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

BC comment on singular plural
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion. But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish) Sport(s) Loan(s) Web(s) Game(s) Hotel(es) Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are well understood. -confusion -precedent for the next round -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous What’s not understood is how it happened and what we can do about it. First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar. Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” ) -Do-over on just these 24 pairs - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.” Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals are confusingly similar) String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the ICDR rightnow. If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs should be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble. We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch. No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound

13 34

FOR FINAL REVIEW: BC comments on proposed new gTLD Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 5, 2013

Aug. 5, 2013

ICANN posted the final new gTLD Registry Agreement for public comment. (<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>) On todays BC member call we discussed two minor edits to the BC comment draft. (attached) Note that this comment is based closely on BC's March comments on previous Registry Agreement (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20new%20gTLD…>) Please do your final review by 8-Jun-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN by the deadline of 11-Jun. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for work on this draft. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

12 22

FW: New ICA Webpost
by Phil Corwin July 30, 2013

July 30, 2013

BC members may find my latest opinion piece of some interest - especially those based in the US, in regard to this question: How can the NTIA best serve US business interests over the long haul? Kudos and criticism are equally welcome... http://internetcommerce.org/NTIA_Balancing_Act NTIA Caught Between a Congressional Rock and a Hard Place GAC Submitted by Philip Corwin on Sun, 07/28/2013 - 19:03 On July 18th the Senate Appropriations Committee issued Report 113-78 on S. 1329, the "DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2014". The Report contains language that is harshly critical of the role played by the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and would require NTIA to report back within thirty days after enactment of this spending measure on ICANN's compliance with the Affirmation of Commitments and whether the new gTLD program is proceeding in a manner consistent with cybersecurity concerns. We have no idea which lobbyists may have whispered in the Committee's ear to shape this language, nor do we know whether these exact words will be in the final compromise bill agreed to between Senate and House appropriators. Nevertheless, the "power of the purse" is the ultimate Congressional chokehold on Executive Branch activity, and such expressions of dissatisfaction cannot be ignored by those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. While we haven't agreed with every position taken by NTIA vis-à-vis ICANN and within the GAC, we are quite familiar with all the personnel involved and know that they take their work quite seriously and labor long and hard on behalf of the U.S. Their challenge, not reflected in the Report language, is that they have a difficult and sometimes near-impossible balancing act to perform. On one hand, as the Committee states, "NTIA...represents the interests of the Nation in protecting its companies, consumers, and intellectual property". On the other hand, heavy-handed U.S. influence upon ICANN and within the GAC would be grist for the mill of ICANN critics, who are always primed to allege that beneath its multi-stakeholder façade it remains subject to undue U.S. influence and ultimate control. Therefore, defanging such charges and preserving ICANN's multi-stakeholder model, which allows meaningful participation by business and civil society, is in the long-term U.S. interest - but doing so sometimes requires the U.S. to take a low profile and pull its punches. The main charge against NTIA comes in this sentence of the Report: "The Committee is concerned that the Department of Commerce, through NTIA, has not been a strong advocate for U.S. companies and consumers and urges greater participation and advocacy within the GAC and any other mechanisms within ICANN in which NTIA is a participant." Frankly, that deviates from our observations, and fails to consider the NTIA's perpetual balancing act. Let's look at the NTIA's most significant decision in recent days - the issuance of the "U.S. STATEMENT ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IN ADVANCE OF ICANN DURBAN MEETING"[1]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-NTIA_Appropriatons-webpost.docx> that "the United States is willing in Durban to abstain and remain neutral on .shenzen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .yun, and .thai, thereby allowing the GAC to present consensus objections on these strings to the Board, if no other government objects... the choice made in this discrete case does not prejudice future United States positions within the ICANN model or beyond." (Emphasis added) As for compliance with the Affirmation of Commitments, the NTIA statement characterizes that as something to be considered down the road and not at this moment, saying that the new gTLD program rules and related issues should "be considered in the review of the new gTLD program as mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments." What NTIA did in the above instance was to step back and let two U.S. corporations - Patagonia and Amazon - become subject to GAC consensus objections against their applications for company name gTLDs that elicited sharp pushback from Latin American nations. Soon after the statement was released Patagonia, reading the writing on the wall, withdrew its application. Amazon's is still pending and, while ICANN's Board is not bound to accept all GAC consensus objections, there is a strong presumption toward doing so - and significant potential political repercussions for refusing. That action came with some significant backdrop. At the prior April 2013 ICANN meeting in Beijing the U.S. stood fast against GAC consensus objections to .Patagonia and .Amazon, reportedly straining relationships and even impairing the U.S. ability to be effective on other GAC matters. Further, the State Department reportedly weighed in prior to the Durban meeting and urged the NTIA team to take a less confrontational profile within the GAC due to considerable foreign angst over the revelation of the NSA's metadata-gathering Prism program, and its even more pervasive and intrusive collection and analysis of Internet traffic involving foreign businesses and nationals. Let's face it, any U.S.-connected Internet enterprise, whether it's a private cloud service or ICANN, faces intense global scrutiny at this moment. IP interests were apoplectic in Durban, correctly noting that there was no precedent in trademark law for geographic indicators to trump a valid trademark (on the other hand, they failed to note that while .brand gTLDs may trigger legal evolution, up to now top level domains have been held uniformly by courts and trademark authorities to possess no trademark rights because a TLD like .com or .uk cannot serve as a source identifier). There's some irony in that angst, as those same IP interests had no past hesitation in lobbying GAC members to advocate changes in the new gTLD program's rights protection measures (RPMs) that were detrimental to registrant due process rights and appeared to some observers to expand trademark law beyond the bounds of existing statutes and case law. Some even came to ICANN meetings sporting t-shirts with "Mind the GAC" slogans emblazoned across the chest. Now they want ICANN to do anything but mind the GAC -- but all were well aware that the Applicant Guidebook provided that the GAC could object to any proposed "string" for any reason. Should the U.S. operate within the GAC in an inflexible manner, dogmatically asserting on behalf of all domestic interests at all times without weighing relative importance, it risks losing the ability to sway the GAC on the higher priority issues - and also risks feeding the impression that ICANN is still unduly dominated by the U.S. But formal U.S. oversight was ended in 2009, and the ultimate remaining U.S. authority over ICANN decisions - the ability to block or delete TLDs from the authoritative root server via the IANA contract - is a politically fraught "nuclear option" with little likelihood of being exercised. Let's take what just happened - if the U.S. representative on the GAC had literally adopted the Report's admonition to be "a strong advocate for U.S. companies" it would have maintained its opposition to the GAC advice against .Patagonia and .Amazon. The GAC would likely have still issued a strong (but not consensus) recommendation against them that ICANN would have to seriously evaluate, and the rift within the GAC would have been raw and public. But there are multiple other major GAC issues awaiting final resolution that have serious implications for U.S. companies and consumers, including the enhanced safeguard advice for sensitive strings and regulated industries and professions. As well as the view that "closed generic" gTLDs should be generally rejected unless surmounting a high and yet-to-be-determined public interest standard. Whatever the ultimate U.S. position on these matters, its ability to sway others within the GAC has likely been enhanced by its retreat on the two geography-linked names that caused such angst among South American GAC participants. Indeed, the GAC's current positions and their ultimate resolution will determine the operation of ICANN's multistakeholder model well into the future, addressing the reality that governments are the only stakeholders with the ability to promulgate and enforce laws against the other stakeholders. (And let's not forget that this is not a permanent setback for the two companies involved --Amazon can always submit an application for its stock symbol, .AMZN, in the second round of the gTLD program; privately held Patagonia will need to be more creative.) ICANN, while nominally a U.S. non-profit corporation, is now clearly evolving into an international enterprise that requires the support and involvement of multiple nations. Recent management decisions such as opening co-equal operational hubs in Singapore and Istanbul to supplement the Los Angeles headquarters just drive home the point. U.S. participation in ICANN will sometimes require compromise on some issues in order to preserve U.S. influence on others and protect the overall credibility of its multi-stakeholder model. While compromise is currently in short supply on Capitol Hill, Senators should still be familiar with the concept. Relevant excerpts from the Senate Report[2]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-NTIA_Appropriatons-webpost.docx> follow: Domestic and International Policies.-NTIA is the only executive agency with a core mission of ensuring that the Internet remains a platform for economic growth and consumer activity. The Committee supports the Administration's request to promote the development of a policy framework and international outreach that supports the U.S. marketplace, protects citizens, and maintains a free and open Internet. ICANN.-NTIA represents the United States on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] Governmental Advisory Committee [GAC], and represents the interests of the Nation in protecting its companies, consumers, and intellectual property as the Internet becomes an increasingly important component of commerce. The GAC is structured to provide advice to the ICANN Board on the public policy aspects of the broad range of issues pending before ICANN, and NTIA must be an active supporter for the interests of the Nation. The Committee is concerned that the Department of Commerce, through NTIA, has not been a strong advocate for U.S. companies and consumers and urges greater participation and advocacy within the GAC and any other mechanisms within ICANN in which NTIA is a participant. NTIA has a duty to ensure that decisions related to ICANN are made in the Nation's interest, are accountable and transparent, and preserve the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet for consumers, business, and the U.S. Government. The Committee instructs the NTIA to assess and report to the Committee within 30 days on the adequacy of NTIA's and ICANN's compliance with the Affirmation of Commitments, and whether NTIA's assessment of ICANN will have in place the necessary security elements to protect stakeholders as ICANN moves forward with expanding the number of top level Internet domain names available. ________________________________ [1]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-NTIA_Appropriatons-webpost.docx>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/usg_nextsteps_07052013_0.pdf [2]<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Documents\ICA-NTIA_Appropriatons-webpost.docx>http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt78/pdf/CRPT-113srpt78.pdf 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: 2013.0.3349 / Virus Database: 3209/6518 - Release Date: 07/24/13

2 2

Questions for tomorrow's BC Candidate Call - Nominating Committee Elections
by Benedetta Rossi July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

Dear BC Members and Candidates, Please find attached the questions submitted by BC members for tomorrow's BC Candidate call for the BC Nominating Committee elections taking place at 11 am EST (3 pm UTC). 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

