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

FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching
by Steve DelBianco May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm>. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-2…>. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-docs-sep12/msg00007.html>) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

22 59

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: McCarthy/Franklyn comments on closed generics
by Phil Corwin April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Mike: With all respect, Prof. McCarthy's 7-volume treatise on Trademarks and Unfair Competition has been cited in more than 3,000 judicial opinions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Thomas_McCarthy. So I would hesitate to agree that he is "obviously wrong" on this matter. At a minimum, given all the time and energy that ICANN has devoted to respecting and protecting trademarks through such new gTLD RPMs as the TMC and URS, his expert view on the incompatibility of closed gTLDs with trademark law should be taken very seriously. While I personally disagree that closed generics [which I regard as applications in which it is proposed that the registry operator be the sole registrant in a proposed string in which the applicant holds no trademark rights; that is, not a .brand] don't raise trademark law concerns, I do concur that competition issues also arise and may even be the primary issue. In that regard, as well as in regard to claims that the ICANN request for comments on closed generics somehow raises a new issue, sets a precedent for major changes in the Applicant Guidebook, or portends an unfair change in rules that applicants relied upon, I would respond that the need to obtain an exemption from the Code of Conduct (COC) for a closed registry has always been present, as well as the application of a public interest standard to the granting of such a waiver, and that applicants cannot now claim surprise or ignorance. Section 2.14 of the Registry Agreement has always stated that a registry operator must comply with the COC set forth at Specification 9. Section 1.b of the COC has always stated that the registry operator and its parents, affiliates, subcontractors, or other related entities can only register domains in the registry to a very limited extent - restricted to names that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations, and purpose of the TLD. Section 6 of the COC provides for an exemption process whereby ICANN may, in its sole discretion and conditioned on its "reasonable satisfaction", allow the registry operator to register and maintain all domain registrations for its own exclusive use - if ICANN determines that "application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest". My understanding of the exemption clause is that it arose from the BC to accommodate .brands, without any contemplation that certain applicants would seek to lock up dozens of key dictionary words for their own exclusive use (in fact, their goal may be less to use the registries than to deny access to current and potential competitors). So in my view this debate is not about creating a new definition for "closed generics" but whether the public interest requires ICANN to deny exemption requests for proposed non-.brand closed registries. (And I absolutely reject the sophistic and unconvincing arguments I have seen that an applicant can bypass the exemption process entirely by simply declaring that its gTLD's "purpose" is to be for its own exclusive use - that would allow the exception to swallow the rule and render Section 6 a pointless nullity.) My personal view is that closed generic gTLDs are inherently anti-competitive monopolies and that ICANN should adopt a position that denial of such exemption requests is necessary to protect the public interest. These applications are incompatible with the competition and innovation justifications made for the new gTLD program because they are motivated by anti-competitive self-interest and the goal of denying these strings as a platform for pro-competitive innovation to others. New gTLDs are the perfect platform for competitive vertical search - are competition, innovation and the public interest better served by a .book for Amazon's exclusive use and protection of its existing dominance, a .search for Google's exclusive use and protection of its existing dominance, or by open gTLDs for those strings that can be utilized by thousands of innovative market entrants? I further believe that such a position is in ICANN's best long-term interest, as well as the interest of all who want to preserve its multi-stakeholder model against governmental intrusion. While it is true that the competitive issues raised by closed gTLDs are the ultimate responsibility of national competition authorities, ICANN will do itself no favors if it approves closed generic gTLDs that subsequently require years of investigation, enforcement actions, and expenditure of human and financial resources (in an era of constrained public resources) by such authorities when the matter could have been avoided in the first place by adopting a responsible position of the public interest consideration for granting COC exemptions. A final consideration is the potential spectacle of thousands of closed generic applications flowing into ICANN on the second round if it accommodates them in the first. Domain and marketing consultants will surely be advising the world's largest companies that if they don't file applications to lock up key dictionary