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

Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 22, 2013

Feb. 22, 2013

BC Members: ICANN just opened a public comment period (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>) asking whether to classify certain TLD applications as "closed generic", and to deter me "circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt open or closed registration policies." As written, this comment solicitation steers away from the question of whether a registry can own all the domain names in a TLD. Instead, ICANN is asking whether we need new policies regarding who may register a domain, as is apparent from this "background" statement under the public comment: "it should be clarified that the Code of Conduct refers to registry-registrar interactions, rather than eligibility for registering names in the TLD. Rather than the Code of Conduct, the true issue of concern being expressed appears to be that in certain applications, the proposed registration policies are deemed inappropriate by some parties." That points us to the Registry Code of Conduct (attached), which was created partly in response to BC concerns about allowing vertical integration of registries and registrars. Here's the section most relevant to this discussion: 1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD to: b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD Reasonable people interpret 1b differently. Does 1b prohibit a registry from owning names in its own TLD, except for limited circumstances? Or does 1b allow a registry to own any and all names that suit the purpose of their TLD? ICANN legal may further clarify its interpretation of 1b, but I believe they see 1b as permitting a "closed generic" TLD to own all its own names. Whatever the thoughts of ICANN legal, we have an opportunity to comment on what should be the interpretation and implications for closed generic TLDs. As we discussed last Tuesday, the BC may not arrive at a consensus or majority view, in which case we could submit just background information. My goal with this email is to to conduct a "straw" poll of BC members to assess convergence around a desired policy outcome that would form the basis of a BC Comment on closed generics. First, I compiled a 3-page history on the BC's support for closed TLDs, starting in 2007 with sponsored TLDs and then for dot-brand TLDs starting in 2009. (See attached) BC members with long memories may want to improve on that history, but its only here for background so let's not get too wrapped-up in that. So, here are the 3 potential outcomes we proposed on the BC call last week. Please reply with your views and preferences by 21-Feb-2013 and we'll see whether there's enough support to do a BC position on this before ICANN's deadline of 7-March. Outcome #1: Anything Goes. The registry Code of Conduct clearly allows a TLD operator to have control over who registers domains in their TLD, and the operator can own all the domains if they wish. Under this outcome, a registry could own all the domains in their TLD without having to ask ICANN for an exemption from the Code of Conduct. Outcome #2: Exemption Required. The registry Code of Conduct prohibits a TLD operator from registering names in its own TLD, except for names reasonably necessary for operating the TLD. Under this outcome, the 1b "except for" does not swallow the rule and thereby allow control of all domains in the TLD. A registry that wants to own all the domains in its TLD can still do so, however, if it obtains an exemption from the Code of Conduct, as provided in Para 6 of the Code: 6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest. All that remains is for ICANN to develop & publish the process and criteria they will use to determine whether giving an applicant this exemption is "in the public interest" as required by para 6. Presumably, the public interest would include considerations of consumer protect, freedom of expression, competition, innovation, and relevant pledges made by ICANN in the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments. Outcome #3. Only dot-brands may get an exemption. Only dot-Brands should get the Code of Conduct Exemption. That would allow .Hilton, .Apple, .Google to pursue the exemption, and they should have no trouble getting it. But Goodyear would not be eligible for an exemption that allow it to own all names in .tires TLD, for example. If this straw poll reveals no significant support for any of the above, the BC would not draft a position on this public comment period. Instead, the BC might submit just background information and analysis, and perhaps a Reply comment later on. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

7 8

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 22, 2013

Feb. 22, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21feb13-en.htm Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 21 February 2013 *In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (**gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>**) to receive the call details.* Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Beijing remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of major policy issues which are likely to be discussed during the Beijing Meeting. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on *Thursday 21 March at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 21 March at 19.00 UTC*, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * WHOIS related activities * The locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings * Protection of IGO and INGO Names * IDN ccNSO PDP * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * SSAC report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation Taxonomy The webinar will cover other topics which will be raised during or otherwise relevant to the Beijing Meeting. In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org>

1 0

FW: Politico: ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name
by Phil Corwin Feb. 21, 2013