Minutes - BC Closed Meeting Durban July 15th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes from the BC Closed Meeting which took place in Durban on Monday, July 15th 2013. The transcript is also attached again for your convenience. The minutes and transcript can also be found on the BC wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ 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

Call for Volunteers: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
by Benedetta Rossi July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

> > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jul13-en.htm > > Call for Volunteers: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group > > In brief > The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Team that has been tasked to address a number of issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy & implementation that affect the GNSO. > > What This Working Group Will Do > The Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on: > > 1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures. > 2. A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of “Policy Guidance”, including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than “Consensus Policy”) instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process; > 3. A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations; > 4. Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation, and; > 5. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. > > For further details on the charter, please see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf. > > How This Working Group Will Work > ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Working Group will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. > > How to Join > The GNSO Council invites all interested parties to put forward their names so they can be added to the WG mailing list. The WG will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat (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 formed a Working Group which has been 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 >

3 2

Reminder: questions for candidates due today
by Benedetta Rossi July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please note that questions for candidates running for the BC Nominating Committee seats for 2014 are due today. Questions submitted by today will be aggregated and sent to the BC list and to the candidates prior to tomorrow's candidate call taking place at 11 am EST (3 pm UTC). These questions will be anonymously presented to candidates, and will take priority in the discussion with candidates. If there is remaining time, the Returning Officer may allow members to ask further questions directly on the call, time permitting. 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

BC Nominating Committee Elections: Aggregated Candidate Statements
by Benedetta Rossi July 28, 2013

July 28, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the aggregated candidate statements for the four candidates nominated to stand in the currently open Nominating Committee election for the BC. I take this opportunity to remind members to submit questions for the candidates to bcvotes(a)hotmail.com to be discussed on the candidate call taking place on Tuesday, July 30th 2013 at 11 am EST (3 pm UTC). 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

2 1

Minutes - BC Open Meeting in Durban, July 16th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes from the BC Open meeting which took place on Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 at 1:15 pm in Durban. I have also attached the updated and corrected transcript for your convenience. I will submit the minutes from the two BC closed meetings as soon as they are ready with their updated transcripts as well. Please note that minutes and transcripts are also available on the BC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ 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

Suggested Reading for all BC Members
by Phil Corwin July 24, 2013

July 24, 2013

http://www.bna.com/icann-legal-rights-b17179875369/?utm_content=bufferd19c5… [Fair Use excerpt to facilitate discussion of the LRO process as it is now playing out...] The biggest lesson so far has been that the Legal Rights Objection process is wholly ineffective for trademark owners seeking to knock down proposed domains containing generic strings. In many cases, companies owning marks for terms such as EXPRESS, HOME, VIP, LIMITED, MAIL, TUNES have lost LROs to domain applicants with no intellectual property rights in those terms whatsoever. Pinterest's failed challenge to Amazon's proposed .pin domain was particularly ominous for mark owners, because Amazon seems pretty clearly to be moving in on Pinterest's business. Proposed domains for dozens of generic terms (e.g., .academy, .blue, .cam, .coach, .direct, .food, .music, .now, .song) and many others all appear highly likely to emerge unscathed from the legal rights objections process. Law is a "never say never" profession but, seriously, the adverse results in the .express and .mail proceedings ought be be writing on the wall for the remaining trademark-based challengers to generic string domains... The reason for this dour outlook can be found in passages from two early LRO rulings: the first one, Right at Home v. Johnson Shareholdings Inc., No. LRO2013-0300 (WIPO, July 3, 2013); and the second, my favorite, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, No. LRO2013-0022 (WIPO, July 9, 2013). In Right at Home, panelist Robert A. Badgley offered the first interpretation of key terms in Section 3.5 of ICANN's New gTLD Applicant Guidebook<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb>. The guidebook uses highly qualified language, directing LRO panelists to decide whether the proposed new domain "takes unfair advantage" of the trademark owner's rights, or "unjustifiably impairs" the value of the mark, or creates an "impermissible likelihood of confusion" between the mark and the proposed domain. In Badgley's view, this language creates a very high burden for trademark-based objections... The second opinion, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, was one of the better opinions (and I am including the federal court stuff that we wade through every day) I have read in a while. Panelist Frederick M. Abbott carefully summarized the arguments on each side (there are good lessons here for attorneys working on the next round of legal rights objections), and the law that he was required to apply to the dispute. When Abbott turned to the reasoning behind his decision to reject Express LCC's objection to the proposed .express top-level domain, I got that sense that this panelist was a teeny bit irked that ICANN itself had not made the hard policy choices that the LRO had just dropped in his lap. It's one thing to ask a panelist to transfer a domain name that might have cost the registrant $10 or so; and it's quite another to ask a panelist to upset an investment of at least a half-million dollars in a new top-level domain. All based on a trademark registration for a generic term, in a single market, issued by a single government entity. Abbott declined to do it. 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

BC Nominating Committee Elections - Nomination Results
by Benedetta Rossi July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please note this is an election announcement for the Nominating Committee seats for the BC. Following the closure of the two week nomination period, I am pleased to announce the outcome of the nomination for these positions, in alphabetical order by last name: Nominees for the large business representative on the NomCom: 1. Ron Andruff 2. Sarah Deutsch Nominees for the small business representative on the NomCom: 1. Jimson Olufuye 2. Stéphane Van Gelder The deadline for the submission of candidate statements is tomorrow, July 24th, 2013. Once all statements are received, I will aggregate them and submit them to the BC list. You are encouraged to submit questions for the candidate to bcvotes(a)hotmail.com in preparation for the candidate call on Tuesday, July 30th at 11 am EST (3 pm UTC). All questions will be aggregated by the Voting Officer and submitted to the bc-gnso(a)icann.org list and to the nominees in preparation for the call. For more information regarding the election process, please refer to the election procedure previously submitted, or contact the Voting Officer on this email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi Serving as Voting Officer 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: Conference call between GNSO and the members of the Meeting Strategy Working Group on Thursday August 8th at 13:00 UTC
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013

Just in case any BC members want to participate. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Début du message réexpédié : > From: Renate DeWulf [renate.dewulf(a)icann.org] > Sent: 23 July 2013 13:22 > To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight; kdrazek(a)Verisign.com; timswitzer(a)dotgreen.org; krosette(a)cov.com; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; William Drake; Elisa Cooper (Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com) mllemineur(a)gmail.com; robin(a)ipjustice.org > Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org; David Olive; jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com; Sebastien Bachollet > Subject: Conference call between GNSO and the members of the Meeting Strategy Working Group on Thursday August 8th at 13:00 UTC > > Dear All, > > On behalf of Sébastien Bachollet, Chair of the Meeting Strategy Working Group, and the Working Group members, I would like to invite you to join us in a conference call being held on Thursday August 8th at 13:00 UTC. The objective of the call is for the GNSO to give its views on: > · Its “must have” and “like to have” at ICANN Meetings > · Its interaction with local community at ICANN Meetings > · How it organizes its meeting time at ICANN Meetings > Jonathan Robinson has accepted this invitation and will kick-off the discussion. > As you may know, this WG has been mandated by the Public Stakeholder Engagement Committee to review how to engage the broader community and to discuss and propose strategy for the structure, purpose and locations for ICANN Public Meetings starting in 2015. > Please let me know whether you would be available for this call and I will send you an Outlook and Lucid Meeting invitation (should you need a dial out, please do not hesitate to let me know). > Best regards, > Renate > > Renate De Wulf > Executive Assistant > ICANN > Rond Point Schuman 6, > 1st floor > B-1040 Brussels > Belgium > > Telephone: +32 2 894 7411 > Mobile: +32 479 40 07 44 > Skype: renate.dewulf > Email: renate.dewulf(a)icann.org >

1 0

Steve Crocker's Durban roundup
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

Colleagues, FYI. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130722_icann_chairmans_durban_roundup/ Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces
by Zahid Jamil July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

So now the religious fanatics in my country can point to the UK for best practice. Best regards, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 213 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my Windows Phone -----Original Message----- From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com> Sent: ‎22/‎07/‎2013 19:44 To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org GNSO list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces This may be of interest to BC members. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

1 0

Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

This may be of interest to BC members. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076 Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Nom-comm 2013 Final report card
by Marilyn Cade July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

I join with all BC officers and member in thanking you both. It is a challenging role, and this period was the higher one in terms of numbers of slots. I also saw from one of your reports that this year's numbers of applicants was very high, (as well as high quality). Having read about 80-90 SOIs when I was on nomcom (yeas ago) I respect that extra workload of an additional +++! Thanks to the BC's two participants in the 2013 NomCom! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: waudo siganga <emailsignet(a)mailcan.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:23:42 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Nom-comm 2013 Final report card Dear BC Colleagues, ICANN Nom-Comm 2013 has over the weekend completed its substantive work in Durban. On behalf of Ron and myself as your 2013 representatives, I would like to thank all of you for your support and input during the year. Attached is the final report card from the committee. Just to remind you that the report card deals only with process dimension of the work. The actual public announcement of the Nom-comm appointees will be done at a later date. The successful candidates will assume their seats at the conclusion of the Buenos Aires meeting. Kind Regards, Waudo Siganga World Information Technology & Services Alliance [1]www.witsa.org References 1. http://www.witsa.org/

1 0

Nom-comm 2013 Final report card
by waudo siganga July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Dear BC Colleagues, ICANN Nom-Comm 2013 has over the weekend completed its substantive work in Durban. On behalf of Ron and myself as your 2013 representatives, I would like to thank all of you for your support and input during the year. Attached is the final report card from the committee. Just to remind you that the report card deals only with process dimension of the work. The actual public announcement of the Nom-comm appointees will be done at a later date. The successful candidates will assume their seats at the conclusion of the Buenos Aires meeting. Kind Regards, Waudo Siganga World Information Technology & Services Alliance [1]www.witsa.org References 1. http://www.witsa.org/

3 2

ICANN Issues "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process -- Status Report" -- Request for BC Response
by Phil Corwin July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