words for their own primary commercial activities that their competitors may well grab then and close them off. ICANN could well realize a $billion in application fees in the second round by marketing key words in the world's major languages for the purpose of locking them away rather than making them available to global Internet users. I for one find the prospect of selling off exclusive use of such words as if they were municipal stadium naming rights to be crass and unseemly and, while in ICANN's financial interests, inconsistent with its responsibilities and role of managing the DNS in a manner consistent with the public good. In closing, while I shall leave it to Professor McCarthy to decide whether to take offense and respond to your assertion that his comment letter constitutes an "apparent conflict of interest" because of Microsoft's sponsorship of the annual McCarthy Symposium, I am incredulous that he would make the statements contained in his comment letter if he did not fully subscribe to them. For the sake of full disclosure, while the views expressed above are my personal views, I am providing counsel to a new gTLD applicant that is in contention with a Google application for a closed generic (ICA, the client with whom I am generally associated and which I represent on the BC, did not have a consensus among its members on closed generics). For the sake of full disclosure, and especially given your assertion that Professor McCarthy's comments evidence a conflict of interest, will you disclose whether you are advising applicants for closed generics? Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:43 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'bc - GNSO list' Cc: IPC Discussion List Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: McCarthy/Franklyn comments on closed generics Phil, thanks for sending around Prof. McCarthy and Prof. Franklyn's statement on so-called 'closed generic' TLD strings. I have great respect for Prof. McCarthy; he taught me trademark law at USF in the early '90's and his treatise is a leading authority. However, this statement is not persuasive. The fundamental premise you quote is obviously wrong. While trademark law, by definition, may prohibit trademark registration of generic terms, it does not and has never prohibited individuals from gaining exclusive property rights in generic terms. There are millions of generic terms that are the subject of exclusive domain name property rights, i.e. chocolate.com, sex.com, etc. Many countries recognize that chocolate.com, for example, can function as a trademark even for the service of selling chocolate, particularly after a period of exclusive use by which distinctiveness is acquired. As you well know, there are many such trademark registrations in many jurisdictions. Exclusive ownership has always been permitted in regards to domain names at all levels of the DNS - including the top level. Why should there be any policy difference between TLDs and .com domains? Though the US has been more conservative in granting trademark rights in domain names or TLD strings, no US law has ever sought to prohibit exclusive use of generic domain names, and many arguably generic words are registered as marks for related goods and services (as well as a few arguably generic TLD strings). Indeed many TLD operators and prospective TLD operators have secured trademark registration in their TLD string, some in the U.S. and many more in Europe and elsewhere. As Prof. McCarthy taught me and thousands of others, trademark law seeks to prevent confusion as to source of a good or service. The type of confusion he and Prof. Franklyn cite in their statement on this issue has nothing to do with product source, and is purely speculative. They say (and you quote): "consumers may mistakenly believe they are using a gTLD that allows for competition, when in reality the gTLD is closed and the apparently competitive products are being offered by a single entity" They are speculating, without citation to any evidence or authority, that consumers "may" be confused as to some aspect or quality of the TLD service, but that has nothing to do with confusion as to the source of that service. They are speculating that the marketing of such TLDs will be confusing, when there is no factual basis whatsoever for such speculation. Web users have had long exposure to generic domain names used by myriad businesses, including well-known brands, throughout the world for more than 20 years, with absolutely no confusion ever documented as far as I am aware. That evidence ought to trump the blank speculation even of well-respected trademark academics. Furthermore, they do not address why Apple Computer should get to own .apple or Microsoft should get to own .windows (among many other examples of 'generic' dictionary words that are trademarks, and that will be closed TLDs), and exclude anyone else from registering domains in that TLD, even if they want to refer to the fruit or to the glass building component. They do not address how consumer confusion in that case would logically be any different than the consumer confusion they posit. Finally, it must be noted that the annual McCarthy Symposium, probably not coincidentally held just a few days ago, counts on Microsoft as its major sponsor. And of course Microsoft has become one of the most outspoken critics of so-called closed generic TLDs, quite curiously despite its own applications for .docs, .windows and other 'closed generic' TLDs. Given this apparent conflict of interest, the blatantly faulty premise in its core