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

Nom Com March Meeting Report Card
by Ron Andruff March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Dear colleagues, As you know, we instituted Report Cards this year for the first time in the Nominating Committee's history to ensure that all ICANN stakeholders are privy to as much information as the Nom Com can release without compromising its work to find and appoint candidates to fill key positions within ICANN. Therefore, it is with pleasure that Waudo Siganga and I provide the BC membership with the Nominating Committee Report Card from our meeting this past Wednesday, March 20th. As always, should you have any thoughts, comments or recommendations for appointees, please do not hesitate to be in contact with either Waudo or me. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN will implement 3 of 4 Strawman rights protection improvements
by Jimson Olufuye March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

1 0

ICANN will implement 3 of 4 Strawman rights protection improvements
by Steve DelBianco March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Good news. ICANN just issued memorandum on Strawman solutions and will implement 3 of the 4 improvements we advocated (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio…>) 1. 30-day advance notice for Sunrise. Yes 2. Extend TM Claim Notices from 60 to 90 days. Yes 3. "Claims 2" extension of TM notices for 6-12 months. Not at this time. 4. Issue TM Claim notices based on domains previously abused. Yes! The Limited Preventive Registration (LPR) was not part of Strawman, but ICANN said this would not be part of implementation. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

5 4

Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse “Strawman Solution”
by Benedetta Rossi March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find the Memorandum on the Trademark Clearinghouse “Strawman Solution” as published today, 20 March 2013 on the ICANN website, here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio… Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: Chehade Calls for "Equal Playing Field"
by Phil Corwin March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

FYI-- http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0313/morningtech10262.html ICANN'S CHEHADE: WE NEED EQUAL PLAYING FIELD IN gTLD PROCESS - As the closely watched generic top-level domain progress continues to unfold, it's also become the latest arena for companies to snipe at their rivals. That continued Tuesday as FairSearch.org, an anti-Google group led by Microsoft and backed by companies like Oracle and Kayak, disclosed that it filed objections to Mountain View's applications for certain gTLDs, citing competition concerns. But even as big companies jockey for position in the key domain name space, the process needs to ensure that voices are heard equally, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé tells MT. "Our job is to keep everyone focused on the process of multistakeholderism. Bottom up, everyone involved, equal multistakeholders. And I think that's the difficult part, because you get people with either big names or big capabilities - or governments, by the way - who have a lot of say, making the balance lost in the process of building policy," he said. "So what we need to do is to keep bringing people back to that process to sit down, to discuss things at an equal level and have all voices heard together." The ICANN leader spoke at the Computer and Communications Industry Association's 40th anniversary dinner last night, where he let slip to attendees that he's planning to head to and open the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May. Rep. Zoe Lofgren also delivered remarks, telling attendees that her work on immigration policy is an "all day, every day" endeavor, and is confident that a deal on comprehensive reform can be reached. And Sen. Ron Wyden was there too, cautioning the room that ensuring Internet freedoms in America isn't sufficient - keeping the global marketplace open is necessary for American businesses to succeed. ELSEWHERE TODAY - Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill and ICANN's Chehadé speak at the Association of National Advertisers conference 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: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6177 - Release Date: 03/15/13

1 0

DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on closed generic TLDs
by Steve DelBianco March 20, 2013

March 20, 2013

Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on "closed generic" TLDs (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>). This comment period closes 7-Mar. Because there was not significant support for any of the straw poll options, the BC is not submitting a recommendation on closed generics. Instead, the attached comment documents prior BC positions and summarizes our recent discussion of this topic. I will collect any final comments on this "non-comment" draft until midnight 5-Mar and then submit to ICANN on 7-Mar. In my view, there is no requirement for formal position voting since the BC is not taking a position on the question at issue. Some background: This issue was discussed on BC member call 12-Feb. A straw poll was circulated to members on 17-Feb. Summary of comments received after the straw poll: Elisa Cooper (Mark Monitor) recused because of clients on both sides of the issue. Phil Corwin (ICA) reported its members desired no position. Barbara Wanner (USCIB) reported its members have no consensus. Andy Abrams (Google) said it was inappropriate to create a class of "closed generics" when the proposed models vary so widely. Google also said it would be unfair to applicants if ICANN significantly changed the Guidebook rules at this time. Ron Andruff and Mike Rodenbaugh differed on their recollection of how specifically this closed generic topic was covered in the vertical integration working group in 2009. Mike Roberts pointed out the distinction between prospective and retrospective remedies for anti-competitive behavior. Phil Corwin and Andy Abrams (Google) said that governments and regulators would enforce competition laws post-delegation, whether or not ICANN granted a TLD an exemption to the registry Code of Conduct. Sarah Deutsch (Verizon) supported prospective resolution on this issue, and indicated support for dot-brands as closed TLDs. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 4