On July 19th, one day after the close of the Durban meeting, ICANN issued the document referenced in the Subject heading at http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13… . In it ICANN stakes out a strong position against placing UDRP providers under contract. That position is contrary to that of the BC, first articulated in 2010, that ICANN should implement "a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities". That position was most recently restated in our comment on the application of ACDR to become an accredited provider -- "the BC continues to urge the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to expeditiously develop improved standards for the approval of UDRP providers, as well as uniform and enforceable standards governing the administration of UDRP cases by providers." http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/pdf7ZdKLP0o82.p… That April 13th BC filing also lays out 7 separate non-exclusive areas that "The uniform and enforceable standards developed for all UDRP service providers should address". Admittedly, the BC position uses the term "standard mechanism" rather than "contract" - but whatever the form of that mechanism, it is certainly more than what ICANN has in place now for its relationship with UDRP providers, which is no document or mechanism at all. I became aware of this through a post at The Domains http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/20/the-ica-forces-icann-to-issue-a-status… . Michael Berkens, who maintains that website, believes that ICANN issued the statement in response to an article I published at the ICA website last week, and follow-up comments I made at the Public Forum, concerning ICANN's revelation that ICANN was reversing its May written statement that it was developing and would place all URS providers under contract - as you heard at the Forum, ICANN staff now maintains that the MOU entered into with NAF and ADNDRC is the contract and that nothing beyond that 2-page document is being developed. As you can see from the comment I posted in response at The Domains, I disagree with that assessment. First of all, the "Status Report" seems like something that would have taken more than a day or two to compose, vet and receive final approval. Also, I take ICANN at its word in the opening paragraph of the Status Report that the document is the culmination of an effort initiated in 2010 to undertake a review of its relationship with UDRP providers. However, assuming that this document has indeed been in the works for the past three years, I believe that the timing of its release raises very serious questions about the process that produced it: * Why was this Status Report released one day after the conclusion of the Durban meeting? If it had been released even one week earlier it could have been the focus of discussion among various constituencies and advisory groups, as well as the GNSO, and could have been addressed at the Public Forum. My own disturbing and reluctantly reached conclusion is that the release was likely delayed until the 19th to prevent any such discussion in Durban. * Why was there no public comment solicited in regard to a draft version of the document, and why has it been released without any solicitation of comment from the community? Further, did the Board ever review this document before it was released ( I know of no Board meeting minutes that in any way reference it). * Why has there been no announcement of the document's release at the News and Press tab of the ICANN website http://www.icann.org/en/news ? ICANN's usual practice in releasing a document that has been in development for three years would be to highlight it with a public announcement. The remarkable heart of this document is a conclusion that contracts between ICANN and UDRP providers are infeasible, not useful, cumbersome, pointless because unlikely to produce any change in the outcome of any aspect of the UDRP process - and would actually make it more difficult for ICANN to take necessary corrective action (although, so far as I know, ICANN has never taken corrective action against any UDRP provider for anything, and the document cites zero examples of such corrective action). I do not agree with those conclusions, and explain why in my comments posted at The Domains. However, I have more than just substantive disagreement -- I am concerned that this document is a preemptive, top-down, staff-authored declaration issued without the benefit of any community feedback or Board consideration that severely prejudices a future community discussion that has yet to be initiated. I refer to the potential review of the UDRP that the GNSO Council determined would be initiated no sooner than 18 months after the first introduction of new gTLDs (in Spring 2015, assuming the first gTLDs launch this fall). Any such future discussion, when it addresses the nature of ICANN's relationship with UDRP providers, will take place under the shadow of what is a clear statement of strong staff opposition to any suggestion of a contractual or similar relationship in regard to "uniform and enforceable standards governing the administration of UDRP cases by providers". While I will not reiterate all my substantive responses to the Status Report (a preliminary version is at The Domains, and I will probably write more on this) I feel that I must bring to the BC's attention a central tenet that I find completely non-credible. Faced with the need to rationalize why placing URS providers under a contract (and Amy Stathos stressed in her oral response to me at the Public Forum that the MOU is a contract, whatever I think about its adequacy) is acceptable, while contemplating a contract with UDRP providers is unacceptable, the Report makes the remarkable assertion that "Unlike the UDRP, the URS is not based on a policy." I find that assertion astounding. For the following reasons: * First, if the URS Right Protection Mechanism is not based upon a Policy that its presence in the Applicant Guidebook (AG) is completely illegitimate and it should be deleted at once. * Second, that assertion is completely contrary to the rationale articulated by the Board Governance Committee on May 16, 2013 when it issued its Recommendation in response to the NCSG's request for reconsideration of the adoption of "Trademark-plus-Fifty". A key finding in that document is: "The staff action to allow trademark holders to include, along with a Clearinghouse record of a verified trademark, up to 50 names that had previously been found to have been abusively registered or used, is implementation of the established ICANN policy found in Recommendation 3, as are the other rights protections mechanisms within the New gTLD Program." (Emphasis added) Well what is the other rights protection mechanism that, in addition to the TMCH, constitutes implementation of the established ICANN policy? - It is of course the URS! So here we have the BGC stating just two months ago that the RPMs in the AG are rooted in policy, yet now ICANN staff asserts that the URS is not based upon a policy! * Finally, if the declaration that the URS is not based upon a policy was somehow meant to assert that an MOU is needed for URS providers because, unlike the UDRP, there is inadequate implementation information in the AG - well that is also inaccurate. If you review the URS portion of Module 5 of the AG http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/urs-04jun12-en.pdf you find a very detailed document of 11 pages length. In fact, the URS section of the AG is much longer, and has much more procedural detail, than the UDRP does http://www.icann.org/en/help/dhttp://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy…<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dhttp:/www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policyn…> . So, if "ICANN has used Memoranda of Understanding to govern the relationship with each of the selected URS providers, in which each of the URS providers agree to implement the URS services in accordance with the procedures laid out in the Applicant Guidebook, as they might be amended from time to time.", why wouldn't some sort of contractual relationship requiring UDRP providers to implement the much less detailed UDRP be appropriate? In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC membership. While I have posted this message on the public BC mail list because I want my own views to be publicly available, I have no objection to taking internal BC discussion of my request to our private mail list. Thank you for your consideration. Best to all, 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

2 1

BC NomCom Election: Nomination period closes tomorrow
by Benedetta Rossi July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please note this is an election reminder for the currently open BC Nominating Committee elections for 2014. The two week nomination period closes tomorrow, Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at Midnight PST. If you would like to submit a nomination for this election please do so by tomorrow, 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

GAC Communiqué Issued at ICANN 47 | ICANN
by Benedetta Rossi July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

> > Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the GAC. communique issued during the Durban meeting. Thank you, Kindest regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat > > GAC Communiqué Issued at ICANN 47 > > 18 July 2013 > > The Governmental Advisory Committee meeting at ICANN 47 in Durban, South Africa has issued its Durban Communique’. It is available for review at > http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/presentation-gac-communique-1….

1 0

Durban meetings: Transcripts for CSG and BC Closed meetings
by Benedetta Rossi July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, As mentioned in my previous email, I will release transcripts from sessions in Durban as they become available. As I normally do I will then work on reports from the sessions and release them to members. All materials (transcripts, reports, presentations and recordings) will then be posted on the BC wiki and website as for all other meetings. Please find attached the following transcripts for your convenience: Sunday, July 14th: 1. Closed CSG Session with Board member Bill Graham 2. Closed CSG Afternoon Session Monday, July 15th: 1. Closed BC Meeting Wednesday, July 17th: 1. BC Closed meeting Again please note I will review all transcripts in depth whilst working on reports prior to posting them on the website (correct names, spelling, etc) but for the moment I thought members would need these recordings asap to consult immediately. Please let me know if you have any questions, 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

Durban transcripts
by Benedetta Rossi July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

Dear BC Members, I just wanted to let you know that I have been following the meetings and events in Durban very closely, and will release transcripts for the Durban meeting sessions as soon as they become available so members may access them asap. If you have any questions please do let me know, 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

GAC Communiqué Issued at ICANN 47 | ICANN
by Phil Corwin July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18jul13-en.htm 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

1 0

Fwd: ICA Statement at Durban Public Forum
by Phil Corwin July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

FYI. 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 Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: July 18, 2013, 4:45:02 PM GMT+02:00 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Subject: ICA Statement at Durban Public Forum http://internetcommerce.org/Durban_Public_Forum ICA on the Record at the Durban Public Forum --Time to “Walk the Walk” on Registrant Rights and Due Process The following consist of a prepared statement delivered by ICA Counsel Philip Corwin at the ICANN Public Forum in Durban today, plus the raw transcript of the subsequent interchange --- Good afternoon. Philip Corwin, Counsel to the Internet Commerce Association. Several weeks ago CEO Chehade stated that domain registrants were ICANN’s primary customer. We welcomed that recognition. Yet while he talked that talk, we have just seen ICANN retreat from walking that walk. I’ll cite two examples. At the Beijing Public Forum we asked if ICANN intended to implement the unanimous STI-RT recommendation that URS providers be placed under standard contract. One month later ICANN answered our question in writing and said “yes”, a contract was under development. But when we asked at yesterday’s URS session about the contract’s status, ICANN staff stated that no contract was contemplated. This breach of a written commitment is unacceptable. Second, in regard to the new RAA contract, we filed comments supporting the NCSG’s position that the Statement of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities should be strengthened. ICANN’s response was to leave the substance unchanged -- but downgrade “rights” to “benefits” in the title. Words do matter. Rights are enshrined in Constitutions and Universal Declarations – Benefits are doled out by social welfare programs. We bring these retreats on registrant due process and substantive rights to the Board’s attention with the aim of working with you and staff to match reality to rhetoric in the days ahead. Thank you very much for your attention. >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MANAGEMENT REPLY? GO AHEAD. >> WE HAVE MOUs, MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH OUR URS PROVIDERS. I'M LOOKING TO THE LEGAL TEAM TO CONFIRM THAT. SO WE DO HAVE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE WITH THE URS PROVIDERS. IN TERMS OF CONTRACTS SO PERHAPS MR. WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THAT. I WASN'T PART OF THOSE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE COMMUNICATIONS AND CLARIFY ANY MISSTATEMENTS. >>PHIL CORWIN: WELL, MAY I RESPOND THAT MY QUESTION IN BEIJING ON THE RECORD WAS QUITE CLEAR IN STATING THAT I DID NOT VIEW ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, THE MOU TO CONSTITUTE AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT AND ASKED IF SOMETHING BIGGER WITH ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS WAS FORTHCOMING. AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT ICANN ANSWERED IN WRITING A MONTH LATER. SO MY QUESTION WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE MOU. AND THE RESPONSE I HAD ASSUMED, TOOK THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTION INTO ACCOUNT. >>STEVE CROCKER: AMY? >>AMY STATHOS: SO PHIL, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. BUT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT AN MOU IS A CONTRACT. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY RECOGNIZE THAT AS THE FULL CONTRACT THAT YOU WERE CONTEMPLATING OR THAT HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATING BUT THAT IS A CONTRACT AND IT CALLS AND REQUIRES THE URS PROVIDERS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT ARE IN THE GUIDEBOOK. SO IN FACT IT DOES ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES AS WELL AS THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE PROCESSING OF THE URS PROCEDURE. >>PHIL CORWIN: FINAL QUICK RESPONSE. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE OTHERS. BUT WHEN YOU ANSWER A QUESTION THAT A CONTRACT IS BEING DEVELOPED, WHEN THE MOU EXISTED BEFORE MY QUESTION WAS RAISED IN BEIJING, I DON'T SEE HOW SOMETHING COULD HAVE BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT PRE-EXISTED THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE.] >>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: ICANN "Misspoke" about URS Contracts
by Phil Corwin July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

