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

Re: [bc-gnso] CEO Roundtable II: The Registries
by Marilyn Cade 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Let's set up a discussion among interested BC members on this topic. Also,as we are dependent on the Secretariat to manage the diversity of calendars and scheduling, to help our efficiency, so 1) Reply to bc-secretariat(a)icann.org if interested 2) Reply to a doodle she will establish 3) We will organize a specific call on this topic. Next week is my goal! Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye(a)kontemporary.net> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 20:45:24 To: <abrams(a)google.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] CEO Roundtable II: The Registries Dear Marilyn, Andy et al, Greetings... I also agree with Marilyn's comment especially as it applies to ICANN Outreach programme in Africa. The non-contracted user/business communities should not be left behind. Warm regards, Jimson -------------------------------------------------------------- Jimson Olufuye, fncs, ficma, PhD CEO KontemporaryTM Chairman, Africa ICT Alliance - AfICTA - AfICTA...Fulfilling the Promise of the Digital Age for everyone in Africa www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org> www.kontemporary.net.ng <http://www.kontemporary.net.ng> M: +234 802 3183252 Skype: jolufuye This email is for the exclusive recipient/s and it may contain confidential materials. If you have received it and it is not meant for you, please alert me @ jolufuye(a)kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye@kontemporary.net> or discard at once. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] CEO Roundtable II: The Registries From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Date: Thu, February 07, 2013 7:58 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Dear Marilyn, These are excellent points. We completely agree with your suggestion that Fadi conduct further outreach with business users and non-contracted parties generally. We also believe that it makes more sense for him to appear as a guest speaker at various industry group events where senior executives are already present, rather than to attempt to invite them personally to exclusive roundtables. Best, Andy On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> > wrote: Dear BC Members, Message from BC Chair: Fadi explained that his priority is focusing on the contracted party CEOs. I do want to ask your views on the BC asking Fadi to also work with the non contracted parties to be inclusive -- at a reasonably scheduled time frame -- with senior executives from within the CSG's communities, although at this point, I am not clear what the timing would be for a roundtable, and we may prefer different models, with Fadi as a guest speaker at various industry group events, rather than an exclusive roundtable with only a few senior executives. It is also very hard to justify having CEOs from our communities for a special event, while it is easier to bring Fadi to them, if they are already at an industry event. But it seems to me to be important to keep it up front and present that ICANN is not and should not become a trade association for contracted parties. His ideas for gaining buy in for improving compliance and accepting responsibility for self governance model that ICANN represents is helpful, but the point made during the Intercessional is that is not enough, and that the participation from the rest of the stakeholders is essential as a safeguard and as a rightful participant. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> http://blog.icann.org/2013/02/ceo-roundtable-ii-the-registries/ CEO Roundtable II: The Registries by Fadi Chehadé on February 5, 2013 On Monday, I was very pleased to host more than a dozen leaders from the registry community; participants in our latest CEO Roundtable series focused on key issues and trends within the Domain Name System sector. Over the course of a day, we discussed the evolution of the DNS sector from a number of perspectives and explored the opportunities and risks that these changes pose. The group provided constructive ideas about creating a platform for growth, innovation, and greater consumer and investor awareness. Research analysis, the creation of an infographic depicting the DNS ecosystem, and mechanisms to educate the media and public about the DNS sector were also highlighted. In short, we addressed common goals, shared responsibilities and the value of raising awareness among consumers worldwide of the DNS sector, affirming our commitment to the public interest. I also expressed my hope and vision for a strengthened and streamlined business contracting framework between ICANN and its contracted parties. While the topic of the roundtable was not the new gTLD program, I was asked to clarify recent comments I made at the ICANN Registry and Registrar meeting in Amsterdam. I took the opportunity to reassure everyone that: * ICANN remains focused on the new gTLD timeline, and I am confident that we can do so without comprising ICANN's deep, immovable commitment to the stability of the DNS. * We do not foresee any delays of the new gTLD program, we are working to assure that none occur, and the entire organization is pressing forward to comply with deadlines. * We have assembled a team of qualified professionals, experienced in making complex programs fully operational, and they have my full confidence. Staff is working hard and it is important for the community to be aware of the intense demands placed upon them by the schedule. * We will continue to increase the volume of communications pertaining to operational details of the new gTLD program, addressing both the technical and political risks encountered at various decision points. * I will also endeavor to explain, to the extent possible, the trade-offs and various considerations being balanced during each implementation milestone of the new gTLD program. I am grateful to the registry leaders for their candid, constructive feedback and look forward to continued dialogue as we host more CEO roundtables through the spring. Finally, I have asked past roundtable participants to consider participating in a DNS Summit meeting to serve as the culminating event for this series. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

