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

CSG Meeting with ICANN Board in Beijing
by Chris Chaplow April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

Sent from my iPad

1 0

singular - plural problem slide
by Steve DelBianco April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

Just a follow-up on the discussion we had today about the singular/plural contention set issue. For your IPC and ISPC constituency meetings today, perhaps you can use the attached slide to describe the singular/plural problems. The asterisks next to strings indicate that a string confusion objection has been filed on one or both of those strings. ICDR is the International Centre for Dispute Resolution Best, Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Changes to the ICANN Public Forum format
by Steve DelBianco April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

Note that ICANN is changing the format for Public Forum comments, starting this week in Beijing. (see post from the Chairman below). Topics for public forum have not yet been posted but should appear here<http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37211> soon. Changes to the Public Forum by STEVE CROCKER on APRIL 1, 2013 As we go into the Beijing meeting, I am struck by the manner in which ICANN meetings are defined by the open exchange of ideas. In no small way, the meetings form the foundation for discussion, agreement and often-respectful disagreement. It is not merely an opportunity to speak; it is also a chance to listen, to hear different voices that carry a multitude of opinions. Even in this era of instant Internet-facilitated communication, I still believe there is great value in our interpersonal exchanges. The Public Forum session at our meetings affords an opportunity for Board members to listen and engage the community face to face. The session always has been, and will remain, a defining example of transparent dialog. In that context, we will make some changes to the Public Forum session in Beijing (scheduled for Thursday, 11 April), so we can hear from as many community members as possible and also to encourage new members to speak freely. Here are the changes: * During that portion of the Public Forum where we address a specific subject for a specific amount of time, we will have the Board member who chairs the appropriate Board committee, or the member with the greatest subject expertise, moderate that specific discussion. * Each speaker will get two chances to address the specific issue as it is discussed. * Two minutes to make initial remarks (just like what occurred during the Toronto meeting). * Two minutes later in the queue for any possible follow-up remarks. * Following the subject-specific portion of the session, we will have a more-relaxed open-microphone portion to discuss other business. * Any subject may be discussed. * Speakers will be limited to two two-minute opportunities. Our hope is that these new guidelines will open the Public Forum to more voices and avoid the trap of hearing the same voices over and over again. For me, those unheard voices are the ones that concern me most. Again, the Public Forum is intended to encourage dialogue. It is not designed to be a venue for lobbying or pontification. Questions are preferable to comments, and both are preferable to elongated statements. I welcome, and strongly encourage, those with new ideas, questions or concerns to engage the Board during the Public Forum. We have established an email address where you can send questions and/or suggestions as to which topics you feel deserve dedicated time-slots during the Public Forum session in Beijing. The address is public_forum(a)icann.org<mailto:public_forum@icann.org>. Finally, if during the Public Forum, someone makes your point, please consider the option of silence, over that of time-consuming repetition. In doing so, you could be giving new voices the opportunity to be heard. I look forward to seeing you, and listening to you, in Beijing!

1 0

Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA
by Steve DelBianco April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013

ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendme…>) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen “new asks”, incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that “pattern or practice of cybersquatting” is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers – not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won’t be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Minutes & Transcript - BC Members Survey Discussion Call on Friday, March 29th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi April 7, 2013

April 7, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes & transcript for the BC Members Survey Discussion Call which took place on Friday, March 29th, 2013 at 11 am EST. The MP3 recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/guo0tu44mcb5tjm0zn3p.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/guo0tu44mcb5tjm0zn3p.mp3 Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Question for the Board during new gTLD discussion today: contention between Singulars and Plurals
by Steve DelBianco April 7, 2013

April 7, 2013

Zahid — in case you have an opportunity in this session with the Board, please ask about their reaction to the perplexing results on String Similarity: The results of ICANN's String confusion panel were that singular and plurals of the same string were not placed in the same contention sets. Concerns include: 1. Consumer confusion. Particularly when they hear a TLD in conversation or in the media, then can't remember if it was singular or plural. 2. Defensive registrations in 25 additional TLDs 3. Terrible Precedent: applicants in future rounds could propose plurals of established TLDs (.nets, .books, .apps ) 4. Reflects poorly on the gTLD expansion Background: After several months of careful study, ICANN's experts published their contention sets on 28-Feb. (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