FYI--I thought BC members would want to know that ICANN's written commitment to enter into contracts with URS providers is something they now appear to have no intention of carrying out. I believe this creates serious policy and credibility issues. http://internetcommerce.org/URS_Truth_Breach 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

2 2

Agenda for today's Public Forum
by Steve DelBianco July 18, 2013

July 18, 2013

Public Forum Topics: ISSUE SUBJECT: new gTLD status Time – 1-hour (1405-1505) Board Facilitator – Cherine Chalaby (Break and Presentation about ICANN48 Buenos Aires Meeting) Any subjects of community Interest (PART-1) Time – 70 minutes (1535-1645) Subjects may include, but will not necessarily be limited to: Next Generation Directory Services ICANN Strategy Panels FY2014 Budget Internet governance Board Facilitator – Steve Crocker Any subjects of community Interest (PART-2) Time – 70 minutes (1645-1800) Subject may include, but will not necessarily be limited to: Next Generation Directory Services ICANN Strategy Panels FY2014 Budget Internet governance Board Facilitator – Chris Disspain

1 0

BC Intervention at SSR session in Durban
by Steve DelBianco July 17, 2013

July 17, 2013

There was an update session on Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) this morning, where InterIsle presented some of the results of their study of name collisions. Session page here<http://durban47.icann.org/node/39759> and here are the presentations: Certificates, Revocation and the new gTLD's Oh My!<http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/presentation-certificates-rev…> Name Collision in the DNS | Interisle Study Update<http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/presentation-dns-name-collisi…> Here's the digicert letter advocating that .corp not be delegated: https://www.cabforum.org/ICANN-Letter-Final.pdf For the BC, I made this intervention: This session was a remarkable improvement on the SSR session in Beijing. We’ve moved from Denial and Defensiveness, to Data and Discovery. Now its time for discussion and debate. Asked Jeff Moss what he’ll now tell his CEO to say as he travels the world. Fadi been saying there are no significant SSR issues. Is that still the message after seeing this data? Moss said the company line is that ICANN will not do anything to undermine SSR. If there’s a showstopper… Deadlines can be moved… I said the data indicates it’s more fine-grained than that. Maybe you don’t have to “stop the show”, but rather keep some actors off the stage until they get their issues resolved. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

ICANN Mission Creep is Becoming Mission Leap
by Steve DelBianco July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Just put this up at CircleID. http://www.circleid.com -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Reminder: Drinks with NCSG tonight
by Benedetta Rossi July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Dear BC Members, Just a quick announcement to remind BC members that they are invited to the drinks taking place with the NCSG tonight at 6:30 pm at the Hilton Hotel in the Rivets bar. 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

Street Artist impression of ICANN Durban meeting.
by Chris Chaplow July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Sent from my iPad

1 0

FW: First Durban Webpost
by Phil Corwin July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

FYI http://internetcommerce.org/Durban_Dialogue 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: New ICA Webpost on Five New ICANN Strategy Panels
by Phil Corwin July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Post attached (having trouble pasting into e-mails)... http://internetcommerce.org/Five_Strategy_Panels 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review
by Benedetta Rossi July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN Annnouncement regarding a potential postponement of the GNSO Review. 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 http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15jul13-en.htm Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 15 July 2013 Comment Close Date: 8 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 9 August 2013 Reply Close Date: 29 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15jul13-en.htm> Public Comment Announcement <mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/> View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) Categories/Tags: * GNSO * ICANN Board/Bylaws * Organizational Reviews * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4, be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation. Current Status: Questions to the ICANN Community Next Steps: Public comments are requested to inform Board Structural Improvements Committee action. Staff Contact: Alice Jansen <mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Poten tial%20Postponement%20of%20the%20GNSO%20Review%20public%20comment%20period> Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The GNSO review is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4. The SIC is considering this recommendation because there are two substantial, relevant activities that have commenced. They are the second Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/2> Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT2) and ICANN's <http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement> Strategic Planning Process. The ATRT2 will include an assessment of the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross-community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. The Strategic Planning Process includes consideration of attributes and characteristics of ICANN's community structures and processes, engagement of end-users, and other issues. Both of these activities will require dedicated participation by the GNSO, and may have implications for the GNSO review. The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation. The SIC is most appreciative of any comments from the ICANN Community but is particularly interested in comments that are in response to the following question: Are there other factors that the SIC should consider with regard to this recommendation? Section II: Background: ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4 call for the Board to cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The first GNSO review was launched in 2006. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * ICANN Organizational Reviews <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews> * ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws> 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 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Remote participation for upcoming CSG session with the Board
by Benedetta Rossi July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please note that remote participation for the CSG/ICANN Board meeting is available here: http://durban47.icann.org/node/39703 There are no dial in numbers available, but you may either follow the live scribe or join the virtual room on the link above to follow the audio. 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

Re: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com July 16, 2013

July 16, 2013

I am also not an IP lawyer. I never considered that CSG demands were providing any extra rights to TM holders - just improved mechanisms to prevent/enforce against infringement and malicious behaviour. Concerns were raised but most were ill-informed. I think this all centres on balance within the multi-stakeholder model and constituencies should be concerned about unforeseen consequences, should the Board accept this specific advise. DotBrand applicants, amongst others, are concerned with the ongoing security and stability of the Internet, and they are intent on providing extremely controlled and safe environments for Internet users, as well as introducing innovation to the digital economy. I believe this aligns extremely well with BC values and so I support J Scott's approach. Martin Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF" [jb7454(a)att.com] Sent: 15/07/2013 20:14 GMT To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>; "'J. Scott Evans'" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; "sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing I am not an IP lawyer, but are there middle-ground options for ICANN to implement some type of protection short of a complete block? After all, concerns were raised that the CSG was seeking TM protections that went beyond the law too. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:07 PM To: 'J. Scott Evans'; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing I am in complete agreement on this. 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 J. Scott Evans Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:50 AM To: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Here is a bit more about my reasoning: Geographic regions do not have global protection. Some jurisdictions provide geographic indication protections – but that is done legislatively, be it nationally or through treaties - not de facto. And it is a highly contentious process. What the GAC is asking is that ICANN propel geographic terms – and not just country names are recognized, but any term a particular jurisdiction decides is regionally sensitive – to a level of legislatively or treaty-based recognition. National and international law does not provide for this. While it is not technically “law,” it is having that impact through ICANN processes. I think it is important for the BC to keep GAC rights to advice out of this equation. We are talking about ICANN Board adopting advice that gives extra-national rights. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad ________________________________ From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>>; Subject: [bc-gnso] Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 10:31:30 AM BC Members: I updated our matrix of GAC's Beijing Advice to reflect 2-July resolutions of the Board New GTLD Program Committee (NGPC) Headlines: Category 1 strings are on hold, pending dialogue with GAC in Durban. International government organizations (IGO) get temporary 2nd level protection — to be resolved later this year. But if NGPC and GAC do not reach agreement on implementation issues by the first meeting after Durban, registry operators are required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" Annex 1 For reference: The GAC Beijing Advice is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf%20>. BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advi…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 2-Jul resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13…>. -- Steve ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

Updated ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing
by Steve DelBianco July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

BC Members: I updated our matrix of GAC's Beijing Advice to reflect 2-July resolutions of the Board New GTLD Program Committee (NGPC) Headlines: Category 1 strings are on hold, pending dialogue with GAC in Durban. International government organizations (IGO) get temporary 2nd level protection — to be resolved later this year. But if NGPC and GAC do not reach agreement on implementation issues by the first meeting after Durban, registry operators are required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" Annex 1 For reference: The GAC Beijing Advice is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf>. BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advi…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13…>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 2-Jul resolution is <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13…> here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13…>. -- Steve

4 3

Location Business Reception today in Durban
by Benedetta Rossi July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

Dear BC members, Please note that the business reception taking place today in Durban from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm organized by Chris Mondini will take place at the Hilton in the Hilton Ballroom. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta Rossi Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Reminder: Nominations open for NomCom Election
by Benedetta Rossi July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is a reminder concerning the BC NomCom Delegate Elections for 2014. Please note that the nomination period is currently open and will close on Monday, 22nd of July, 2013 at COB Pacific time. Please find the election procedure attached for your convenience. Please note that as per the BC Charter Section 5.1, each BC Member may submit one nomination for one seat. Thank you ever so much, -- 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

2 1

ICANN says Article 29 letter does not give EU registrars privacy opt-out | DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion
by Phil Corwin July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

http://domainincite.com/13724-icann-says-article-29-letter-does-not-give-eu… 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