Re: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on New gTLD Registry Agreement
by Marilyn Cade March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

As an FYI to members, I just sent Steve some suggestions, and also asked that we reinforce who we are, even as we raise questions, in a professional and positive tone, but reflecting that we are representing business users perspectives. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:57:55 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on New gTLD Registry Agreement Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on New gTLD Registry Agreement ( <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm> link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm> ). This comment period closes 20-Mar. As discussed on our member call this week, this draft does not propose any changes to previous BC positions. Instead, the attached comment applies prior BC positions to 4 aspects of the proposed new registry agreement: Specification 11: Public Interest Commitments Base Agreement Article 4: Transition of Registry upon termination of Agreement Base Agreement Article 7: Amendments to the Registry Agreement Specification 5: Reserving Country and Territory Names at the Second Level These comments are based upon prior positions adopted by the BC in accordance with its charter. Three BC position documents are cited here: Implementation Improvements request to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO, Feb-2012 (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20request%20for%20implement… > ) BC Comments on New gTLD Applicant Guidebook - April 2011 Discussion Draft, May-2011 (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App&#4… > ) BC Position on Process for Amendments to new gTLD Registry Agreements, Apr-2010 (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_TLD_contract_amendments.… > ) We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 19-Mar and plan to submit on 20-Mar. In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting since the BC is not taking any new positions in this draft. However, if 10% of BC membership proposes written changes to the prior positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider changing the BC position. Any vote to change would require a majority vote of BC members. (see Charter section 7.3) -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services
by Benedetta Rossi March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN Announcement on the Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services. Thank you, 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/gtld-registration-data-15mar13… Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 19 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 20 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-registration-data-15mar13> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This Public Forum invites comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on the gTLD registration data services <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p…>[PDF, 946 KB]. The Report forms part of a ICANN Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP) that aims to review the purpose and accuracy of domain name registration data and directory services, as well as its underlying technical protocol -- currently also known as 'Whois'. Current Status: The Preliminary Issue Report explores the issue of gTLD registration data services, which includes the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and solutions to improve accuracy and access to gTLD registration data. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on this topic as well as the contents of the Preliminary Issue Report. In parallel to this Preliminary Issue Report, the ICANN Board has convened an Expert Working Group (EWG) whose findings will feed into the Final Issue Report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comment forum and once the Expert Working Group has concluded its work, a Final Issue Report will be published and the PDP will be initiated. Staff Contact: Lars Hoffmann Email Staff Contact <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20gTLD%20Registration%20Data%20Services%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: Comprehensive 'Whois' policy reform remains the source of long-running discussions within the ICANN as well as wider Internet community. Any discussion of 'Whois' -- hereafter called gTLD registration data and directory services -- typically includes topics such as purpose, accuracy, availability, privacy, anonymity, cost, policing, intellectual property protection, security and malicious use and abuse. The Board specifically called out two of these topics in its request; purpose and accuracy. With regard to purpose, at a minimum the most basic purpose, which is commonly accepted, is that gTLD registration data allows domain name holders to be contacted. However, who would be granted the right to access the data under what circumstances and contact the holder and by which means, is a set of difficult follow-up questions that need to be answered. In relation to accuracy, There are many data elements in the Whois database required under the Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements; if only one of these data fields is incorrect, does that mean the Whois information is inaccurate? And how can the accuracy of data be verified and/or measured, especially considering that if data is not accurate the purpose of gathering the data might be questionable in the first place. This Preliminary Issue report lays out in detail many of the issues mentioned above and how they relate to the gTLD registration data and directory services. In addition, it also provides an overview of many of the affected Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and other relevant parties. Furthermore, the Report explains in details the continuous issues with regard to accuracy and purpose of gTLD registration data services and elaborates on the need for changes to the technical aspects. In addition to requesting the Issue Report, the Board has directed the formation of an *Expert Working Group (EWG)* that is currently working on a comprehensive proposal how to solve the issues surrounding the purpose and accuracy of domain registration data services. The EWG is tasked with providing concrete solutions to many (if not all) of the issues raised in this Report. In accordance with the Board's direction, the outcome of the EWG will feed into the Final Issue Report which will form the basis for the next steps in the Policy Development Process. Section II: Background: After the submission of a Report drafted by the Whois Policy Review Team in 2012, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November 2012 <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm>that led to the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) and, in parallel, also launched a Board-initiated GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). ICANN's requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries have undergone some important changes; yet after more than 12 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies the policy is still in need of comprehensive reforms that address the significant number of issues related to gTLD registration data services. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate and submit a summary of the comments received together with the Final Issue Report. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Preliminary Issue Report on gTLD Registration Data Services -- http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/registration-data-prelim-15mar13-en.p…, 946 KB] * Board resolution from 8 November 2012 - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> * Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40175189 * Closed and archived GNSO Whois Policy Work - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/archive 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

