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

ALERTS: New Expired Registration Recovery Policy will go into effect on 31 August 2013.
by Benedetta Rossi 14 May '13

14 May '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the New Expired Registration Recovery Policy which will go into effect on 31 August 2013. -- 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 Dear GNSO Members, The new Expired Registration Recovery Policy ( <https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp> https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp) will go into effect on 31 August 2013. For background information, the proposed Expired Registration Recovery Policy ("ERRP") is intended to help align registrant expectations with registrar practices by establishing certain minimum communications requirements and making renewal and redemption of registrations uniformly available in prescribed circumstances. Following implementation of the policy, ICANN is instructed to create educational materials in consultation with interested stakeholders to help registrants properly manage their registrations. Additional background material can be found here: <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Expired+Registra tion+Recovery+Policy+Workspace> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Expired+Registrat ion+Recovery+Policy+Workspace. As part of the above-mentioned educational materials, ICANN staff, in consultation with interested community members, will be updating the Beginner's Guide to Domain Names to include relevant ERRP updates. In addition, ICANN staff thought a video tutorial on the proper stewardship of a domain name could be an additional resource for Internet users. I will be organizing a brief phone conference to discuss a proposed outline to the video tutorial in the next two weeks. Any GNSO members that would be interested in participating in this video tutorial initiative should send an email to <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org by Friday, 17 May, and I will be sure to include them in future communications. I look forward to working with interested stakeholders. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.o

1 0

ALERTS: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for GNSO Working Group on Policy & Implementation
by Benedetta Rossi 14 May '13

14 May '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement with the call for volunteers for the Drafting Team to develop the Charter for the GNSO WG on Policy & Implementation. -- 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 http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09may13-en.htm 9 May 2013 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team that will be tasked to develop a charter for a Working Group to address issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy & implementation that affect the GNSO (see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> Staff Discussion Paper and <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> session in Beijing). The Drafting Team is expected to submit the proposed Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. What This Team Will Do The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines taking into account the Staff Discussion Paper as well as the discussions that took place in Beijing. At a minimum, the GNSO Council expects that the subsequent Working Group would provide recommendations on the following: 1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy / implementation related discussions 2. Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO "Policy Guidance" 3. A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO Policy Recommendations and 4. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected to function and operate. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this DT will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Drafting Team will be archived publicly. Drafting Team members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. How to Join The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The DT will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Policy% 20%26%20Implementation%20DT> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background 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 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 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. Following several discussions by the GNSO Council on this topic, the GNSO Council has now decided to form a drafting team to draft a Charter for a Working Group which will be tasked to provide concrete recommendations on how to address some of these issues from a GNSO perspective. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards
by Steve DelBianco 13 May '13

13 May '13

For many of the safeguards requested by the GAC, the BC might recommend industry self-regulation via IFFOR (The International Foundation for Online Responsibility). (link<http://iffor.org/safeguard>) See Kieren McCarthy's article on CircleID (link<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130510_what_new_gtld_applicants_need_is_a_q…>) note: Kieren serves on IFFOR's Policy Council. Since we are currently drafting BC comments on GAC advice, it would be helpful to hear BC member feedback on whether we should recommend IFFOR This may have been what Marilyn and Ron were getting at during the last two conference calls. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

6 5

Election Announcement: Nominations Reminder & Updated Election Timeline
by Benedetta Rossi 13 May '13

13 May '13

From: BC Secretariat Date: May 13, 2013 CC: ICANN GNSO Secretariat <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: Reminder - BC 2013 V. Chair Finance & Operations Election Process Dear BC Members, This is an election reminder for the currently open election process for the extraordinary election for the BC seat of Vice Chair of Finance & Operations. Please note that the nomination period opened last week and will close on Monday, May 20th. Please find the election procedure document attached, and note that it has been updated: there has been a change in the date of the opening of the vote. Voting will now open on Wednesday, May 29th and will close on Wednesday, June 5th. Eligibility: In order to be eligible to nominate, stand for office or vote, members are required to have paid their full BC dues for 2013, by the close of the nomination period on May 20th. Only paid up members will receive the ballots prior to the opening of the vote, and only paid up members can accept a nomination and vote in the elections. The attached election procedure covers: time-frames for the three stage process outlined in the BC Charter description of the open seat; who is eligible to nominate, or accept a nomination how to nominate; how to accept a nomination, candidate statements when the elections will be held, outcomes of election announcement as exception: ties in any election If you have any questions regarding eligibility to vote, please email the BC Secretariat: bc-secretariat(a)icann.org. All other election questions should be sent to the election email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. 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