1 0

Washington Post: Web industry officials balk at domain expansion plan
by Phil Corwin July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/web-industry-officials-ba… Web industry officials balk at domain expansion plan By Craig Timberg<http://www.washingtonpost.com/craig-timberg/2011/05/17/AFM2rbAH_page.html>, Published: July 14 A plan to dramatically expand the number of possible Web addresses<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/donuts-incs-major-play-fo…> — by adding more than 1,000 new domains such as “.buy,” “.casino” and “.gay” — could cause widespread disruption to Internet operations, say some industry officials. Efforts to augment existing domains such as “.com” and “.gov” have been underway for several years and are entering a critical new phase as industry officials meet at an international conference that began Sunday in Durban, South Africa. By summer’s end, the new domains could be going live at a pace of 20 or more each week. The plan has touched off a scramble among investors eager to gain control of the virgin Internet real estate, potentially worth billions of dollars in annual licensing fees. But a vocal group of critics is calling the speed and scale of the expansion reckless, given its possible impact on the Internet’s global infrastructure, which relies on interactions among computer networks owned by companies, universities and individual users. Particularly troubling is the possibility of widespread “name collisions” that could happen when domains used by internal corporate computer systems — such as “.corp” or “.home” — get assigned to the Web more broadly. This could cause systems to fail, blocking access to e-mail or other internal programs, and also could open sensitive information to theft, some experts say. “This could affect a million enterprises,” said Danny McPherson, chief security officer for Verisign, which is based in Reston and manages several of the most popular existing domains. “It could absolutely break things.” McPherson and other security experts say the nonprofit group that oversees the designation of Web addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (usually known by its acronym, ICANN<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/icann-set-to-release-list…>), has not done enough study on the impact of the new domain names and does not have procedures in place to respond quickly if systems malfunction. Among those posing risk could be domains such as “.med” or “.center” that might be critical to the functioning of medical systems or emergency-response networks. Similar concerns have been expressed by the Association of National Advertisers, which represents hundreds of major companies, and the Internet commerce site PayPal, which issued a letter in March saying, “The potential for malicious abuse is extraordinary, [and] the incidental damage will be large even in the absence of malicious intent.” Defenders of the plan have called such fears overblown, arguing that the potential problems have been long understood and will be resolved before new domains are approved. Because the new domains will be released gradually, over the course of months, there will be time to manage problems as they arise, said Jeffrey Moss, chief security officer for ICANN. “It’s not like it’s a runaway train without recourse,” Moss said. “We’re not going to do anything that harms the security or stability of the Internet.” U.S. officials<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR201102280…> who oversee Web security issues through the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration expressed confidence in the management of the domain program, issuing a statement saying, “We would expect these issues to be discussed and resolved within the ICANN multistakeholder process.” Whoever wins control of the new domains will be allowed to sell licensing rights for the resulting new Web addresses, typically for annual fees, with a portion going to fund ICANN, which is based in Southern California. Just bidding for a domain costs $185,000. Donuts Inc.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/donuts-inc-and-its-domain-duel/2012/…>, an investment group that made the largest number of bids, with 307, said Verisign’s criticism of the process for launching the new domains was a result of self-interest. The company controls the popular “.com” and “.net” domains — giving it a degree of market power that could be diluted if new ones gain widespread acceptance. “ICANN was created in large part to break Verisign’s monopoly over domain names,” Donuts spokesman Mason Cole said in a statement. “Now that the organization is on the verge of achieving that goal, it’s not surprising that Verisign is uncomfortable.” Verisign officials say they support the program for adding new domains but believe the rollout should proceed more cautiously than currently planned. The stakes are high in an era when a large and growing share of the world’s economic activity happens over the Internet. Even traditional brick-and-mortar businesses use online systems to communicate, manage inventories and interact with customers. Many also count on the security of networked computer systems to protect lucrative intellectual property and other valuable strategic information. Moss, the ICANN security chief, acknowledged that some internal corporate systems will malfunction as new domains are created, and he said it would be the responsibility of company officials to resolve these problems. “We want everything to work, and we’re going to try to make everything work, but we can’t control everybody’s networks on the planet,” he said. Moss said the number of domains likely to cause problems is a “really, really small number.” But critics have said it is irresponsible for ICANN to approve new domains before it knows the extent of the problems they would create and has plans in place to fix them. The cost of repairing systems — or the loss of security — would be borne by private companies that in most cases have little to gain from the hundreds of new Internet domains. In addition to expressing such security concerns, corporate leaders have been complaining that the sheer number of new domains will cause a sharp rise in fraud and abuse as criminals buy up Web addresses intended to deceive consumers. Already, many companies are attempting to defend against this by acquiring many different Web addresses that include their corporate names. But that will become far more difficult, they say, with hundreds of new domains, including “.corp,” “.inc” and “.sucks.” “If everything ran perfectly, this would extraordinarily transform the Internet,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “There is every reason to believe that, as of now, there could be serious problems.” Sign up today to receive #thecircuit, a daily roundup of the latest tech policy news from Washington and how it is shaping business, entertainment and science. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

by Benedetta Rossi July 15, 2013

July 15, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the slides that Michelle Chaplow presented in yesterday's CSG session on behalf of the MSWG. 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

prior BC position on geo names at second level
by Steve DelBianco July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

During today's closed CSG meeting, we discussed whether to object to GAC's Advice against .amazon and .patagonia, and the potential for precedent in GAC obtaining new IP rights, particularly at the second level. I researched prior BC statements on geo names. In Mar-2013 we advocated against strict second-level restrictions for single-registrant TLDs, as part of our Registry Agreement comments, building on comments we made in 2011. (link here<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> and excerpt below). : Specification 5: Reserving Country and Territory Names at the Second Level The BC continues believes that the proposed new gTLD Registry Agreement should include an exception or a centralized mechanism for single-registrant TLDs to request release of reserved country and territory names. Specification 5 of the proposed registry Agreement continues to require default reservation of country and territory names, only to be released by express agreement of each applicable government: The country and territory names contained in the following internationally recognized lists shall be initially reserved at the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations … provided, that the reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), provided, further, that Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN. In the BC’s May-2011 comments, we proposed that single-registrant TLDs be exempt from the requirement to obtain express authorization from governments for each country and territory name. Single-registrant TLDs will reasonably want to create second level domains for their operatingunits or chapters in each country or region. (e.g., Canada.Canon or Haiti.RedCross). Now that there are several hundred single-registrant TLDs in this new gTLD round, the BC reiterates our request for an exception that allows single-registrant TLDs to register domains for their markets and operations based in countries and territories. (e.g. Canada.canon; Haiti.redcross, etc.) If not an exception for single-registrant TLDs, ICANN should propose a centralized mechanism where single- registrant TLDs can request authorization from all governments in a consolidated request. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Relevant to FY14 Budget Discussion
by Chris Chaplow July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

Dear Members, Relevant to the current Budget Discussion please find attached a copy of the xls with the FY14 Draft Budget comment summary provided last week which is in the format of 86 Q&A Also note on the Adendum 2 tab on the spreadsheet is an updates staff headcount by dept. Below are a some selected questions and answers of particular interest to BC/CSG. Compliance Q63. Summing 11 programs from ATASK that make up Compliance we deduce that the budget for FY14 is 3.6m$. FY13 actual are not reported in sections. FY13 Budget was 4.8m$ and FY12 Forecast was 3.8m$. Q Why has compliance dropped to budget levels of two years ago? Q As this is a project of significant interest to BC, where is the budget update on the New Compliance ticket and CRM system outlined on page 54 of FY13 Budget in the ATASK? A. ICANN continues its commitment to "strengthen the Contractual Compliance Function and its operations; and to establish clear performance measures and improve communication and reporting to the community." The apparent decrease in Compliance is due to a change in reporting methodology. The FY14 draft budget of $3.6M is based on functional area activities (in this case, the Compliance department) whereas FY13 and FY12 were based on organizational activities (compliance activities across all departments). In FY14, the Compliance department is budgeted to increase spend by 19% over FY13 and 98% over FY12. The FY14 budget for the New Compliance ticket and CRM system is $200K and is included in the capital budget which is not currently in AtTask. Outreach Q64. Summing 11 programs from ATASK that make up Outreach, we deduce that the budget for FY14 is 11.0 m$. This is a significant percentage of the annual budget. One programme alone, Implement Regional Strategies to Engage Stakeholders Regionally, is 5.5m$. Q Is there any intention to break this down further? A. We understand the need for increased transparency and visibility into ICANNs workload and progress. Due to the ongoing work to develop consistency and uniformity to the AtTask system, we have provided program level data for the FY14 Draft Budget. As ICANN's proficiency in AtTask matures and project planning becomes more fully developed, ICANN will provide more detailed information. Security Stability and Resiliency Q65. This appears to have dropped from 9.1m$ in FY13 to 2.7m$ in FY14. We support and note that SSR review team recommendations endorsed by the recent public comment should be reflected as priorities in the FY14 and future budgets, as applicable. Q We find that on first review, there were financial implications to many of the recommendations. Have these been incorporated? A. The apparent decrease is due to a change in reporting methodology. The FY14 draft budget is based on functional area activities whereas FY13 and FY12 were based on organizational activities. In FY14, the Security department is budgeted to increase spend by 47% over FY13 and 68% over FY12. 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.