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)
by Benedetta Rossi March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement on the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). Thank you, 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/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.htm Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 5 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 6 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 27 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): Seeking comments on the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure Current Status: Awaiting comments Next Steps: Review public comments and revise if necessary Staff Contact: Olof Nordling Email Staff Contact <mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Public%20Interest%20Commitments%20Dispute%20Resolution%20Procedure%20%28PICDRP%29%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: As previously reported, a dispute resolution procedure will be put in place to address complaints that a Registry in the New gTLD Program may not be complying with the Public Interest Commitment(s) in Specification 11 of their Registry Agreement with ICANN. A draft procedure has been created for this purpose. The draft procedure, or Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP), closely tracks the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) that has already been vetted with the community through several public comment periods and subsequent revisions. The purpose of this Public Comment Forum is to obtain public input on the PICDRP, and to inform revisions to the PICDRP, if appropriate. Section II: Background: Specification 11 in over 500 new gTLD Registry Agreements will have voluntary Public Interest Commitments that the Registry has made and with which the Registry has agreed to comply. To effectively and efficiently resolve any issues that might arise regarding non-compliance with a Registry's Public Interest Commitments, a third party-administered dispute resolution procedure will be put in place. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Draft Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf>[PDF, 199 KB] * For the approved RRDRP, please see: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/rrdrp-04jun12-en.pdf[PDF, 257 KB] 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

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report
by Benedetta Rossi March 18, 2013

March 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN Announcement regarding the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Initial Report. Thank you, 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/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings -- Initial Report Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 March 2013 Comment Close Date: 26 April 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 27 April 2013 Reply Close Date: 17 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15mar13-en.htm> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13@icann.org> View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-locking-domain-name-15mar13/> Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization Working Group tasked with addressing the issue of locking of a domain name subject to Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Proceedings has published its Initial Report for public comment. Current Status: The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published its Initial Report and is soliciting community input on the preliminary recommendations contained in the report. Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email Staff Contact <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Locking%20of%20a%20Domain%20Name%20Subject%20to%20UDRP%20Proceedings%20%E2%80%93%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: In its Initial Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf>[PDF, 883 KB], the PDP Working Group presents eleven preliminary recommendations, which are expected to usefully clarify and standardize how a domain name is locked and unlocked during the course of a UDRP Proceeding for all parties involved. Amongst others, these recommendations include: * A definition of 'locking' in the context of a UDRP Proceeding - the term "lock" means preventing any changes of registrar and registrant [without impairing the resolution of the domain name]^1 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> (Preliminary recommendation #1) * Proposed modification of the UDRP rules to no longer require that the complainant sends a copy of the complaint to the respondent to avoid cyberflight^2 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> (Preliminary recommendation #2) * Requirement for the registrar to 'lock' the domain name registration within 2 business days following a request for verification from the UDRP Provider (Preliminary recommendation #3) * Clarifying how to deal with changes to contact information and/or lifting of proxy / privacy services (Preliminary recommendation #7 and #8) * Clarifying the process for the unlocking of a domain name registration following the conclusion of a UDRP proceeding (Preliminary recommendation #9) In addition to these recommendations, the WG has put forward two possible options in its report to clarify the process in case a settlement is reached and is requesting community input on these two options or possible alternatives. It is important to emphasize that most of these preliminary recommendations codify existing practices in line with the UDRP and are not expected to require any changes to the existing policy. However, should these recommendations be adopted in their current form, minor changes may need to be made to the UDRP rules and/or UDRP Provider supplemental rules. Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 and 6 of the Initial Report in order to obtain a further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations as well as further details with respect to the preliminary recommendations. In addition to input on the preliminary recommendations, the WG is also interested to receive further feedback on the expected impact should these recommendations be adopted. The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^1 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> The WG is considering adding the bracketed language and would welcome community input on the proposed addition. ^2 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en…> Cyberflight in this context means changing the registrant information with the intent to escape from the dispute. Section II: Background: The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. To address this issue, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings -- Initial Report - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-initial-15mar13-en.pdf[…, 883 KB] * Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy> * Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules <https://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/rules> * Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/xq3bAQ 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