reasoning, and the misguided speculation as to future consumer expectations that appears central to their argument, this one page statement leaves a lot of questions and is far from persuasive, imho. This is not a trademark issue, but a competition issue. It is also an issue of fairness given that closed business models have been accepted by the community since 2006, and many companies have invested heavily in reliance on the fact that such models are not prohibited by ICANN's rules. All companies had the same opportunity to make such investments. The primary voices arguing against these models now are surrogates for those who passed on the opportunity (and, curiously, Microsoft), those who are competing in contention sets with closed business models, and those who want to sell unrestricted domain names and fear disruption to the traditional domain name business model on which they have built their business. Those patently self-interested concerns are not the sort of concerns that should make any difference to ICANN at this point in the new TLD program, or to anyone else in the world. We should all care much more about the problem of .sport and .sports, for example, coexisting as ICANN appears set to allow. That seems to have a much higher likelihood of massive consumer confusion than does the operation of closed TLDs. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 4:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Contention sets for new gTLDs "Unbelievably, they did not consider the singular and plural versions of key words to be confusingly similar." Unbelievable indeed. How about .dumb and .dumber? Meanwhile the leading trademark authority in the United States, Professor Thomas McCarthy, has just filed a statement opposing closed generic gTLDs as being inconsistent with trademark law and its goals -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00034.html -- "Trademark law in every country in the world forbids individuals to gain exclusive property rights in generic names of products. One of the primary rationales for this rule is to prevent a single person or company from gaining an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace. Private ownership of generic language is not consistent with free enterprise and fair competition in an open economy. If ICANN were to approve closed, generic gTLDs, these important goals would be undermined... Transparency and consumer choice are goals of the trademark system of every country in the world. In our view, these values are threatened by closed, generic gTLDs. Indeed, should these types of new gTLDs be approved, consumers may mistakenly believe they are using a gTLD that allows for competition, when in reality the gTLD is closed and the apparently competitive products are being offered by a single entity. This would allow the owner of the generic gTLD to gain exclusive recognition as the provider of a generic service, something that is prohibited by Trademark law." How will that reflect on ICANN and the new gTLD program? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:50 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Update: Contention sets for new gTLDs Wanted you all to see this. I think it will reflect poorly on ICANN's expansion of TLDs. ICANN hired an international expert panel to scour 1900 new TLD strings and determine which were confusingly similar, so they could be combines in the same contention set. This is to ensure we don't delegate 2 TLD strings that would confuse Internet users because they are too similar. I expected, for example, that the applications received for .hotel and .hotels would be in the same contention set, since it would be confusing for users to have both TLDs out there. (It would increase the cost of defensive registrations, too, since hotels would have to buy domains in both TLDs. ) After several months of careful study, ICANN's experts published their contention sets yesterday. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26feb13-en.htm>) They "identified" 230 "exact match contention sets" where multiple applicants sought the exact same string. And they found just 2 "non-exact match contention sets" (unicom and unicorm; hoteis and hotels ) Unbelievably, they did not consider the singular and plural versions of key words to be confusingly similar. This means we will get new TLDs for both the singular and plural versions of keywords such as: ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANTS AUTO AUTOS CAR CARS CAREER CAREERS COUPON COUPONS CRUISE CRUISES DEAL DEALS FAN FANS GAME GAMES GIFT GIFTS HOME HOMES HOTEL HOTELS HOTEL HOTELES KID KIDS LOAN LOANS MARKET MARKETS NEW NEWS PET PETS PHOTO PHOTOS REVIEW REVIEWS SPORT SPORTS TOUR TOURS WEB WEBS WORK WORKS What are the implications for applicants? Well, let's take an example. The 2 Applicants for .GIFT just got a huge gift from ICANN when they were not placed in the same contention set as the 2 applicants for .GIFTS One of the 2 .GIFT guys must prevail in their "singular" contention set. They can then proceed to delegation, as they planned. Or they can negotiate to be bought-out by the winning applicant from the plural contention set ( .GIFTS ). In other words, many applicants dodged a bullet by escaping from contention with their singular/plural form competitors. My guess is they want to explore ways to monetize their good fortune. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6130 - Release Date: 02/25/13 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6130 - Release Date: 02/25/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