Feb. 21, 2013

FYI--- This Politico story on “closed generics”, which was behind a paywall at Politico Pro yesterday, is the lead story in Politico’s Technology section today… http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/icanns-debating-whats-in-a-domain-nam… [http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif]<http://www.politico.com/> ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name By: Michelle Quinn February 20, 2013 04:41 AM EST Should a company be allowed to run a generic term such as tire, insurance or book as a domain and wall off its use from competitors? That’s the question the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is wrestling with as it prepares to begin awarding firms new top-level domains — the words to the right of the dot. The nonprofit firm has been evaluating about 1,900 applications for new domains, many of them common dictionary terms. There had been agreement that companies like Apple could win generic words such as apple because of its brand. But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L’Oreal and others also applied for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the registry as “closed” — meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are known as second-level domains. Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck. Now ICANN, which has been largely silent on the issue, is soliciting public comment. “The train is leaving the station,” Akram Atallah, ICANN’s chief operating officer, said to POLITICO in an interview. “There are a few instances where stakeholders are feeling this is an issue that could limit competition, and therefore, we should bring it to the forefront.” When it voted to expand the Internet names in 2010, ICANN leaders said they were doing so to encourage innovation. The firm did not specify in its domain name guidebook what terms like generic or closed might mean. In a letter to ICANN’s leaders, Russell Pangborn, assistant general counsel of trademarks at Microsoft, wrote that the “situation threatens the openness and freedom of the Internet and could have harmful consequences for Internet users worldwide. These applications also present a competitive threat to other companies.” “Generic words used in a generic way belong to all people,” Michele Neylon of Blacknight, a European Web-hosting firm, wrote in another letter signed by others. “It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to … new [generic top-level domains] to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD.” Philip Corwin, founding principal of Virtualaw, who has one client competing with Google for some of the terms, said he will begin to lobby officials in Washington and Europe. “It is emerging as a big issue and one that is beyond ICANN but the future of e-commerce,” he said. Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice and policy vice chairman for the ICANN business constituency, said there are “legitimate concerns about competition and potential confusion for consumers if a single competitor has perpetual control of a generic keyword as a top-level domain.” Atallah said that having a generic term is not a guaranteed ticket to success. The owner has to “do a lot of marketing and business development to be relevant in the marketplace,” he said. “It is not a given just by having the name, you have market share. It is not just the name that makes the name.” © 2013 POLITICO LLC 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: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6113 - Release Date: 02/18/13

2 2

Transcript & MP3 recording: BC Candidate Call - Feb. 19, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 20, 2013

Feb. 20, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the transcript for the *BC Candidate Call for the BC Officer Elections 2013 which took place yesterday, Feb. 19, 2013 at 11 am EST. * The MP3 for the call can be downloaded here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/63snu0py984hgttd9y9w.mp3 Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views
by Ron Andruff Feb. 20, 2013