FW: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube
by Phil Corwin 13 May '13

13 May '13

BC members considering the GAC Communique should watch this. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:18 PM To: Phil Corwin Subject: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9hZCGnRh0I 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 Sent from my iPad ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6308 - Release Date: 05/08/13

4 3

FW: Announcement / Global Internet Policy Observatory / Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth
by Phil Corwin 13 May '13

13 May '13

FYI--Interesting and potentially very useful development. 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: Andrea.GLORIOSO(a)ec.europa.eu [mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:06 AM To: Andrea.GLORIOSO(a)ec.europa.eu Subject: Announcement / Global Internet Policy Observatory / Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth [ Apologies if you receive this message more than once ] Dear all, Please see below an announcement from the European Commission, for your information. Please share this among all your contacts, as appropriate. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-g… Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth News: 2013-05-13 02:00 The Commission today unveiled plans for the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO), an online platform to improve knowledge of and participation of all stakeholders across the world in debates and decisions on Internet policies. GIPO will be developed by the Commission and a core alliance of countries and Non Governmental Organisations involved in Internet governance. Brazil, the African Union, Switzerland, the Association for Progressive Communication, Diplo Foundation and the Internet Society have agreed to cooperate or have expressed their interest to be involved in the project. The Global Internet Policy Observatory will act as a clearinghouse for monitoring Internet policy, regulatory and technological developments across the world. It will: · automatically monitor Internet-related policy developments at the global level, making full use of "big data" technologies; · identify links between different fora and discussions, with the objective to overcome "policy silos"; · help contextualise information, for example by collecting existing academic information on a specific topic, highlighting the historical and current position of the main actors on a particular issue, identifying the interests of different actors in various policy fields; · identify policy trends, via quantitative and qualitative methods such as semantic and sentiment analysis; · provide easy-to-use briefings and reports by incorporating modern visualisation techniques; The objective of GIPO is to increase expertise and understanding among all actors, including countries, NGOs and interest groups which may have so far been marginalised in Internet debates and decisions. The Commission fears that the vast range of policy areas impacted by the Internet, combined with a highly complex institutional framework, may cause disengagement from these discussions, which must be truly inclusive in order to ensure a globally legitimate and sustainable governance framework for the Internet. GIPO will not replace existing mechanisms and fora where global Internet governance is discussed, such as the Internet Governance Forum. To the contrary, its objective is to be a tool-box for stakeholders and an instrument to strengthen existing Internet policy-making processes, making full use of modern technology. The European Commission is 100% committed to supporting the open internet. It hopes to safeguard the open nature of global internet governance, including a model which is more inclusive of the needs and priorities of all actors, including those from the developing world. (see SPEECH/13/167<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-167_en.htm>). In the coming months, the Commission will carry out a feasibility study into GIPO, and pending those results, the development of the online platform could commence in 2014. Best -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.Glorioso@ec.europa.eu> Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6308 - Release Date: 05/08/13

1 0

ICANN New gTLD UPdate Webinar of May 9th
by Phil Corwin 12 May '13

12 May '13

http://t.co/Sxibimt4E0 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

1 0

Worth A Read
by Phil Corwin 12 May '13

12 May '13

http://domainincite.com/12988-new-gtlds-applicants-should-brace-for-gac-del… 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