8 11

Bi-Weekly Status Report - March 29th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the bi-weekly Status Reports submitted by the Executive Committee and myself - BC Secretariat: _/*March 29, 2013*/_ *Elisa Cooper, Chair* * Hosted 3 member calls (1- Beijing Planning, 2 - Arab Center for Dispute Resolution Discussion, and 3 -Survey Results Review) * Sent survey results to all members * Finalized agenda for Beijing meeting and assisted with preparation of draft materials for CSG events o Agreed to participate at ICANN Outreach Event to Business in Beijing on the morning of April 11 *Steve DelBianco, Vice Chair - Policy Coordination * * Breakfast meeting with ICANN CEO and senior staff in Washington DC on 21-Mar. Marilyn and I acknowledged CEO for the public interest specification, RAA requirement, and Strawman implementation decisions. Also raised concern over Singular and Plural TLD string decision, which Fadi agreed was very troubling. * Singular vs plural contention sets: asked US and EC GAC Reps whether they had concerns about this issue. (USG had not yet looked at it) * Comment on new Registry Agreement: drafted comments and circulated for member review; made revisions based on member comment; submitted to ICANN on 20-Mar. * Comment on ACDR's proposal to be a UDRP provider: edited and circulated draft comment by Phil Corwin on 20-Mar; conducted member discussion call on 28-Mar; preparing alternate draft now. *Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair - Finance & Operations* * Prepare BC Newsletter and BC Factsheet for Beijing. * Receive docs from contributors and finalize plan for designer and proof drafts V1 and V2 and V3 with designer and Excom. Planning meeting at printers. * Resource Chinese Translator for Newsletter and Factsheet. * Research ICANN Leadership Team, Global responsibilities , departments and VP for new newsletter chart. Confirm with Head of ICANN HR. * Final drafting of SO/AC Fast Track budget requests for Secretariat Support. Solicit input from Excom and advise members. Submit to controller and confirm receipt. * Attended ICANN outreach webinar and preparing submission of BC @ Chamber of Commerce in Spain May 7th Event to the Outreach Wiki in section for outreach community events. * Attended Beijing Policy Webinar, gLTD update webinar, IRTP-D WG Call. BC Beijing Planning Call. *Marilyn Cade, CSG Representative* * Discussions with CSG excomm members to develop balanced input and collaboration on topics for CSG and Cross Constituency Breakfast * Met with GAC Chair and other governments informally to discuss Cross Constituency Breakfast * Provided article "On the road to Beijing" for Newsletter; review and edits to support Newsletter * Participated in members calls held to listen and understand members views and concerns * Interactions re Thursday breakfast with Chinese Industry with ICANN staff * Interaction with CEO and ICANN staff * Review of CSG Charter and BC Charter/validation of Charter review process with ICANN staff * John Berard, GNSO Councilor* * From the perspective of the GNSO Council, in the course of setting an agenda for the ccNSO Council and GNSO Council meeting in Beijing, there is significant push-back from the cc's with regard to the findings of the reputation research ICANN staff has conducted. The consensus of the ccTLD managers is that they are viewed differently and more favorably than are gTLDs. *Benedetta Rossi, BC Secretariat:* Continued 2013 Membership Invoices procedure & follow up ·Drafted & submitted GNSO Toolkit Services Request to ICANN Staff on behalf of the BC for FY14 oSubmitted to Excomm & full membership ·Scheduled, attended and ensured smooth running of: oBC Members Beijing Planning Call oBC Members ACDR Discussion Call oBC Members Survey Discussion Call oCSG Excomm Beijing Planning Call ·Drafted and submitted minutes for BC Members Beijing Planning Call ·Submitted notes to CSG Excomm from the CSG Excomm Beijing Planning call ·Wiki Updates: oConference call information, transcripts, MP3 recordings ·Beijing Preparation oFinalized invitation to Cross Constituency Breakfast for Beijing oUpdated BC Members attendance list oDrafted tent cards for Cross Constituency Breakfast with GAC and handed them to GNSO Secretariat to bring to Beijing oLiaised with CSG for support regarding Beijing Preparation oDrafted BC annotated agenda ·Assisted with preparation of BC Newsletter for Beijing oResearched different SGs & Constituencies oProofread and submitted edits ·BC Membership Applications: oReceived, checked and submitted one applications to Credentials Committee: Pfizer ·Managed member queries (eg: change in contact, mailing list updates, dial out set up) ·Sent ICANN announcements to the BC list ·Drafted Status Report & aggregated all other reports to submit to members 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

Seeking volunteers for drafting BC comment on RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)
by Steve DelBianco March 31, 2013

March 31, 2013

We discussed this on our last 2 Member calls, and I'm soliciting volunteers to help draft BC comments on the proposed RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm>) Reply comments close 19-Apr-2013. Prior BC comments on the RAA have called for validation of WHOIS information and mandatory use of the amended RAA for any registrar selling new gTLDs. (items 5 and 6 in our Toronto list of 8 improvements): 5. Validate contact information for registrants in WHOIS. 6. All registrars active in new gTLD registrations must adhere to amended RAA for all gTLD registrations they sponsor. Any BC member willing to help draft comments please REPLY ALL (as an inspiration to others!) Thanks, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 2

Event Canceled: BC Member Survey Review & Discussion Call
by bc-secretariat＠icann.org March 29, 2013

March 29, 2013

Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> has canceled this event: « BC Member Survey Review & Discussion Call »

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: ICC's informal contribution: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures
by john＠crediblecontext.com March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