Feb. 20, 2013

Dear Mike, It would be helpful to all BC members if you would (1) declare if you have a vested interest in this issue or not; and (2) be more specific about which room?; which discussion?; and who others? share your recall. Clarity and information serves us all. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:43 PM To: randruff(a)rnapartners.com; 'Andy Abrams'; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views These discussions happened long before the vi wg debacle. I was in the room and others share my recall. This is why no categories were recommended other than Community. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:+14157388087> http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: 'Andy Abrams' <abrams(a)google.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 20:37:35 GMT+00:00 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views Dear Andy, I would like to give more thought to both Steve's straw poll and your comments before opining further, but I think it is important to make clear - having been myself in the room you speak of - that your characterization ("We have heard from individuals that were in the room that this issue was in fact directly discussed, and an explicit determination was made to allow closed registries for non-brand terms.") is incorrect. The VI WG did not discuss this issue in the detail you are alluding to (transcripts will attest to this) and we did not make an explicit determination to allow closed registries for non-brand terms. I have little doubt that Co-Chairs, Mikey O'Connor (former BC member) and Roberto Gaetano (former Board member) will attest to the fact that in the total number of hours of calls, very little time was spent on this topic relative to all of the others and there was rough consensus at best that brands should be allowed to apply and need not use accredited registrars. Again, the transcripts of the discussions on this topic will bear this out. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andy Abrams Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:39 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views Dear Steve, Thank you very much for your work on this issue. I think we had a productive discussion at last week's BC meeting, and we look forward to further dialogue leading up to Beijing. As we discussed last week, from Google's perspective, we respectfully believe it is inappropriate to address this issue with the broad brush stroke of "closed generics" given the multitude of different business models, industries and applicants involved as well as the numerous ways to interpret this phrase. Some of these business models represent the very type of innovation that was envisioned for the new gTLD program and would not be possible under the same "pure open" framework that has existed with every TLD to date. This does not mean that we believe all potentially affected applications are equally meritorious or should be given a free pass - far from it, we strongly believe in the existing ICANN process of public objections and GAC Advice, and are taking concerns regarding our own particular applications into very careful consideration. However, we believe that the broader issue ultimately comes down to fairness. We have heard from individuals that were in the room that this issue was in fact directly discussed, and an explicit determination was made to allow closed registries for non-brand terms. Based on our calls with other companies and BC members, we also know that a large number of businesses have spent the last year preparing various single-registrant or restricted business models in reliance on the undisputed fact that the Guidebook currently allows for such practices. Given this context, I respectfully have some concerns with the formulation of the straw poll. To us, the issue of the ROCC exemption versus the 1(b) "reasonably necessary" distinction are a mere subset of the threshold issue of (1) Change the Guidebook or (2) Don't Change the Guidebook. ICANN should eventually address the former question as it works through the details of registry operation, but from the perspective of business users, I suspect that the details of whether a single registrant must allow multiple registrars to sell domains to itself are less relevant than the larger policy issue. For our part, we are still agnostic on this and will continue to explore it further - we do believe that there is a reasonable argument in favor of either Outcome #1 or #2 of the straw poll (but nothing in the Guidebook to support #3, as through the ROCC lens there is no reasonable way to distinguish different "types" of closed registries in the Guidebook). We also respectfully object to the characterization of Outcome #1 as "anything goes," (though I do like that as the new title of the public forum!) For these reasons, perhaps it makes sense to restructure the poll in a manner which reflects the binary discussions we have had in the BC thus far? To the extent people do have strong feelings about Outcome 1 v. 2, perhaps that can be a subcategory of the status quo position? I appreciate your consideration. Best, Andy On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: BC Members: ICANN just opened a public comment period (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm> ) asking whether to classify certain TLD applications as "closed generic", and to deter me "circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt open or closed registration policies." As written, this comment solicitation steers away from the question of whether a registry can own all the domain names in a TLD. Instead, ICANN is asking whether we need new policies regarding who may register a domain, as is apparent from this "background" statement under the public comment: "it should be clarified that the Code of Conduct refers to registry-registrar interactions, rather than eligibility for registering names in the TLD. Rather than the Code of Conduct, the true issue of concern being expressed appears to be that in certain applications, the proposed registration policies are deemed inappropriate by some parties." That points us to the Registry Code of Conduct (attached), which was created partly in response to BC concerns about allowing vertical integration of registries and registrars. Here's the section most relevant to this discussion: 1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD to: b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD Reasonable people interpret 1b differently. Does 1b prohibit a registry from owning names in its own TLD, except for limited circumstances? Or does 1b allow a registry to own any and all names that suit the purpose of their TLD? ICANN legal may further clarify its interpretation of 1b, but I believe they see 1b as permitting a "closed generic" TLD to own all its own names. Whatever the thoughts of ICANN legal, we have an opportunity to comment on what should be the interpretation and implications for closed generic TLDs. As we discussed last Tuesday, the BC may not arrive at a consensus or majority view, in which case we could submit just background information. My goal with this email is to to conduct a "straw" poll of BC members to assess convergence around a desired policy outcome that would form the basis of a BC Comment on closed generics. First, I compiled a 3-page history on the BC's support for closed TLDs, starting in 2007 with sponsored TLDs and then for dot-brand TLDs starting in 2009. (See attached) BC members with long memories may want to improve on that history, but its only here for background so let's not get too wrapped-up in that. So, here are the 3 potential outcomes we proposed on the BC call last week. Please reply with your views and preferences by 21-Feb-2013 and we'll see whether there's enough support to do a BC position on this before ICANN's deadline of 7-March. Outcome #1: Anything Goes. The registry Code of Conduct clearly allows a TLD operator to have control over who registers domains in their TLD, and the operator can own all the domains if they wish. Under this outcome, a registry could own all the domains in their TLD without having to ask ICANN for an exemption from the Code of Conduct. Outcome #2: Exemption Required. The registry Code of Conduct prohibits a TLD operator from registering names in its own TLD, except for names reasonably necessary for operating the TLD. Under this outcome, the 1b "except for" does not swallow the rule and thereby allow control of all domains in the TLD. A registry that wants to own all the domains in its TLD can still do so, however, if it obtains an exemption from the Code of Conduct, as provided in Para 6 of the Code: 6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN's reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest. All that remains is for ICANN to develop & publish the process and criteria they will use to determine whether giving an applicant this exemption is "in the public interest" as required by para 6. Presumably, the public interest would include considerations of consumer protect, freedom of expression, competition, innovation, and relevant pledges made by ICANN in the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments. Outcome #3. Only dot-brands may get an exemption. Only dot-Brands should get the Code of Conduct Exemption. That would allow .Hilton, .Apple, .Google to pursue the exemption, and they should have no trouble getting it. But Goodyear would not be eligible for an exemption that allow it to own all names in .tires TLD, for example. If this straw poll reveals no significant support for any of the above, the BC would not draft a position on this public comment period. Instead, the BC might submit just background information and analysis, and perhaps a Reply comment later on. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752