1 0

Complete Gala information for Durban
by Benedetta Rossi July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find the complete Gala information here: : <http://durban47.icann.org/node/39813> http://durban47.icann.org/node/39813 Note that the invitations can be collected as indicated in the link, but tickets are not compulsory either for the shuttle buses or for entrance. Everyone is welcome to attend the gala, and there is enough space for all attendees. Great news for members in Durban! 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

Transcript from GAC meeting with New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)
by Steve DelBianco July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

Here's the transcript from GAC – NGPC interaction on Sunday in Durban. Headline: A congenial exchange and commitment to work together on Safeguards and IGO protections The Board sent a letter to GAC last week summarizing progress on GAC Advice (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-03jul13-en.pdf>) At today's session the NGPC distributed a list of questions and clarifications requested. It's not online yet but I will watch for it >>Chris Disspain: THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THEY HAVE AROUND IMPLEMENTATION. AND SO THEY ARE HERE TODAY TO WALK US THROUGH THOSE THINGS AND TO INVITE SOME INITIAL COMMENTS FROM GAC COLLEAGUES. AND HOPEFULLY, THIS WAY WE CAN COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE OR AT LEAST, IF NECESSARY, WHERE THERE'S DISAGREEMENT ABOUT WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE. AND THEN THIS CAN LEAD US, HOPEFULLY, TO SOME SORT OF SOLUTION. SO WITHOUT HESITATING FURTHER, I'LL TURN OVER TO MY CO-CHAIR, CHERINE CHALABY, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE TO SAY A FEW THINGS, AND THEN WE CAN BEGIN TO MOVE THROUGH OUR AGENDA. SO, PLEASE, CHERINE. >>CHERINE CHALABY: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. AND THANK YOU, HEATHER, FOR THIS INTRODUCTION. INDEED, THE TWO TOPICS ARE THE CATEGORY 1 SAFEGUARDS AND THE IGO PROTECTION. JUST TO MAKE A COUPLE OF REMARKS BEFORE WE START; THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE TODAY -- THIS IS THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE -- WITH AN OBJECTIVE TO MAKE DECISIONS. WE'RE HERE TO START A DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC TO REALLY UNDERSTAND SOME ELEMENTS AND GET CLARIFICATION ON SOME ELEMENTS OF YOUR ADVICE. WE'RE NOT HERE TO DRAG THE GAC INTO IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND GET DOWN INTO THE WEEDS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO PLEASE REST ASSURED THAT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF A DIALOGUE WITH YOU. WE HAVE BEGAN THE DIALOGUE ON IGOs, SO TODAY IS A CONTINUATION OF THIS DIALOGUE. BUT WITH REGARDS TO THE CATEGORY 1, THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST MEETING WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, HOPEFULLY, A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION. WE DID SEND YOU A DOCUMENT ON CATEGORY 1, WHICH YOU HAVE ALL RECEIVED A FEW DAYS AGO. I KNOW WE ALL PREFER TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS WITH PLENTY OF NOTICE AND TIME SO THAT WE STUDY IT, BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU THAT THIS IS A CONTINUUM OF WORK, AND THAT WE, THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE, HAS RECEIVED IT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GAC HAS RECEIVED IT. SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE AN APOLOGY FOR THAT BUT WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD BUT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE DOCUMENT THAT THIS IS THE DECISION WE WANT TO MAKE. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF A DIALOGUE. IN TERMS OF THE TONE OF THE MEETING, I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE TONE. WE WILL THINK STRAIGHT AND TALK STRAIGHT BECAUSE WE OWE YOU THAT, BUT IT WILL BE IN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER. AND I HOPE YOU WOULD APPRECIATE OUR STRAIGHT TALKING. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, CHRIS WILL SHEPHERD THE DISCUSSION, BUT I'M SURE THAT, ALSO, MY OTHER COLLEAGUES WILL CHIME IN WHEN NECESSARY. WITH THAT, I HAND BACK TO YOU, HEATHER, TO START THE CONVERSATION ON CATEGORY 1. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHERINE. SO CHRIS DISSPAIN FROM THE COMMITTEE, LOOKING AT THE NEW gTLD ISSUES, IS THE LEAD ON LOOKING AT THE SAFEGUARDS. AND SO I WILL HAND OVER TO CHRIS TO WALK US THROUGH THAT ISSUE, OR THE IGO PROTECTION ISSUE, AS YOU CHOOSE. THANK YOU. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANKS, HEATHER. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE CATEGORY 1 SAFEGUARD ADVICE. WE'VE JUST GOT A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE USEFUL AS A SORT OF LEVEL SET. SO IF I CAN HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU.SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, BEFORE THE APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK WAS APPROVED, THE GAC ADVISED THE BOARD TO EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF COMMUNITY-BASED STRINGS TO INCLUDE THOSE REFERRING TO REGULATED SECTORS OR TARGETED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND SO ON, AND WE ACTUALLY REJECTED THAT ADVICE. AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION AROUND THE SCORECARD, YOU'LL REMEMBER, IN BRUSSELS. AND THEN WE COLLABORATED WITH YOU TO DEVELOP THE EARLY WARNING AND ADVICE MECHANISMS TO HELP ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN THE ADVICE THAT WE REJECTED. SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HERE BEFORE, TO SOME EXTENT, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS. THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE CURRENT ADVICE THAT WE SEE -- AND THESE ARE -- THESE ARE BULLET POINTS EXTRACTED FROM THE PAPER THAT YOU ALL GOT A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. THE DIFFICULTIES WE SEE AT THE MOMENT ARE THAT THE CATEGORIES OF STRINGS ARE BROAD AND UNDEFINED. THERE'S NO PRINCIPLED BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING CERTAIN CATEGORIES AND STRINGS. GENERIC TERMS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRIES. SOME STRINGS HAVE SEGMENTS THAT ARE BOTH LICENSED AND UNLICENSED. IT'S DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE RELEVANT REGULATORY AGENCIES AND SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS. SOME STRIPPINGS BE REFER TO INDUSTRIES THAT MAY BE SENSITIVE OR REGULATED IN A SINGLE OR A FEW JURISDICTIONS ONLY. THE SAFEGUARD ADVICE ITEMS THREE TO EIGHT CREATE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE VAGUE AND UNIMPLEMENTABLE. AND THESE ARE THE OUTCOMES THAT WE SOUGHT TO AVOID WHEN WE REJECTED THE ADVICE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND ASKED THAT -- AND WE AGREED TO PUT IN PLACE THE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM SO THAT GOVERNMENTS COULD DEAL DIRECTLY WITH APPLICANTS IF THEY HAD ISSUES WITH THE -- IF THEY HAD ISSUES WITH THE STRING. NOW, HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, THERE IS MUCH MORE DETAIL ON THAT IN OUR PAPER. BUT HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT , WE'RE NOT REJECTING THE ADVICE AT THIS STAGE AND CHERINE HAS SAID THIS. THIS IS US COMING TO YOU AND SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS. WE ARE NOT REJECTING THE ADVICE. WE WANT TO BEGIN A DIALOGUE. AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DID IS, BY WHATEVER PROCESS WE CAN AGREE, AND IT'S CLEARLY NOT GOING TO BE THIS MORNING AND IT'S CLEARLY NOT GOING TO BE SIMPLY A CASE OF EVERY TIME WE GET TOGETHER AT AN ICANN MEETING OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WE'LL CHIP AWAY AT THIS AND SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT, BUT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH YOU ON WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN TAKE YOUR CURRENT ADVICE AND DEFINE THE SCOPE AND DEPTH OF IT SO IT CAN BECOME ADVICE THAT IS IMPLEMENTABLE BY US BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T THINK IT IS INTEMENTABLE. SO I KNOW WE ARE IN UNCHARTED WATERS HERE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GENERALLY HAPPENS IN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE BOARD. NORMALLY WE DISCUSS A BIT, ADVICE COMES AND SO ON. BUT THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES. WE HAVE NEW gTLDs ARRIVING. AND WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO BREAK SOME NEW GROUND HERE AND SEE IF WE CAN'T FIND A WAY, OF THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, OF HAVING THE GAC AND THE NGPC AND THE COMMUNITY, IN FACT, DISCUSS WAYS OF TAKING YOUR EXISTING -- WHAT WE'VE CALLED CATEGORY 1 ADVICE AND MAKING IT WORK. HEATHER, I'LL STOP THERE AND WE'LL TAKE -- IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, TAKE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, AND I'LL TRY TO ANSWER AS MANY AS I CAN. AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE IGOs AS A SEPARATE ISSUE. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS. SO DO GAC COLLEAGUES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS FOR THE BOARD AT THIS POINT REGARDING THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED WITH CATEGORY 1? OKAY. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY SHORT MEETING. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. IT COULD BE A VERY SHORT MEETING. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. SO IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE, CHRIS. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: OKAY. MAYBE I CAN JUST PUT -- MAYBE I CAN JUST PUSH SLIGHTLY HARDER IN THE AREA OF MOVING FORWARD, THEN. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN; RIGHT? YOU COULD COME BACK TO US AT THE END OF THIS MEETING AND SIMPLY MAKE A STATEMENT THAT SAYS: OUR ADVICE IS OUR ADVICE. AND THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO. WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU -- AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU INTERSESSIONALLY -- SORRY, AT THIS MEETING BUT NOT IN THIS ROOM, IF YOU WANT TO COME AND TALK ABOUT IDEAS OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. BUT IT WOULD BE REALLY FANTASTIC IF YOU COULD, BY WHATEVER MEANS YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, FIND A WAY WITH US OF HOW WE WOULD MOVE THIS FORWARD. SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU, AS I SAID, TO DO IT NOW, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN. THANK YOU, HEATHER. