, the LRO may be one of many deterrents to top-level > cybersquatting, but has proven itself an essentially useless cash sink if > you want to prevent the use of a trademark at the top level.***** > > *The impact of this, I believe, will be to give new gTLD consultants > another excellent reason to push defensive gTLD applications on big brands > in future new gTLD rounds.***** > > * ***** > > We largely agree with Murphy’s analysis. There may well be a few cases in > the remaining objections to be adjudicated by WIPO in which the complainant > prevails. But we suspect that they will be such unique outliers that they > will actually reinforce what an exceedingly narrow remedy the LRO has > turned out to be. That limited utility has already led one disgruntled > complainant/competing applicant to declare, *“Seems the entire WIPO LRO > process was set-up to fail by ICANN with the guidelines they gave the > Panelists.”[6] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn6>***** > > And, as Murphy observes, filing a LRO with WIPO is not inexpensive. Total > filing fees for a single objection to a single new gTLD application can > range from $10,000 for a single-expert panel, and up to $23,000 for a > 3-expert panel[7] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn7>. On top of > the fees there are of course legal costs for the attorney preparing the > complaint and related expenses for amassing documentation. If the LRO > continues to be a preordained shutout for complainants then it is unlikely > that it will be used very much at all in the second round of gTLD > applications unless significant – and undoubtedly controversial – changes > are made in the adjudication standard to give complainants a higher > probability of prevailing.**** > > As for the other objection procedure available to third parties, the > Community Objection[8] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn8>administered by the International > Centre for Expertise of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), no > judgment can yet be rendered on its efficacy because the Center has yet to > issue a single decision on the dozens of cases[9]<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn9>filed with it. However, with standing limited to established institutions > associated within a clearly defined community objectors first have to > surmount that procedural hurdle, and then make the string substantive case > that there is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a > significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be > explicitly or implicitly targeted. Additionally, complaints were voiced at > the recent Public Forum in Durban that ICC fees[10]<https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftn10>, which begin at 17,000 Euro but can quickly mount given the 450 Euro > hourly rate for expert arbitrators, are not affordable for many community > organizations.**** > > Summing up, the LRO may well have been an effective deterrent against > applications for unique trademarked terms but has so far been useless in > regard to applications for generic word trademarks, regardless of the > trademark’s strength and legitimacy. Its lack of general applicability also > seems to be setting up a series of second level domain disputes that may > well be outside the existing scope of the UDRP, URS, TMC, or other > available rights protection and prioritization mechanisms. All of this may > lead to further debate within ICANN on the appropriate scope of trademark > rights protections– as well as litigation being filed by unsuccessful > complainants who refuse to take WIPO’s decision as the final judgment on > their claims. **** > > The clear lesson to brand owners of generic word trademarks is this: If > and when the second round of new gTLD applications commences, if you wish > to own your trademark at the top level of the DNS (or at least stop others > from owning it) you had better open your wallet and apply for it. That > compulsion toward unwanted defensive registrations is almost sure to > generate further controversy amid charges that ICANN has developed a Midas > Touch-like mechanism for generating perpetual revenues for application and > use fees for the protection of dictionary words. **** > > Of course, the inflow of defensive applications for generic word > trademarks could be a mere trickle compared to the potential surge of > defensive and offensive applications for non-trademarked generic words if > ICANN ultimately spurs the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice to > prohibit “closed generic” gTLDs unless they satisfy a high public interest > standard. In that scenario, every company of any heft will have to > seriously consider gTLD applications for the major language words > describing its key activities and products, lest a competitor do so first > and lock them away. But that’s an issue falling outside any trademark > protection debate and a discussion for another day.**** > > [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court**** > > [2]http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/**** > > [3]http://www.bna.com/icann-legal-rights-b17179875369/**** > > [4] > http://domainnamewire.com/2013/08/01/the-lro-is-working-just-fine-thank-you/ > **** > > [5]http://domainincite.com/13949-thats-all-folks-no-more-lro-news**** > > [6] > http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/31/constantinos-roussos-of-dotmusic-limit… > **** > > [7]http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/**** > > [8] > http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… > **** > > [9]http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883**** > > [10] > http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… > **** > > **** > > **** > > *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 > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13* > *** > > > **** > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13* > *** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ICA Mail" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ica-mail+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to ica-mail(a)googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ica-mail. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-mail/8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E… > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > > **** > ------------------------------ > > [1] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref1> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Court **** > > [2] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref2> > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ **** > > [3] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref3> > http://www.bna.com/icann-legal-rights-b17179875369/ **** > > [4] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref4> > http://domainnamewire.com/2013/08/01/the-lro-is-working-just-fine-thank-you/ > ** ** > > [5] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref5> > http://domainincite.com/13949-thats-all-folks-no-more-lro-news **** > > [6] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref6> > http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/31/constantinos-roussos-of-dotmusic-limit… > **** > > [7] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref7> > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ **** > > [8] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref8> > http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… > **** > > [9] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref9> > http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883 **** > > [10] <https://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#_ftnref10> > http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/i… > **** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13* > *** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel > *G**o**o**g**l**e* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043*** > * > > (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>**** > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13* > *** > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6545 - Release Date: 08/02/13* > *** > -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

