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

FOR REVIEW BY 27-Dec-2013: follow-up on singular-plural TLDs
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 22, 2013

Dec. 22, 2013

Please review the attached brief letter we propose sending to ICANN’s new gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). This is a last-gasp attempt to get an “implementation” change to prevent singular and plural TLDs for the same string. (car/cars, hotel/hotels ) Andy Abrams (Google) and I drafted this to focus NGPC on something the Board just approved for IDN ccTLD Fast track. This letter closely follows the BC’s approved 29-October letter to NGPC. Therefore the Executive Committee has authorized an abbreviated review period of 7 days. Please REPLY ALL with edits or objections to sending this letter, before Friday 27-Dec-2013. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 2:32 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 5-Dec-2013 BC member call ICANN plans to delegate Singular and Plural forms of same string, despite GAC advice and community concerns. The BC sent a letter to ICANN CEO and Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) with two requests: We asked ICANN to publish any evidence considered by expert panels, arbitration providers, and ICANN staff in its evaluation of these decisions. We asked ICANN to publish specific objective criteria to judge string similarity, and allow for an appeal system where applicants can challenge prior ICDR decisions on singular-plural TLDs based on this criteria. We re-iterated those requests at the Public Forum in BA, asking if the Board shared the BC concerns. NGPC member Mike Silber replied, "Yes, several of us are very concerned about this." _______________________________________________ Bc-excomm mailing list Bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:Bc-excomm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-excomm _______________________________________________ Bc-excomm mailing list Bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:Bc-excomm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-excomm

5 4

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 27-Dec-2013: follow-up on singular-plural TLDs
by Laura Covington Dec. 20, 2013

Dec. 20, 2013

Looks good. Thank you, Andy and Steve. Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, December 20, 2013 11:09 AM To: "'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> GNSO list'" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 27-Dec-2013: follow-up on singular-plural TLDs Please review the attached brief letter we propose sending to ICANN’s new gTLD Program Committee (NGPC). This is a last-gasp attempt to get an “implementation” change to prevent singular and plural TLDs for the same string. (car/cars, hotel/hotels ) Andy Abrams (Google) and I drafted this to focus NGPC on something the Board just approved for IDN ccTLD Fast track. This letter closely follows the BC’s approved 29-October letter to NGPC. Therefore the Executive Committee has authorized an abbreviated review period of 7 days. Please REPLY ALL with edits or objections to sending this letter, before Friday 27-Dec-2013. —Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 2:32 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 5-Dec-2013 BC member call ICANN plans to delegate Singular and Plural forms of same string, despite GAC advice and community concerns. The BC sent a letter to ICANN CEO and Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) with two requests: We asked ICANN to publish any evidence considered by expert panels, arbitration providers, and ICANN staff in its evaluation of these decisions. We asked ICANN to publish specific objective criteria to judge string similarity, and allow for an appeal system where applicants can challenge prior ICDR decisions on singular-plural TLDs based on this criteria. We re-iterated those requests at the Public Forum in BA, asking if the Board shared the BC concerns. NGPC member Mike Silber replied, "Yes, several of us are very concerned about this." _______________________________________________ Bc-excomm mailing list Bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:Bc-excomm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-excomm _______________________________________________ Bc-excomm mailing list Bc-excomm(a)icann.org<mailto:Bc-excomm@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-excomm

1 0

Three Months and Counting...
by Phil Corwin Dec. 18, 2013

Dec. 18, 2013

Today marks the three month anniversary of the letter sent by the BC to ICANN raising five questions regarding the document "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report" issued without advance notice by ICANN on July 19th , the day after the Durban meeting concluded -- http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/ICANN-UDRP%20Uniformity%20of%2… A quarter of a year has passed and the BC has to date received no response to its inquiry. This is inconsistent with professed standards of accountability and transparency. At a time when ICANN is trying to rally the community to defend the multistakeholder model it is sad that it continues to feel free to ignore important stakeholder constituencies whenever they raise inconvenient questions. If ICANN expects enthusiastic support of the MSM it has to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Business sector backing of ICANN is critical to its future viability. I have deliberately placed this message on the public BC list so that it is available to ICANN executives and staff. Happy holidays. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

ICANN press release re high level panel meeting in London
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 15, 2013