2 1

Pic from the Sunday morning CSG meeting with board members for those on remote
by Chris Chaplow April 7, 2013

April 7, 2013

Sent from my iPad

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
by Jimson Olufuye April 6, 2013

April 6, 2013

4 3

Re: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
by Marilyn Cade April 5, 2013

April 5, 2013

I support # 2. I also wanted to thank Mahmoud and Mohamed, Steve, Nat and Phil for their follow up and work on this. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye(a)kontemporary.net> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:36:02 To: <randruff(a)rnapartners.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider Thanks Steve for your efforts. I vote for #2. Warm regards, JO -------------------------------------------------------------- Jimson Olufuye, fncs, ficma, PhD CEO Kontemporary® 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] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > Date: Fri, April 05, 2013 12:18 pm To: "'Steve DelBianco'" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > I support #2. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> ---------------- 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: Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:52 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] UPDATE: FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider Two updates to the review/vote I circulated on 2-April (below): 1. Benedetta sent minutes & transcript of 28-March call among BC members and representatives of ACDR (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03236.html> ) 2. ACDR later circulated written answers to several of the questions discussed on the call (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg03237.html> ) Remember: Please review and reply with your vote before 12-April. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm> ). The comment period ends 13-Apr. (UDRP is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) Note: ACDR is the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, and is affiliated with BC Member Talal Abu-Ghazaleh. Phil Corwin and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

2 1

ACDR conference call follow up
by Mahmoud Lattouf April 5, 2013

April 5, 2013

Dear All, This is to follow up on our conference call last week regarding the ACDR application to become a UDRP provider. Here is our answers to questions, 5, 6, and 7 mentioned during the conference call: 5. How do you ensure that pro-Complainant bias is not present when you accredit panelists who also serve as active TM attorneys? ACDR policy is clear here, panelists are required to sign declarations, moreover, before the appointment of a panelist, the elected panel will be requested to sign and return to the Center a Declaration of Independence and Impartiality using the specially designed form specifically designed for that purpose which will be available on the Center's website. In addition, a party to the administrative proceedings may challenge the appointment of a panelist via filing a written request or by submitting an electronic request through the website stating the circumstances and reasons for the challenge within five calendar days from the date of notice of the selection. The Center will determine whether adequate circumstances exist for disqualification. (Please see Supplemental Rules in Annex 3 of this Proposal) I think we are the only center who covered this point clearly before operation; other service providers fixed such precedents after operation. This is why we believe that we are benefiting from their experience. 6. Are you making a concerted effort to recruit panelists from academia and from retired judges, who would not be as likely to have as strong a pro-complainant bias as active TM attorneys? ACDR vision is to select panelists from different nationalities and with different approaches to IP and other related fields. We already provided full details regarding the experience and selection, please refer to point (2\a) of the proposal and annex 2 (screening requirements). We will be appointing more panelists from academia and retired judges as well. 7. How do you handle unsolicited supplemental filings from Complainants? How do you ensure that Respondents are not put to an undue burden of responding to Supplemental Filings from Complainants if those Supplemental Filings are not considered by the Panelists? And conversely, if Supplemental Filings are considered by panelists how do you ensure that Respondents are provided adequate time to prepare and file a Supplemental Response so that the Supplemental Response will also be considered by the Panel before they issue their decision. Extensions are allowed according to ACDR, please refer to point No. 9 of the SR: Extensions : (a) The Center and, after its appointment, the panel, shall in its sole discretion decide on any request from a party or on its own motion, prior to the expiration of the concerned period(s), to extend, in the presence of exceptional circumstances, the period(s) of time provided for under these supplemental rules. (b) A request to the Center for an extension by a party must state the circumstances warranting the request, accompanied by an extension fee of $100. (c) If an extension is granted, it shall be for a period not exceeding ten (10) additional calendar days. I hope this answer your concerns. Should you require further information, please let me know. Thank you, Best Regards, Mahmoud A. Lattouf Executive Director - AGIP Offices Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Member of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization Tel.: +962 6 5100 900 ext. 1623 Fax: +962 6 5100 901 Email: mlattouf(a)agip.com<mailto:mlattouf@agip.com> URL: www.agip.com<http://www.agip.com/> TAGORG.com The Global organization for professional, business, intellectual property, education, culture and capacity building services. We work hard to stay first

3 2