3 3

Monthly Status Report - Oct. 15th 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the monthly Status Reports submitted by the Executive Committee and myself - BC Secretariat on October 15th, 2013. Elisa Cooper, BC Chair . Hosted two BC member calls . Developed first draft of singular / plural comments with support from Andy Abram, Ron Andruff and Steve DelBianco . Met with Credentials Committee to discuss membership applications . Privacy / Proxy Service Abuse Report comments - in process Steve DelBianco, Vice Chair for Policy Coordination * Prepared policy calendars (19-Sep and 3-Oct) and led policy discussion on member calls * Joined call with Credentials Committee * Presented BC comment at gTLD Security Forum in Washington DC * Drafted talking points and edited letter on singular/plural versions of new TLDs * Solicited drafting help for BC comments on WHOIS study, Risk Management Framework, IGO/INGO Recommendations, PIC DRP Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair for Finance and Operations . Prepared ICANN Finance update for BC member call . Reviewed material and joined call with Credentials Committee . IRTP-D Working Group . Meeting and calls with bank over SO/AC support xfers. . BC budget update prep with Secretariat. Marilyn Cade, CSG Representative . Ongoing engagement with CSG Excomm to finalize agenda for CSG for ICANN 48 . Reviewed Charter and advised Credential Committee of relevant sections /in their assessment of two applications . Identified issues with election of V.Chair/House, and engaged CSG Excomm . Responded to member questions about election procedures on BC list . Participated in BC ExComm call with CC . Participated in ICANN Advisory Group calls on ICANN Labs . Participated in BC Calls . Reviewed materials posted on Collision of Names . Supported Newsletter outline planning with Secretariat Benedetta Rossi, BC Secretariat: . Drafted election procedure for GNSO Councilor Election followed by NomCom Small Seat position . Liaised with ICANN staff as Returning and Verifying Officers for the elections . Worked on Newsletter outline and background work for Buenos Aires Newsletter . Worked on Budget documents in support of V. Chair Finance & Operations . Attended and facilitated BC member calls & CSG Executive Committee calls . Drafted minutes for BC member calls . Updated BC website with positions . Updated BC Wiki (conference call information, recordings, minutes, presentations, transcripts) . Responded to member queries . Liaised with Credentials Committee regarding two new applications. . Prepared materials and joined Excomm Call with Credentials Committee . Continued BC invoicing round for 2013 to close the round for 2013 and followed up with outstanding members . Submitted payments from BC bank account Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] EC launches consultation on Internet Governance
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 10, 2013

Oct. 10, 2013

Thanks for this, Caroline. I met w some WC officials last week and got a bit of a flavor, but this is extremely useful to have for all BC members. The longer blog from Neelie is worth a reed, especially for BC members who are actively engaged in Internet governance and IGF, recalling that she has been a strong champion of the IGF. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Caroline Greer <greer(a)etno.be> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:58:00 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] EC launches consultation on Internet Governance Dear all, Of possible interest to some members - The European Commission has today launched a consultation on Internet Governance, which will run for 4 weeks. In her blog post of yesterday, Commissioner Kroes recalled recent events that have inspired the consultation, including the EU's 'legitimate concerns' regarding some TLD applications - see http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governan…. The consultation document addresses some ICANN issues and the role of Governments within the GAC. Kind regards, Caroline Greer Regulatory and Public Affairs Manager ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) Avenue Louise, 54 Brussels 1000, Belgium + 32 2 227 1083

1 0