Ayesha, Thank you for sending this along. I think you have hit on at least three things that will certainly need to be addressed -- a rapid increase in participation, the likely faster-than-all growth of the contracted parties and the increased interest for any single entity to have an interest in multiple constituencies and stakeholder groups. It is likely that the upcoming GNSO review will address those changes. One think you suggest that I had not heard before but makes a lot of sense is the need for uniform voting rights in this new era and across all SOs and ACs. I know that each island in the ICANN archipelago currently controls its voting procedures, but as the multiple interests of individual entities bridge two, three or more of them, uniform voting rights make a lot of sense for, well, the sense of it. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message ---------Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: ICC's informal contribution: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures From: HASSAN Ayesha <ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org> Date: 3/28/13 7:33 am To: "Benedetta Rossi" <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org>, "bc - GNSO list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: "HASSAN Ayesha" <ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org> With attachment ! From: HASSAN Ayesha Sent: jeudi 28 mars 2013 15:33 To: Benedetta Rossi; bc - GNSO list Cc: HASSAN Ayesha Subject: ICC's informal contribution: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures Dear BC colleagues, Attached please find ICC’s informal contribution on the impact of the new gTLD programme on the ICANN structures and priorities. The informal contribution is also available at: http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/areas-of-work/digital-econom… This informal contribution is a compilation of input received from members of ICC’s Commissions on the Digital Economy and Intellectual Property to a survey we sent out to get feedback on these matters. This input provides a range of views on some issues, and is meant to enrich the discussions going on informally within ICANN. This contribution does not reflect consensus positions. Rather, it highlights a range of priorities from the diverse ICC membership. This input has been sent to ICANN leaders as an informal compilation of our survey results. We hope that this will be a useful contribution to discussions on these matters. Kind regards, Ayesha Ayesha Hassan International Chamber of Commerce Senior Policy Manager Digital Economy Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy 38 Cours Albert 1er 75008 Paris, France tel: +33 1 49 53 30 13 fax: +33 1 49 53 28 59 Email: ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org website: www.iccwbo.org BASIS website: http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/

1 0

ICC's informal contribution: Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures
by HASSAN Ayesha March 28, 2013

March 28, 2013

Dear BC colleagues, Attached please find ICC's informal contribution on the impact of the new gTLD programme on the ICANN structures and priorities. The informal contribution is also available at: http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/areas-of-work/digital-econom… This informal contribution is a compilation of input received from members of ICC's Commissions on the Digital Economy and Intellectual Property to a survey we sent out to get feedback on these matters. This input provides a range of views on some issues, and is meant to enrich the discussions going on informally within ICANN. This contribution does not reflect consensus positions. Rather, it highlights a range of priorities from the diverse ICC membership. This input has been sent to ICANN leaders as an informal compilation of our survey results. We hope that this will be a useful contribution to discussions on these matters. Kind regards, Ayesha Ayesha Hassan International Chamber of Commerce Senior Policy Manager Digital Economy Executive in charge of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy 38 Cours Albert 1er 75008 Paris, France tel: +33 1 49 53 30 13 fax: +33 1 49 53 28 59 Email: ayesha.hassan(a)iccwbo.org<mailto:ayesha.hassan@iccwbo.org> website: www.iccwbo.org<http://www.iccwbo.org/> BASIS website: http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/

1 1

Bejing Visa
by Chris Chaplow March 26, 2013

March 26, 2013

Dear Members, After a delay in getting a host letter I could not rely on post and went to the Chinese Embassy in Madrid (Spain) last week in person. Despite the information on the website. The urgent one or two day special service has been discontinued. The fastest turn round route available was one week. So I need to send somebody to collect mine tomorrow. (1,200 km round trip) I assume every by now has their visa for Beijing, but if not - dont rely on the urgent service. Best, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

3 3

Minutes, transcript, MP3 Recording & Presentation: BC Members Pre Beijing Planning call, March 25, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi March 26, 2013

March 26, 2013

Dear BC Members, Following the Pre-Beijing Planning Call which took place yesterday, Monday, March 25th, 2013 at 11 am EST please find attached the minutes I drafted, the full transcript and the power point presentation which was shown on Adobe Connect during the call. Please find the MP3 Recording here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/81qoihqwl2tt647j39ss.mp3 Thank you ever so much, -- th, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ICANN webinar on new gTLDs -- tonight, March 26, 3pm Pacific time
by Steve DelBianco March 26, 2013

March 26, 2013

FYI — this could be worth listening to. I am sure that new Registry Agreement and RAA will be discussed, too. New gTLD Update Webinar Date: 26 March 2013 Time: 22:00 – 23:30 UTC (3:00pm – 4:30pm PDT) Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldwebinar Dial In: 1-480-629-9799 or 1-877-941-9321 | International Numbers<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/webinars/dial-in-26mar…> Conference ID: 4610307 Agenda * Initial Evaluation Update * Pre-delegation testing &pilot * Contracting * Rights Protections * Closed Generics

1 0