Dec. 15, 2013

Many members have expressed interest in the "fifth"ICANN panel, which just concluded, see below. http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/high-level-panel-on-global-internet-c… Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

Fwd: NetGovernance @SOTN w Ambassador Sepulveda and Fadi Chehade, ICANN CEO
by Phil Corwin Dec. 13, 2013

Dec. 13, 2013

FYI 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 Begin forwarded message: From: State of the Net <sotn(a)stateofthenet.org<mailto:sotn@stateofthenet.org>> Date: December 13, 2013 at 8:51:05 AM EST To: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Subject: NetGovernance @SOTN w Ambassador Sepulveda and Fadi Chehade, ICANN CEO Reply-To: State of the Net <sotn(a)stateofthenet.org<mailto:sotn@stateofthenet.org>> [https://netforum.avectra.com//public/EmailTrack.aspx?cli=IEF&img=e2eb3252-b…] Dear Philip We are pleased to announce that both Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda<http://www.stateofthenet.org/speaker-lineup/ambassador-daniel-sepulveda/> and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade<http://www.stateofthenet.org/speaker-lineup/fadi-chehade/> will participate in the State of the Net Conference on topics related to the future of Internet governance and the role of multistakeholderism respectively. Exactly one year ago today the debate about how the Internet would be governed was set ablaze in dramatic fashion when the U.S. and several other countries refused to sign the U.N.'s ITU charter in Dubai. The revelations about NSA surveillance earlier this year added rocket fuel to that fiery issue. The State of the Net will feature several panels on topics exploring the future of Internet decisionmaking. We are pleased that leaders like Ambassador Sepulveda and Mr. Chehade will participate in these important discussions. Former State Department Ambassador David Gross will also be there. Register Now!<http://www.stateofthenet.org/register/> Tickets are still available. The 2014 State of the Net will frame the issues for the next session of Congress. To get a sense of the conference check out videos<http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGCRf4NHMLsP2yVwr8dS40k4Y-05uxmXs> and the agenda<http://neted.org/sotn/2013/2013SOTNagenda.pdf> (PDF) from 2013's State of the Net. We will post the agenda as a work in progress shortly. If you are interested in sponsoring or providing in-kind donations for this event, please call 202-407-8828 or email Tim Lordan at tlordan(a)neted.org<mailto:tlordan@neted.org?subject=State%20of%20the%20Net-%20Sponsorship%20Inquiry%20> for more information. State of the Net hosted by the Internet Education Foundation 1634 I Street NW - Suite 1100 - Washington, DC 20006 www.Stateofthe.Net<http://www.StateoftheNet.org> Find us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/sotn> This e-mail was sent from Internet Education Foundation (State of the Net ) to psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>. [https://netforum.avectra.com//public/EmailTrack.aspx?msm=5be49797-d49f-4900…] To unsubscribe, please click on this link and follow the instructions: Unsubscribe<https://netforum.avectra.com//public/EmailUnsubscribe.aspx?msm=5be49797-d49…> Internet Education Foundation,1634 I Street NW Suite 1101 Washington DC 20006, Phone Number:202-638-4370 ext. 319, Fax Number: , Email Address: cmatsuda(a)neted.org<mailto:cmatsuda@neted.org>, Website : http://www.neted.org/

1 0

WEBINAR CANCELLATION: TRANSLATION AND TRANSLITERATION OF CONTAC INFORMATION
by Benedetta Rossi Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the cancellation of the translation & transliteration webinar. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Dear all, Due to a very low number of sign-ups we have decided to cancel the Introductory Webinar on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. If you are interested in the subject, please note that you can join the Working Group at any time by contacting gnso-secs(a)icann.org. The first meeting of the Working Group will be held in the week of 16 December 2013 and staff will provide an introductory presentation based on the (now cancelled) Webinar to familiarize volunteers with the subject at hand. Many thanks and best wishes Kind regards, Nathalie GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs | ICANN
by Phil Corwin Dec. 9, 2013

Dec. 9, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm 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