1 0

Durban hotel info
by Ron Andruff Feb. 20, 2013

Feb. 20, 2013

Dear colleagues, For those who had not seen this yet, the Durban hotel info has been published on the ICANN web site. Also a word of caution here: http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/20/going-to-icann-47-durban-check-the-hot el-restrictions/ Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

1 0

apologies
by Gabriela Szlak Feb. 19, 2013

Feb. 19, 2013

Dear all, I am very sorry that I had to ask the question and leave soon after. I felt bad about that but I had an urgent situation at the office and could not stay any longer. I want to thank all the candidates very much and I will be reading your answers in the transcipts or listening to the recordings as soon as they are made available. Thanks again! Gabi -- *Gabriela Szlak * Regional Director RED/ODR & eGobernanza (IG) *eInstituto <http://www.einstituto.org> * 25 de mayo 611 Piso 3º - C1002ABM Ciudad Autonoma Buenos Aires - Argentina (+54 11) 4878-0179 *Twitte:* @gabiszlak *Skype:* gabrielaszlak odr(a)einstituto.org egobernanza(a)einstituto.org

1 0

Aggregated Candidate Statements & Dial in details for Candidate Call
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the aggregated candidate statements in preparation for tomorrow's BC Candidate call for the BC Officer Elections 2013. *The candidate call will take place tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 19th, 2013 at 11 am EST (4 pm UTC)*. It will be recorded and transcribed. The dial in details for the call are below. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you ever so much, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org *Passcodes/Pin codes:* Participant passcode: BC For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. *Dial in numbers:* *Country* *Toll Numbers* *Freephone/ Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

1 0

2013 Candidate statement: vice chair for policy coordination
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 18, 2013

Feb. 18, 2013

BC members, After serving 3 years as our first vice chair for policy coordination, I'm seeking reelection for 2013. In the past 3 years, I believe we have raised members' awareness and participation in policy matters. One tool for raising awareness is our regular policy calendar. Another is ad-hoc emails where I attempt to succinctly cover a relevant issue with links to external docs and prior BC positions. Raising participation levels remains a challenge, since members' time is limited because of other obligations. Still, we published 13 positions/statements on key policy issues during 2012. And we made significant policy impacts outside of the public comment process as well. First, we led the CSG in advocating implementation improvements for the gTLD expansion. We published an extensive list in January, leading to the "CSG list of 8" in Toronto. Several improvements from that list are still alive in the Strawman, while others have been incorporated in the RAA negotiations and latest registry agreement for new gTLDs. Second, BC members have been critical to review teams required by the Affirmation of Commitments, including Whois and Security & Stability. The BC also led the drafting of metrics and targets for 60 measurements to evaluate the new gTLD program in terms of Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition. This work will feed into another Affirmation-mandated review during 2014. In this role I also support our BC representatives on GNSO Council. As they are directly engaged in policy debates and voting, our Councilors deserve timely and specific guidance from the BC membership on relevant issues. In the year ahead, the BC must press general business interests at ICANN. In just a few months, ICANN will begin delegations of new gTLDs, including single-registrant TLDs for BC member companies. As new gTLDs are launched we'll quickly assess the effectiveness of rights protection mechanisms. Beyond new gTLDs, ICANN will be implementing recommendations and conducting additional reviews mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments. If the membership returns me to this post, I would continue working on the quantity and quality of our statements and positions. I am sure that BC members have additional ideas on how the vice chair for policy coordination could be more effective. If re-elected, I look forward to hearing those ideas. Statement of Interest: For 12 years I have been executive director of NetChoice, a coalition of e-commerce companies and online services, including AoL, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, NewsCorp, Overstock, Reed-Elsevier, TrueCar.com, VeriSign, Yahoo, and several thousand small online sellers, primarily in the US. (see http://www.netchoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> ) I set the policy agenda for NetChoice and frequently testify at international fora, before the US Congress, and in state legislatures, on issues relating to Internet governance, e-commerce taxation, privacy, and consumer protection. I represent NetChoice at ICANN meetings and at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). I also publish research and policy documents and maintain a blog at http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> I have no financial ownership or management role in any registries, registrars or other firms that are, or aspire to be, contract parties with ICANN. Please note that one of my member companies is a large registry operator, and some of my member companies have applied for new gTLDs. The nature of my interest in ICANN is to maintain the integrity and availability of e-commerce and internet services. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.NetChoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 17, 2013