1 0

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement about a new topic open for comment: Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification Comment/Reply Periods ^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 5 February 2013 *Comment Close:* 26 February 2013 *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05feb13-en.htm> *Reply Open:* 27 February 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-base-agreement-05feb13@icann.org> *Reply Close:* 20 March 2013 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13> *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* ICANN *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* To receive community feedback on the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes certain updates and changes, including a Public Interest Commitments Specification *Current Status:* The current draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement was published in June 2012 as part of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook: Base Agreement & Specifications <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-04jun12-en…>[PDF, 917 KB]. The New gTLD Registry Agreement requires various updates and changes, including the addition of the Public Interest Commitments Specification. *Next Steps:* ICANN staff will consider public comments on the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and recommend any additional necessary changes to the Board for approval. *Staff Contact:* Daniel Halloran *Email:* daniel.halloran(a)icann.org <mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Revised%20New%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20Including%20Additional%20Public%20Interest%20Commitments%20Specification%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The New gTLD Registry Agreement is the contractual document between successful New gTLD Applicants and ICANN, and will govern the rights and obligations of new gTLD registry operators. ICANN proposes to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement in connection with developments since the last posting of the Applicant Guidebook in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the new gTLD program. Among the proposed changes, ICANN has added the Public Interest Commitments Specification. The Public Interest Commitments Specification will require operators of new gTLDs to use only registrars that are party to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (which is under negotiation). The Public Interest Commitments Specification is also a mechanism to allow registry operators to commit to certain statements made by the registry operator in its application for the gTLD, as well as to specify additional public interest commitments, in either case transforming such commitments into binding contractual obligations that may be enforced by ICANN through a new dispute resolution mechanism that will be available to any party harmed by a registry operator's failure to comply with such public interest commitments. Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013. The proposed revised New gTLD Registry Agreement is now open for public comment. *Section II: Background* The new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system. The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the program and provide instructions on the application process. Within the AGB, Module 5 contains the draft New gTLD Registry Agreement. This is the document that will be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to the next phase of delegation and will contain the rights and obligations of each New gTLD registry operator. The current version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, published as part of the AGB in June 2012, requires certain updates and changes before it can be finalized for use by successful applicants. Each new gTLD application includes business plans and statements of intent regarding applicant plans for operation of the proposed new gTLD registry. For example, some applicants stated in their applications that they intend to implement registration restrictions or heightened rights protection mechanisms above those required in the current draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Outside of community-based applications, there are no mechanisms for requiring these plans and objectives to be incorporated into the New gTLD Registry Agreement. The GAC's Toronto Communiqué provided advice to the Board of Directors of ICANN that "it is necessary for all of these statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." In response to the GAC, the New gTLD Program Committee of the Board has approved a public comment period on a proposed Public Interest Commitments Specification as a mechanism to transform application statements into binding contractual commitments, as well as to give applicants the opportunity to voluntarily submit to heightened public interest commitments. The Public Interest Commitments Specification has been incorporated into the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement as Specification 11 and is being submitted for public comments along with various other updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement more specifically described in the Summary of Changes, available below. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* * Revised gTLD Registry Agreement with Public Interest Commitments Specification 2013-02-05 - clean <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-05feb13-en…>[PDF, 886 KB] * Revised gTLD Registry Agreement with Public Interest Commitments Specification 2013-02-05 - red-lined <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-redline-05…>[PDF, 787 KB] * Summary of Changes 2013-02-05 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…>[PDF, 445 KB] * Draft gTLD Registry Agreement 2012-06-04 version: Base Agreement & Specifications <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-04jun12-en…>[PDF, 917 KB] * ICANN Website for New Generic Top-Level Domains Applicant Guidebook: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb *Section IV: Additional Information* None /(*) 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 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

BC Members Call - Monday, Feb. 11, 2013 at 11 am EST
by Benedetta Rossi 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC members pre Council call taking place next *Monday, Feb. 11th, 2013 at 11 am EST.* Agenda and dial in details will follow during the week. 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

1 1

ALERTS From the Secretariat: "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications
by Benedetta Rossi 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm Dear BC members, ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: * Classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic * Determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. Concurrent with this comment period, the GNSO is being requested to provide guidance on this issue. Public Comment Box Link:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.… The BC Excomm is discussing options to advance this discussion, and the discussion regarding "implementation versus policy", and ICANN's public interest responsibilities - what are they, what does it mean for ICANN to "act in the public interest"? In the meantime, please take note of the announcements regarding public comments. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications 5 February 2013 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 5 February 2013 *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: * classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and * determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. Concurrent with this comment period, the GNSO is being requested to provide guidance on this issue. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm

1 0

Reply Comment of Business Constituency on Strawman Solution
by Steve DelBianco 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

The Business Constituency filed extensive initial comments regarding the Strawman on 15-Jan-2013 (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>). Below are our Reply comments. Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also acting in the public interest to protect consumers. It is essential that broader business community’s views are heard and addressed to ensure their continued engagement in ICANN’s work. -- These comments were compiled based on previous positions and comments from BC members. This version was authorized by BC membership on 5-Feb-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal
by Marilyn Cade 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

Thanks, David. Excellent addition to comments. When I did initial draft, I overlooked the link to public interest. Excellent addition and fully consistent w BC positions. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fares David <DFares(a)newscorp.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:55:05 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal Thanks Steve. We too support the reply but would like to add the following two sentences: "While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also acting in the public interest to protect consumers. It is essential that broader business community's views are heard and addressed to ensure their continued engagement in ICANN's work. Thanks again, David From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:22 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html> ) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm> ) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal
by Steve DelBianco 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm>) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

6 5

ANNOUNCEMENT From Secretariat: Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open
by Benedetta Rossi 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement about Policy vs. Implementation: Public comment period open. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Policy vs. Implementation Comment/Reply Periods ^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 31 January 2013 *Comment Close:* 21 February 2013 *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm> *Reply Open:* 22 February 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13@icann.org> *Reply Close:* 14 March 2013 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/> *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* ICANN Staff *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened. *Current Status:* ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. implementation in the future. *Next Steps:* The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. *Staff Contact:* Marika Konings *Email:* Policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Policy%20vs.%20Implementation%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. The paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the community may want to consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to identify next steps. *Section II: Background* There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There are formal policies developed through the policy development processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p" policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again there are a variety of considerations. There could be established practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that policy might impact or require change to established practice(s) (resulting in "Policy"). One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community is identifying the proper process to follow when there are changes to policy recommendations that have already been adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose, for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry model. Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community. In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed framework which can be found in the annex to the paper. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* Policy versus Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB] *Section IV: Additional Information* N/A /(*) 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 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0