3 3

FW: New Webpost on 9th Circuit ACPA Decision
by Phil Corwin Dec. 7, 2013

Dec. 7, 2013

I thought that BC members would find this of interest... http://internetcommerce.org/Un-Common_ACPA Ninth Circuit says Anticybersquatting Act was Separated at Birth from Lanham Act On December 4th the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that will reverberate for years to come in cybersquatting cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). While the Court's declaration that "the ACPA does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting" is important in itself, its dicta regarding the history of the ACPA - finding that "Congress did not incorporate the common law of trademark, including contributory infringement, into the ACPA" - will likely have broad future repercussions. The opinion was rendered in the case of Petronas v. Godaddy.com, Inc. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/12/04/12-15584.pdf) Petronas, a Malaysian oil and gas company, alleged that Godaddy.com engaged in contributory cybersquatting when a registrant used its domain name forwarding service to direct the domains petronastower.net and petronastowers.net to adult content websites hosted by a third party. According to the Court's opinion: In late 2009, a Petronas subsidiary responsible for ferreting out potential trademark infringement contacted GoDaddy and requested that it "take action against the website associated with the 'petronastower.net' domain name." Officials from the Malaysian and U.S. governments also contacted GoDaddy regarding the domain name. GoDaddy investigated the issue, but took no action with respect to the alleged cybersquatting because (1) it did not host the site; and (2) it was prevented by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") from participating in trademark disputes regarding domain name ownership. Petronas then sued Godaddy.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which made inquiry of the technical aspects of GoDaddy's domain forwarding and routing services -- and then granted summary judgment in favor of Go Daddy. The Court's discussion of the distinct differences between the Lanham Act (the U.S. trademark law) and the ACPA has import far beyond the facts of the case before it: The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., passed in 1946, codified the then existing common law of trademarks, which in turn was based on the tort of unfair competition...Due primarily to the common law origins of trademark infringement, courts have concluded that the Lanham Act created a cause of action for secondary liability... In 1999, Congress passed the ACPA, which amended the Lanham Act by adding two new causes of action aimed at cybersquatting...Congress also created an in rem action to facilitate recovery of domain names by their rightful owners... Petronas contends that the ACPA also provides a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting because Congress intended to incorporate common law principles of secondary liability into the Act by legislating against the backdrop of the common law of trademark infringement, and by placing the ACPA within the Lanham Act. We disagree. ...We hold that the ACPA does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting because: (1) the text of the Act does not apply to the conduct that would be actionable under such a theory; (2) Congress did not intend to implicitly include common law doctrines applicable to trademark infringement because the ACPA created a new cause of action that is distinct from traditional trademark remedies; and (3) allowing suits against registrars for contributory cybersquatting would not advance the goals of the statute. (Emphasis added) In further discussing its key finding of law, the Court states: Petronas argues that by legislating against this background, and by placing the ACPA within the Lanham Act, Congress intended to include within the ACPA a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting...The circumstances surrounding the enactment of the ACPA, however, do not support the inference that Congress intended to incorporate theories of secondary liability into that Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the ACPA did not incorporate principles of secondary liability. Prior to the enactment of the Lanham Act, the Supreme Court incorporated a common law theory of contributory liability into the law of trademarks and unfair competition... The Lanham Act then codified the existing common law of trademarks...("[T]he Lanham Act's primary, express purpose was to codify the existing common law of trademarks and not to create any new trademark rights."). In light of the Lanham Act's codification of common law principles, including contributory liability, the Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff could recover under the Act for contributory infringement of a trademark. By contrast, the ACPA did not result from the codification of common law, much less common law that included a cause of action for secondary liability. Rather, the ACPA created a new statutory cause of action to address a new problem: cybersquatting... Consistent with their distinct purposes, claims under traditional trademark law and the ACPA have distinct elements. Traditional trademark law only restricts the commercial use of another's protected mark in order to avoid consumer confusion as to the source of a particular product. Cybersquatting liability, however, does not require commercial use of a domain name involving a protected mark. Moreover, to succeed on a claim for cybersquatting, a mark holder must prove "bad faith" under a statutory nine factor test. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (1) (B). No analogous requirement exists for traditional trademark claims. These differences highlight the fact that the rights created in the ACPA are distinct from the rights contained in other sections of the Lanham Act, and do not stem from the common law of trademarks. Accordingly we decline to infer the existence of secondary liability into the ACPA based on common law principles. (Emphasis added) The Court also rejected prior District Court rulings that have allowed ACPA claims for contributory liability when "exceptional circumstances" were present: Congress enacted the ACPA in 1999 in order to "protect consumers . . . and to provide clarity in the law for trademark owners by prohibiting the bad-faith and abusive registration of distinctive marks . . . ." To this end, the statute imposes a number of limitations on who can be liable for cybersquatting and in what circumstances, including a bad faith requirement, and a narrow definition of who "uses" a domain name. Imposing secondary liability on domain name registrars would expand the scope of the Act and seriously undermine both these limiting provisions. Recognizing this risk, some of the district courts that have recognized a cause of action for contributory liability have required that a plaintiff show "exceptional circumstances" in order to hold a registrar liable under that theory. This "exceptional circumstances" test has no basis in either the Act, or in the common law of trademark. Rather than attempt to cabin a judicially discovered cause of action for contributory cybersquatting with a limitation created out of whole cloth, we simply decline to recognize such a cause of action in the first place. Limiting claims under the Act to direct liability is also consistent with the ACPA's goal of ensuring that trademark holders can acquire and use domain names without having to pay ransom money to cybersquatters. Because direct cybersquatting requires subjective bad faith, focusing on direct liability also spares neutral third party service providers from having to divine the intent of their customers. In order for a service provider like GoDaddy, with clients holding over 50 million domain names, to avoid contributory liability, it would presumably have to analyze its customer's subjective intent with respect to each domain name, using the nine factor statutory test. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B). Despite that nearly impossible task, service providers would then be forced to inject themselves into trademark and domain name disputes. Moreover, imposing contributory liability for cybersquatting would incentivize "false positives," in which the lawful use of a domain name is restricted by a risk-averse third party service provider that receives a seemingly valid take-down request from a trademark holder. Entities might then be able to assert effective control over domain names even when they could not successfully bring an ACPA action in court. While firmly rejecting any grounds for asserting contributory liability under the ACPA, the Court's opinion does note that "trademark holders may still bring claims for traditional direct or contributory trademark infringement that arises from cybersquatting activities." Our takeaway from the opinion is that, at least within the Ninth Circuit of the U.S., domain registrars and other providers of services related to domain names cannot be sued for contributory liability in cases brought under the ACPA, even when "exceptional circumstances" might exist. While domain registrants can of course still be held liable for direct violations of the ACPA, the Court's holding that ACPA rights are separate from and did not incorporate the common law of trademarks may well become an important factor in deciding some future ACPA cases. The Ninth Circuit is often out of step with the other U.S. Courts of Appeals. So there is a possibility that another Circuit will reach the opposite conclusion regarding ACPA contributory liability, setting up a conflict that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. There is also a possibility that representatives of trademark holders may seek a legislative resolution by seeking to amend the ACPA to create an explicit cause of action for contributory liability. CADNA has already stated that this is one of its primary goals for amending the ACPA - as we noted in September (http://internetcommerce.org/CADNA_ACPA) Their goal is to enact amendments to the U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) that would expand the law's coverage beyond domain registrants by creating secondary liability for domain system intermediaries like registries and registrars, increase statutory damages penalties for all targets, and establish a 'loser pays' regime that favors deep-pocket corporate litigants. (Emphasis added) However, no bill has yet been introduced to amend the ACPA in this manner. And if one is then we'd expect it to set up a battle royal between domain marketplace participants - including major registrars such as GoDaddy -- and proponents of ACPA contributory liability. This Petronas decision has broad implications for future ACPA litigation as well as for potential legislative responses. We'll be keeping close watch as affected parties digest and react to it. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3426 / Virus Database: 3658/6899 - Release Date: 12/07/13 -- 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<mailto:ica-mail+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to ica-mail(a)googlegroups.com<mailto:ica-mail@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 0