Feb. 17, 2013

Dear BC Members, WHOIS has been a priority to the BC historically, and continues to have a priority status. Please take note of the recent announcement below, and respond to the BC-Secretariat or to Steve Delbianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordination, regarding your interest in this public comment period. There is also a WHOIS Rapporteur, Elisa Cooper, and you may wish to cc her as WHOIS Rapporteur. All emails are provided below : bc-secretariat(a)icann.org, sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org, elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com, or you may simply reply to the full list, and I will watch carefully for any volunteers to provide then to Steve and Elisa. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report Comment/Reply Periods ^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 15 February 2013 *Comment Close:* 9 March 2013 *Close Time (UTC):* 01:00 Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15feb13-en.htm> *Reply Open:* To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-whois-regid-15feb13@icann.org> *Reply Close:* View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-regid-15feb13> *Close Time (UTC):* Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* GNSO *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* This study, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, uses Whois to classify entities that register gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service providers. Using associated Internet content, the study classifies entities using those domains, and observed potentially commercial activities. Findings will help the community understand how Registrants identify themselves in Whois. *Current Status:* This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the community to consider the study results detailed in this draft report, ask questions, and request clarifications. In parallel, ICANN and NORC will conduct Webinars to facilitate feedback by summarizing this study's purpose, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. *Next Steps:* NORC will consider all comments submitted to this Public Comment forum during the comment period, incorporate any needed clarifications, and then publish a final version of this WHOIS Registrant Identification study report. Afterwards, the GNSO Council will use this report to inform future Whois policy-making. *Staff Contact:* Barbara Roseman *Email:* Policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Whois%20Registrant%20Identification%20Study,%20Draft%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The WHOIS Registrant Identification Study uses Whois to classify entities that register gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service providers. Using associated Internet content, it then classifies entities using those domains and potentially commercial activities. NORC at the University of Chicago has been selected to conduct this study and has issued a draft report, which is now available for public comment. *Section II: Background* As part of its effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD Whois system, the GNSO Council expressed an interest in conducting an in-depth study of how entities that register and use gTLD domain names identify themselves in Whois. At the GNSO's request, ICANN issued an RFP in October 2009 describing a study to examine the extent to which domains used by legal persons or for commercial purposes (1) are not clearly identified as such in Whois Registrant data and (2) are correlated to use of Privacy and Proxy services. After considering RFP responses received in late 2009 from researchers willing to undertake that Registrant Identification study, along with significant concerns raised by GNSO Council members regarding the above-stated study hypothesis, the GNSO Council decided to revamp the study's goals and approach. In May 2010, a revised study was approved by the GNSO Council and awarded to NORC at University of Chicago. This exploratory study – detailed by this draft study report – seeks a more foundational understanding of the types of entities and kinds of activities observed in gTLD domains, including (but not exclusively focused on) those registered using Privacy or Proxy services. Accordingly, the categories of entities and activities to be studied were not pre-determined, but rather generated as researchers examined representative samples of active websites and related Whois data. Study findings are intended to provide raw data needed to understand how entities that register and use gTLD domain names identify themselves in Whois, including (but not limited to) domains registered Privacy/Proxy services and domains engaged in potentially commercial activity. This empirical data will not only enable Council to respond to GAC questions, but will also create a baseline for evaluating potential Whois policy changes. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* * WHOIS Registrant Identification Study Revised Terms of Reference <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/tor-whois-registrant-id-studies-20may11-…>[PDF, 719 KB] * WHOIS Studies Report for GNSO <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en…>[PDF, 487 KB] * WHOIS Registrant Identification Study – Rationale for Changes <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-registrant-id-study-rationale-20ma…> [PDF, 121 KB] * NORC Selected to Conduct a gTLD Whois Registrant Identification Study <http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/norc-at-the-university-of-chicago-selected-to…> * WHOIS Registrant Identification Study | Draft Project Summary Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-summary-06f…>[PDF, 505 KB] * ICANN WHOIS Registrant Identification Project | Appendix A: Exploratory Analysis Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-analysis-20…>[PDF, 1.1 MB] * WHOIS Registrant Identification Study | Appendix B: Variable Glossary <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/registrant-identification-glossary-30…>[PDF, 250 KB] *Section IV: Additional Information* Additional WHOIS studies are now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, as summarized by: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ /(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses./ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0