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
by Ron Andruff 11 May '13

11 May '13

Thanks for the summary Steve. While the message heard by different listeners is often interpreted to fit their end, I would say that Heather captured very well the message I was trying to articulate in our Friday call, I.e. The GAC is our friend in court. Our job is to put some 'meat on the bones' in support of their openings to move the process forward. Any derogatory commentary will only alienate our ally. As requested, I'll get a draft of the language around regulated industries and possible safeguards to you for our BC response by the start of the week. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice Some key quotes from GAC Chair's interview (link) GAC Consensus Advice (where no GAC member objected to the advice) was given only for .africa and .gcc. Rest of the Beijing advice was not "GAC Consensus" but it "must be given due consideration" Safeguard advice was about pre-existing obligations and applicable laws. It was not to impose new obligations. Raises valid implementation questions. GAC advice suggests no new global regulatory regime. It's consistent with ICANN's existing role. It's preferable to have Safeguards measure in order to allow these new TLDs to proceed, rather than discussions about objections form GAC or others. GAC believes there should be good reason to have an exclusive generic TLD. The community may want discussion about the Public Interest. Question: Did GAC give new rules at the 11th hour? GAC suggested categories like this previously but this advice was not taken. So GAC is using the mechanisms ICANN created. GAC's primary role is to advise on public policy aspects. We have acted. Question: What if ICANN Board ignores this GAC Advice? We'd question the value of governments participating in ICANN. Need to show that GAC is a useful mechanism. Otherwise why would governments support this model? Question: what is GAC priority for Durban? The 14 strings for Further Consideration (1.c) and implementation of GAC advice on Safeguards. -- Steve DelBianco From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:21 PM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube BC members considering the GAC Communique should watch this. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

2 1

For use in 10-May-2013 member call regarding BC comments on GAC Advice
by Steve DelBianco 10 May '13