ICANN Issues Advice to IT Professionals on Name Collision Identification and Mitigation
by Benedetta Rossi Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN Announcement regarding ICANN's issuing advice to IT Professionals on name collision identification & mitigation, an announcement of particular interest to business. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <https://us.vocuspr.com/Publish/523509/vcsPRAsset_523509_86940_57ca243f-d7b1 -4920-86be-f143d373b689_0.jpg> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 6 December 2013 ICANN Issues Advice to IT Professionals on Name Collision Identification and Mitigation Los Angeles, California.ICANN today issued comprehensive advice to IT professionals worldwide on how to proactively identify and manage private name space leakage into the public Domain Name System (DNS) and thus, eliminate the causes of name collisions as new Top Level Domains (TLDs) are added to the DNS. In a report titled Name Collision Identification and Mitigation for IT Professionals, ICANN explains the nature and causes of name collision and proposes a range of possible solutions. Domain name collisions are not new. However the report addresses some concerns that a number of applied-for new TLDs may be identical to names used in private name spaces." The report explains how DNS queries leak into the global DNS from private name spaces and how these leaks can have unintended consequences. The report shows that private networks will consistently, stably, and reliably perform name resolution when they use Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDNs) and resolve them from the global DNS, and proposes methods to migrate to FQDNs. "While it appears that name collisions won't affect significant numbers of corporate network operators or Internet users, ICANN considers it essential that it does everything possible to minimize potential impact and to offer clear advice on dealing with the issue," said Paul Mockapetris, Global Domains Division Security Advisor. The report recommends that every organization that is not already using FQDNs from the public DNS should consider the following strategy: * Monitor name services, compile a list of private TLDs or short unqualified names you use internally, and compare the list you create against the list of new TLD strings. * Formulate a plan to mitigate causes of leakage. * Prepare users for the impending change in name usage by notifying them in advance or providing training * Implement your plan to mitigate the potential collision The release of today's advice to IT professionals is the result of several months of diligent work by ICANN's staff, subject matter experts, the ICANN Executive Team and the Board of Directors. "The report we've issued today offers IT professionals, whether they work in large organizations or small companies, comprehensive advice and suggested remedies that can be simple to implement," said Dave Piscitello, Vice President of Security and ICT Coordination. "While other interim or makeshift solutions may exist, migration using FQDNs has lasting value - once you've done this, you are good to go for now and future new TLD delegations." The report, along with additional useful information and resources, can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision. ### MEDIA CONTACTS: Brad White Director Global Media Affairs Washington, D.C. Tel: +1.202.570.7118 E: brad.white(a)icann.org James Cole ICANN Global Media Coordinator Washington, D.C. Tel. +1 202.570.7240 E: james.cole(a)icann.org Andrew Robertson Edelman Public Relations London, U.K. Tel. + 44 (7811) 341 945 E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com About ICANN: ICANN's mission is to ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet's unique identifiers. ICANN doesn't control content on the Internet. It cannot stop spam and it doesn't deal with access to the Internet. But through its coordination role of the Internet's naming system, it does have an important impact on the expansion and evolution of the Internet. For more information please visit: <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from ICANN, let us know by clicking here. <http://ICANN.pr-optout.com/OptOut.aspx?523509x19831x97619x1x3785396x24000x6 &Email=david.olive%40icann.org> ICANN, 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 United States

1 0

Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
by Benedetta Rossi Dec. 6, 2013

Dec. 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN call for input for the Policy & Implementation WG. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Dear SG/Constituency Chair: We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group. This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues: * A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures; * A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of "Policy Guidance," including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than "Consensus Policy") instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process; * A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy recommendations; * Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and * Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to gain input to assist us in our efforts. In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG's Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues by 31 January 2014. 1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation). 2. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation? (e.g., effective and timely process). 3. "Questions for Discussion" contained in the Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en .htm). 4. What lessons can be learned from past experience? a. What are the consequences of action being considered "policy" vs. "implementation"? b. Does it matter if something is "policy" or "implementation"? If so, why? c. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole? d. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this "policy" because I want certain consequences or "handling instructions" to be attached to it?) e. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of "policy" and "implementation" matter less, if at all? 5. What options are available for policy ("Consensus Policy" or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used? a. Are "policy" and "implementation" on a spectrum rather than binary? b. What are the "flavors" of policy and what consequences should attach to each "flavor? c. What happens if you change those consequences? 6. Who determines the choice of whether something is "policy" or "implementation"? a. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different "flavors"? b. How is the "policy" versus "implementation" issue reviewed and approved? c. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? 7. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done? a. How are "policy and implementation" issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)? b. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? c. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful and effective? d. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred? Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well. Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any additional information. Kind regards. Chuck Gomes (cgomes(a)verisign.com) J. Scott Evans (jscottevans(a)outlook.com)

1 0