10 May '13

Here is an updated outline for Today's member discussion of BC comments on GAC Advice (below and attached). Under the red headings I summarized discussion from prior calls. Also attached are 8-May call minutes taken by Benedetta, our Secretariat. Public Comment page at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…. Initial comments due 14-May; Reply comments close 4-Jun. Full GAC Communique and Advice is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf Just the Safeguards in section IV 1.b and Annex 1 are being posted for public comment. But I think the BC could also post separate comments on other GAC advice, such as Singular-Plural contention sets, Whois, etc. BC commentary on GAC Advice, in general BC members discussed what we would say in introductory comments. Recognition that GAC has supported BC priorities on the new gTLD program. Also recognition that this GAC advice includes new requirements not in the Guidebook or Registry contract. Ron Andruff and Andrew Mack volunteered to draft a few paragraphs of introductory comments. 1. New gTLDs: a. GAC objections to specific applications (. africa . gcc . islam . halal) b. Safeguards for all new gTLDs (Annex 1) 1. Registry does Whois verification checks 2x per year 2. Registrant ToS should prohibit malware, botnets, phishing, piracy, TM/copyright infringement, fraud, deception, or anything contrary to applicable law. 3. Registry to periodically check domains in TLD for security threats (pharming, phishing, malware, botnets). Notify registrar and suspend domain if no immediate remedy. 4. Registry to maintain stats on inaccurate Whois , security threats found, and actions taken. 5. Registry needs mechanism to handling complaints about inaccurate Whois, security, etc. 6. Registry must ensure immediate consequences (incl suspension) for inaccurate Whois or domain use in breach of applicable law BC commentary on Safeguards for all TLDs: Elisa reminded BC members that we are required to take the perspective of business registrants and users/customers – even if we have other interests in new gTLDs. A majority of BC members on the1-May call generally support 1.b safeguards. (Ron, Anjali, David, Elisa, Sarah, Susan, Zahid) Subsequent discussion revealed nuances and concerns about some safeguards: Emmett O’Keefe believes GAC advice goes far beyond settled requirements in the final Guidebook. Andy Abrams prefers PDPs instead of ICANN implementing these safeguards based solely on GAC advice. Elisa noted that many of these items are already required of registrars per the proposed RAA. (need to identify these items) Susan Kawaguchi questioned how registries could do the security scans required in item 3. “Applicable law” could be extremely broad, covering laws of any nation whose registrants or users access the TLD. David Fares and Sarah Deutsch pointed out that broad application of law is usually beneficial for business users and registrants. John Berard questions how ICANNcould require these safeguards, since Guidebook and Contract are finalized. Steve pointed out that registry operators can add safeguards to their Public Interest Commitments (Specification 11), provided ICANN allows updates at this point. Phil Corwin responded that hundreds of unique PIC Specs would make compliance enforcement extremely difficult for ICANN. Phil Corwin opposes the “suspension” requirement in safeguards 3 and 6 unless there were due process protections for registrants. Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs: consumer protection, sensitive strings and regulated markets (non-exhaustive list of TLDs in annex 1, page 9) 1. Registrant ToS should require compliance with applicable laws, incl privacy, consumer protection, fair lending, organic farming, disclosures 2. Registry will require registrars to notify registrants of ToS at time of registration. 3. Registry will require registrants collecting sensitive health or financial data have reasonable security measures as defined by applicable laws and industry standards. 4. Registry to establish relationship with regulators or industry self-regulatory body, plus strategy to mitigate risks of fraud & illegal activities. 5. Registry will require registrants to have single point of contact for complaints and mitigation BC commentary on safeguards forCategory 1 TLDs: Item 3 raised concerns from most members on the call since it might be interpreted to require registries to police registrants as to their data security practices. Steve DelBianco suggested that BC recommend registries be required to indicate #3 as part of the Terms of Service for registrants -- but not to require registries to police registrant practices. Ron Andruff agreed, so BC will encourage ICANN to make #3 part of the ToS requirement in #1 and #2. Jim Baskin and Susan Kawaguchi said safeguards 3 and 4 would be placing too much new responsibility on registries to monitor conduct of registrants. Items 1 and 3 raise same comment on “applicable laws” as noted on safeguards for all TLDs (above). --remaining items to be discussed on May 8 and May 10 Additional Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs in financial, gambling, professional services, environmental, health and fitness, corporate identifiers, and charity: 6. Registry must verify and validate registrant authorization, charter, license or other credentials 7. if in doubt about credentials, Registry should consult with national supervisory authority 8. Registry must do periodic checks on registrant validity and compliance with above requirements. Proposed BC comment: q Registry should be responsible for safeguards 6,7,8 only where the registry commits to restricted registration, whether in their application, Public Interest Commitment (spec 11), or in TLD’s advertised registration policies. q Any government may request a registry add restrictive registration to their PICspec. q ICANN needs an approval process for registries needing to amend their PIC Specs at any time. Safeguards for Category 2 gTLDs: restricted registration policies 1. Strings in Category 1 may restrict registration, appropriate to risks. Be transparent and give equal access to registrars and registrants. 2. Generic gTLDs may have “exclusive” registry access if it serves a public interest goal. Non-exhaustive list of generic terms where applicant has proposed exclusive access: .antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, .carinsurance,.cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, .financialaid, .flowers, .food, .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail,.makeup, .map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon,.search, .shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, .tunes, .video, .watches, .weather, .yachts Proposed BC comment: q Agree with 1 above. q For 2, the Registry Code of Conduct was written with this in mind, since TLD operators must obtain an exemption to the code of conduct to register their own names (and avoid use of all registrars). Now ICANN should clarify the process and criteria for a TLD to meet the “public interest” test for the exemption. q Process to include public comment? q Criteria: The BC has previously proposed a public interest definition: ICANN serves the global public interest by maintaining the integrity and availability of registrations and resolutions. c. For further GAC consideration (.amazon .patagonia .date .spa .yun .thai .zulu .wine .vin ) d. Ability for applicants to change applied-for string in order to address GACconcerns -- no prior BC position. Concerns with changing strings? e. Opinion of impacted community should be duly taken into account -- consistent with BC support for community priority for new gTLDs (2010) f. Reconsider contention sets for singular and plural versions of the same string. --consistent with BC consensus discussions before and in Beijing. Proposed BC Comment: clarify the rule and re-do the independent panel review. g. Initial protection for intergovernmental organization names and acronyms atsecond level --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; --BC should support “Strawman” TMCH warning notices for IGOs -- at least until GAC review of RPMs one year after 75th gTLD is launched. 2. finalize RAA and require it for registrars selling domains in new gTLDs. --consistent with BC position (Jan-2012) 3. GAC’s 2007 Whois Principles should be “duly taken into account” by Directory Services Expert Working Group. (Susan K) 4. Amend registry agreement to require permanent protection of Olympics and Red Cross --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; 5. more information on Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specifications: 1. can 3rd party or governments raise concern about PIC compliance? 2. can applicants later amend their PICs? 3. will ICANN make registry operators aware of their PICs? 4. requirements to maximize public visibility of PICs? 5. how to amend where a registry made no PICs? (but should have) 6. Are PICs enforceable? --BC said ICANN should enforce PICs 7. Will ICANN follow sanctions recommended by PIC DRP? 8. Measures to remediate serious damage from past registration policies?

1 0