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CHRIS. AUSTRALIA, PLEASE. >>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANKS TO THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE. FIRST, JUST TO ECHO HEATHER'S COMMENTS THAT WE DO APPRECIATE THE SPEED AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN GOING INTO THIS, AND IT'S VERY USEFUL, THE UPDATES THAT HAVE BEEN COMING OUR WAY AND RESPONSES. AND THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON THIS. IT REALLY IS APPRECIATED. IN TERMS OF TAKING THIS FORWARD, I TAKE THE POINT THAT PERHAPS WE ARE IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY, SO IT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. BUT I THINK FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WE RECEIVED THESE QUESTIONS QUITE RECENTLY, SO WE TRIED TO HAVE A LOOK AT THEM AND TRIED TO SORT OF UNDERSTAND WHERE THE gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE IS COMING FROM AND CERTAINLY IN SOME AREAS I CAN SEE THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE BETTER EXPLAINED, AND SO ON. I'M WONDERING, IN TERMS OF A NEXT STEP, WHETHER THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE HAS CONSIDERED COMING BACK TO THE GAC WITH SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF -- OBVIOUSLY A FAIR BIT OF THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO HOW THINGS CAN OR CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY AN AREA WHERE THERE IS GREATER EXPERTISE ON THE ICANN SAID, POTENTIALLY, THAN THE GAC SIDE. WHETHER YOU'VE GIVEN CONSIDERATION OF COMING BACK TO THE GAC SAYING, "HERE IS WHAT WE THINK YOU'RE AFTER AND HERE IS HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT IT," AND THEN ASKING A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO THE GAC. I'M VERY MINDFUL THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE POSITION OF COMING BACK SAYING, "IS THIS WHAT YOU MEANT?" AND WE SAY NO, AND THEN YOU COME BACK AGAIN AND WE SAY CLOSER, BUT NOT QUITE THERE. SO SOME MECHANISM WHICH MOVES THIS PROCESS ALONG. SO WHETHER IT'S A FIRST TRY BY FROM THE ICANN SIDE WITH A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, VERY SORT OF TARGETED QUESTIONS OR REASONS WHY YOU'VE GONE DOWN A CERTAIN PATH AND EXPLAIN TO US, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I THINK FROM THE GAC SIDE IT MIGHT BE KIND OF TRICKY TO, UNLESS WE FIND OUT A DIFFERENT STRUCTURED PATH I GUESS. BUT THAT'S MY FIRST SUGGESTION. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, AUSTRALIA. DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND OR SHALL I GO -- >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: JUST BRIEFLY. THANK YOU, PETER. I -- SO OUR PAPER IS A STARTING POINT ON THAT. I GUESS WE -- I GUESS OUR APPROACH TODAY IS TO TRY AND GET FROM YOU, NOT NECESSARILY TODAY BUT AT THIS MEETING, SORT OF A CONFIRMATION THAT IF WE DO START WORKING ON THE ADVICE AND, YOU KNOW, PARSING IT DOWN INTO SECTIONS AND SAYING WE CAN DO THIS BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT, "A," WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO DO THAT WITH YOU RATHER THAN WITHOUT YOU, AND "B" WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT IS FINE AND THEN NOT HAVE YOU SAY BUT OUR ADVICE IS OUR ADVICE. SO WE WOULD LIKE AN OPENING FROM YOU, IF YOU LIKE, THAT SAYS, OKAY, LET'S DO THIS. WHETHER WE END UP DOING IT TOGETHER IN A ROOM OR WE END UP DOING IT ITERATIVELY SEPARATELY, I DON'T MIND MUCH NOW. BUT I DO WANT TO GET CLEAR THAT IF YOUR POSITION WERE TO BE "OUR ADVICE IS OUR ADVICE," THAT'S FINE BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT BEFORE WE MOVE DOWN THE NEXT STEP. SO IF IT'S NOT THE CASE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO AGREE THAT WE CAN -- I MEAN, NEGOTIATE -- I UNDERSTAND THE WORD NEGOTIATE IS LOADED, SO LET'S NOT USE THAT. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IF WE CAN AGREE THAT, THEN WE CAN START WORKING ON ALL SORTS OF POSSIBLE WAYS OF ACTUALLY -- OF ACTUALLY ACHIEVING IT. JUST ONE MORE THING, JUST TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. WITHOUT GIVING YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT I KNOW YOU KNOW WHAT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES ARE, THERE ARE STRINGS THAT, IN YOUR CATEGORIES, THAT IS IT IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN SET OF REGISTRANTS. AND FOR MOST OF THOSE, LEAVING ASIDE HOW YOU CREATE THE PROTECTIONS, THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THEM IS NOT A PROBLEM. BUT EQUALLY, THERE ARE STRINGS WHERE WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE NO CLUE WHY THIS WOULD BE HERE AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THAT'S THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION WE NEED TO BE HAVING, I THINK. AND HOW WE DO THAT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT. THANKS. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. I HAVE IRAN NEXT, PLEASE. >>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND GOOD MORNING TO THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE. LET ME START TAKING THE LAST PART OF THE INTERVENTIONS THAT CHRIS MADE AND REPEAT IT AT LEAST THREE TIMES, SAYING THAT IF YOU COME TO US, THAT MEANS WE, GAC, SAYING ADVICE IS ADVICE, I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOOD APPROACH. IT IS NOT A LOGICAL APPROACH THAT WE NEED TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE AND RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS OR TO THE OBSERVATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE. SO NOW I COME TO THE BEGINNING OF WHAT. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE THOROUGH AND DEEP ANALYSIS THAT YOU HAVE MADE EVEN WITH THE SHORT TIME AVAILABLE TO YOU. IT'S MUCH APPRECIATED. THE DIFFICULTY THAT PERHAPS WE MAY HAVE NOW IS THE LITTLE TIME AVAILABLE TO US, AND PERHAPS THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE RAISED YOUR QUESTIONS. AFTER THIS DIALOGUE THAT YOU HAVE WITH US, PERHAPS YOU MAY NEED TO POSSIBLY, ONE, NARROW DOWN THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM NECESSARY. AND, SECOND, PERHAPS AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, YOU REFORMULATE YOUR QUESTIONS. YOU GAVE A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE THINGS. IT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED, WHICH WAS NOT IN THE MAIN QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED, BUT WE NEED TO REALLY ENGAGE IN THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY EXPECT FROM THE BOARD, AND THAT IS GOOD. YOU GO TO THE NARROW AND YOU GO DEEP AND IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND IT DOES NOT TAKE THE ADVICE AS IT IS. IT TAKES THE ADVICE AS IT SHOULD BE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE WILL BE LISTENING TO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR FURTHER CLARIFICATION THAT YOU SEEK FROM US, AND PERHAPS WE COME BACK AT ANOTHER STEPS TO FURTHER DISCUSS WITH YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN. OKAY. I SEE GERMANY AND ITALY. >>GERMANY: YES. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND FOR THE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED. I THINK IT WAS QUITE HARD, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION. IN RESPECT OF CHRIS'S REMARK WHERE HE SAID THAT WE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT, LET'S SAY, DEPTH OF REGULATION IN CERTAIN -- FOR CERTAIN STRINGS, THIS IS TRUE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK WE NEED ALWAYS TO BE AWARE THAT WE ARE ACTING IN A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT. THAT MEANS WE MAY HAVE SOME FORMS OF REGULATIONS IN SOME COUNTRIES, WHERE IN OTHER COUNTRIES THERE IS NO REGULATION. AND SO FAR, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE WHETHER ONE STRING IS A STRING THAT NEEDS REALLY, LET'S SAY, A HIGH-LEVEL REGULATION OR A HIGH-LEVEL DETAILED SAFEGUARDS OR ANOTHER DOES NOT. AND SO FAR, I THINK IT IS REALLY -- SHOULD BE LEFT TO ICANN AND THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY TRIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, LET'S SAY, THE SENSE OF OUR ADVICE, AND THEN THEY NEED TO INTRODUCE SOME STEPS. AND THAT WOULD BE, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE ADEQUATE ANSWER FOR -- FOR A STEP FORWARD. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY. NEXT I HAVE ITALY. PLEASE. >>ITALY: OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIR. WE RECOGNIZE THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE. IF I COUNTED RIGHTLY, YOU HAD SEVEN MEETINGS, AND MEETINGS WITH THE BOARD CONCERNING THE ADVICE THAT WAS GIVEN IN BEIJING. AND THE ONLY CRITICISM THAT WE MADE IN SOME MEETINGS, AND ALSO I CONVEYED IT TO FADI IN BRUSSELS ON JUNE 25 WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING THERE, IS THAT YOU LEFT THE MORE CRITICAL POINTS, THE MORE DIFFICULT, LET'S SAY, AT THE VERY END. AND THEN YOU HAD THIS FINAL MEETING ON JUNE 2nd -- ON JULY 2nd. SO BUT LET ME MAKE THIS CONSIDERATION. GOING TO THE END OF THE PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO SIGN CONTRACTS WITH THE APPLICANTS. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE SAFEGUARDS, IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE WHAT WILL BE THE, FOR SPECIFIC STRINGS, THE CLOSEST AND THE ADDITION TO THE STANDARD CONTRACT, LET'S SAY, WITH THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE FROM THIS IS ALSO DEPENDING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SAFEGUARD THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. SO THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM YOUR SIDE YOU CAN HAVE PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING THIS ADVICE, AND TO DECIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE THE MORE CRITICAL APPLICATIONS REFERRING TO THIS CATEGORY. AND SO IF YOU WILL END UP WITH A SPECIFIC CLOSEST FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATION IN THE SAME CATEGORY. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY. BUT AS ALSO PETER FROM AUSTRALIA SAID, IN THE END, YOU SHOULD COME WITH US, TRYING TO IMPLEMENT. BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT YOU WELL UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF THIS ANNEX 1. BUT YOU SHOULD COME WITH US BY SAYING, "WE HAVE AN IDEA TO TRY AND TO IMPLEMENT WHAT YOU ASK FOR IN SUCH A WAY," BECAUSE OF COURSE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO AVOID IS THAT YOU DO AN IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN YOU ARE CRITICIZED BY THE GAC OR THE GAC IS MAKING PROBLEMS. BUT IN ANY CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORE PROACTIVE HYPOTHESES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, ITALY. NEXT I HAVE SWITZERLAND. >>SWITZERLAND: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK AND FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC. AND AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM IRAN HAS ALREADY SAID, I THINK JUST TO SAY ADVICE IS ADVICE AND TO LEAVE IT AT THAT IS NOT AN OPTION BECAUSE WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF OUR CONSUMERS AND CITIZENS, AND THEY WANT US TO HELP YOU IMPLEMENT THIS ADVICE, BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN THE END THAT THIS WORKS. SO I THINK THERE IS CLEAR. THE QUESTION IS IN WHAT ROLES, AND STEFANO HAS ALREADY ALLUDED TO THAT, HOW DO WE CONCRETELY COOPERATE IN THIS. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF EXPLANATION ABOUT THE LIST, BECAUSE THESE CONCRETE LISTS HAVE RAISED SOME ATTENTION AND CRITICISM, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE. AND INITIALLY, WE DID NOT THINK THAT IT'S THE TASK OF THE GAC TO PUT TOGETHER A FINITE LIST OF THESE -- OF SENSITIVE STRINGS, BUT WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO COME UP WITH CONCRETE NAMES. SO DON'T TAKE THIS LIST AS A LIST THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT OVER MONTHS AND YEARS AND EVERY TLD HAS BEEN TESTED. AND THIS IS REALLY -- THESE ARE EXAMPLES, AS WE IDENTIFIED IT IN A RATHER SHORT TIME. AND THERE MIGHT BE A FEW NAMES THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST THAT YOU COULD EASILY ALSO ADD OR THERE ARE SOME INCONSISTENCIES IN THAT SENSE. BUT THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A FINITE, ABSOLUTE LIST. THIS IS MEANT AS AN INDICATIVE LIST TO UNDERSTAND, TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WOULD SEE A NEED TO APPLY SAFEGUARDS. AND YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT BY SAYING THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REGULATION AMONG CERTAIN STRINGS IN A SAME CATEGORY. OF COURSE, SOMETHING LIKE DOT BANK IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY NEEDS HIGHER REGULATION THAN OTHER GENERIC TERMS, LIKE MONEY OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS LESS CLEARLY LINKED TO AN INDUSTRY. BUT IN THE TIME AVAILABLE THAT WE HAD AND ALSO IN THE -- WE DIDN'T WANT TO PRODUCE A 50-PAGE DOCUMENT. THIS IS BASICALLY JUST AN ALLUSION TO A WHOLE RANGE OF ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH. SO THIS IS MY FIRST REMARK. AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REGULATION IN SOME COUNTRIES THAT DIFFER FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, AND THAT WILL NOT BE EASY TO IMPLEMENT OR RESPECT ALL THESE DIFFERENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS. BUT SINCE WE'RE DEALING WITH THE INTERNET, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. IF YOU'RE A COMPANY LIKE FACEBOOK OR GOOGLE AND YOU'RE OPERATING IN 200 COUNTRIES, YOU ALSO DO HAVE TO RESPECT, OR TRY TO RESPECT, 200 DIFFERENT LEGISLATIONS. AND THIS IS THE SAME HERE IN THE TLD ENVIRONMENT, SO THAT BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO -- THOSE WHO ARE NOT YET USED WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO WORKING WITH DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS WITH DIFFERENT REGULATIONS. BUT ALSO, OF COURSE, THE NATIONAL REGULATORS AND BODIES WILL HAVE TO GET USED TO WORK WITH BUSINESSES AND TRY TO MAKE THEIR LIVES AS EASY AS POSSIBLE. AND I CAN JUST ALLUDE IN THAT PROCESS TO JURISDICTION PROJECT THAT YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE, WHO FOR SOME TIME NOW IS LOOKING INTO THESE ISSUES AND TRYING TO FIND SOLUTION IN DEALING WITH CROSS-BORDER, CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. AND I THINK IT'S WORTH ALSO TAKING THIS INTO ACCOUNT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOLUTIONS TO BE FOUND, AND WE NEED NEW IDEAS. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, SWITZERLAND. CHRIS. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, ALL OF YOU, FOR BEING PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE APPRECIATE IT. TO GO TO REQUESTS FOR PERHAPS A MORE PROACTIVE HYPOTHESIS FOR US ON IMPLEMENTATION, WE DON'T, AT THIS STAGE, REALLY HAVE ONE BECAUSE WE'RE UNCLEAR ABOUT HOW WE COULD IMPLEMENT AT ALL SOME OF THE PIECES OF THE ADVICE. AND IN RESPECT TO OTHER PIECES OF ADVICE, THAT TIES BACK TO THE COMMENT JUST MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE OF THERE BEING OTHER NAMES THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST. THE ISSUE FOR US IS NOT SO MUCH THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER NAMES THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST, BUT, RATHER, NAMES THAT APPEAR ON THE LIST THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO OUR SUGGESTED WAY FORWARD FOR THAT IS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. SO TO ACTUALLY FIND A WAY OF SAYING -- WHETHER IT'S YOU AS A GROUP OR A SERIES OF INDIVIDUALS -- IS TO FIND A WAY OF SAYING CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY THIS NAME APPEARS IN THIS CATEGORY BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. NOW, WE CAN DO THAT FORMALLY, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE, AND WRITE TO YOU AND SAY -- AND TAKE EACH NAME AND ANALYZE EACH NAME AND COME BACK TO YOU AND TELL YOU WHY WE THINK IT'S UNWORKABLE OR IS WORKABLE. AND IF THAT'S A WAY FORWARD THAT WE AGREE, THEN SO BE IT. I'M OPEN TO ALL SORTS OF SUGGESTIONS. BUT WHAT I WANT TO AVOID HERE IS US DOING, YOU KNOW, WEEKS AND WEEKS OF WORK, "A," WITHOUT TELLING YOU THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND "B," WITHOUT YOU ACCEPTING THAT'S THE WAY YOU WILL RECEIVE IT . SO THE BEST WAY IS TO FIND A METHODOLOGY OR WAY OF MOVING FORWARDS THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FROM OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE THERE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ISSUES WITH IMPLEMENTING SOME OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE SUGGESTED. SO IT'S NOT JUST A CASE OF YOU SAYING, "COME BACK AND TELL US HOW YOU THINK YOU CAN IMPLEMENT." IF WE DO THAT, WE'LL COME BACK AND TELL YOU WE CAN'T IN RESPECT TO SOME OF THEM. AND SO WE'RE MORE INTERESTED IN TAKING THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE WHOLE THING AND SAY HOW CAN WE ADJUST THE WHOLE THING SO THAT YOU GET AS MUCH AS YOU THINK -- AS YOU CAN OUT OF IT THAT MAKES YOU COMFORTABLE. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT, HEATHER. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. I HAVE PORTUGAL, EU COMMISSION AND AUSTRALIA. SO PORTUGAL, P PLEASE.. >> PORTUGAL: I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN PORTUGUESE IF YOU WANT TO USE YOUR -- [ (SPEAKING IN NON-ENGLISH LANGUAGE.) ALL RIGHT. THE MAIN MESSAGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE PORTUGAL GOVERNMENT IS THAT THIS IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX ISSUE. WHEN WE REFER TO THE GAC WE DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT A GROUP. WE ARE A GROUP OF GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE QUITE DIFFERENT SO THIS MEANS THAT THIS ISSUE IS EVEN MORE COMPLEX. ALL COLLEAGUES IN THE GAC THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME MADE COMMENTS THAT I FULLY SHARE BECAUSE NO POSITION WAS TAKEN. WHAT THEY SAID IS THAT WE SUBMITTED OR WE RAISED THE MAIN PROBLEMS, THE MAIN ISSUES. THOSE ISSUES THAT WE BELIEVE THAT ARE MORE COMPLICATED, THOSE ISSUES THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW-UP ON. IF NO DECISION IS MADE, WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND WE ARE HAVING THIS DIALOGUE WITH THE BOARD AND I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS WORKING IN GOOD FAITH, VERY INTENSELY, TO OVERCOME ALL THESE PROBLEMS. THE DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE GIVEN RAISING CONCERNS, SOME PROBLEMS WAS SUBMITTED TO US TEN DAYS AGO. I READ IT. I READ IT AGAIN. AND I CAN STILL MAKE A POSITION, TAKE A POSITION BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS THAT ARE NOT FULLY CLEAR TO ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE GAC SUBMITTED A PIECE OF ADVICE THAT PERHAPS FOR THE BOARD WAS NOT SO CLEAR. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANSWER TO GIVE TO THIS. I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW WE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. AND WHEN CONCEPTS ARE DIFFERENT, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT TO REACH A CONCLUSION. IN SUMMARY, YOU MAY HAVE A CERTAIN OPINION AND THAT IS JUST AN OPINION. SO PERHAPS WE CAN NEVER PUT FORWARD A FINITE LIST. WE PUT TOGETHER THIS LIST FOR THOSE STRINGS THAT WE IDENTIFY AS MORE COMPLEX. AND NOW WE HAVE PRODUCED THIS DOCUMENT AND WE HAVE THIS DOCUMENT GIVEN TO US BY THE BOARD'S COMMITTEE. I'M GOING TO ANALYZE THIS DOCUMENT IN LISBON AND AFTER SOME TIME ALWAYS IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION WE ARE GOING TO PUT FORWARD A POSITION. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK THAT THE GAC IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET QUICK RESPONSES BUT THIS IS QUITE A COMPLEX ISSUE AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE USING DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND WE NEED TO REACH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: PORTUGAL. SO NEXT I HAVE EU COMMISSION, PLEASE. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: THANK YOU, CHAIR. ADDING TO WHAT YOU GAC MEMBERS HAVE SAID ALREADY, I WOULD LIKE TO DELIVER THE -- THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DELIVER A SHORT STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE EU GAC MEMBERS SITTING WITH US. WE ARE PLEASED WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF SOME KEY ELEMENTS OF THIS ADVICE GIVEN BY BEIJING AND WE RECOGNIZE THE WORD SO FAR. THE EU IS ALSO GLAD TO HAVE FURTHER DIALOGUE WITH YOU TODAY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND IT SHOULD REMAIN AS A BASIS FOR THE GAC ADVICE. WE ARE GLAD TO SEE A NUMBER OF POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY TOWARDS THE ADVICE GIVEN IN BEIJING AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT ICANN AFTER THIS CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC MEMBERS WILL FIND A SUITABLE WAY TO I AM ELEMENT IT. THE COMPLICATION OF NATIONAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS AND REGULATORY SYSTEMS ALREADY EXIST AND TOGETHER WE NEED TO STRIVE TOWARDS A DOUBLE DNS SYSTEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THIS STAGE WE STILL NEED A REASONABLE TIME TO THINK THROUGH THE DOCUMENT CIRCULATED YESTERDAY CONTAIN AGO SERIES OF VERY PRECISE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE JUST REFERRED TO IN THE SLIDE. AND WE NOTE WE ARE STILL CONSULTING OUR CAPITALS AND HEADQUARTERS. ALSO BEARING IN MIND THAT OUR POSITION IS STILL AT THE VERY EMBRYONIC STAGE. EUROPEAN GAC MEMBERS CONSIDER THE ROLE OF THE GAC IN THIS DISCUSSION IS TO PROVIDE HIGH LEVEL CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE BEIJING GAC ADVICE RATHER THAN PRECISE IMPLEMENTATION MEANS. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE LEAST OF SENSITIVE STRINGS PROVIDED IN THE BEIJING COMMUNIQUE IS A NON-EXHAUSTIVE ONE AND MOST STRINGS HAVE A CASE-BY-CASE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GOING BELOW THE THRESHOLD IN THOSE CATEGORIES MEANING THE LIST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AT-MINIMUM LIST. WE WOULD LIKE IN ADDITION TO THANK THE NGPC FOR TAKING INTO ADVICE THE ADVICE REGARDING APPLICATIONS, SUPPORTED BY COMMUNITIES BUT WHICH WERE NOT SUBMITTED AS (INDISCERNIBLE) APPLICATION AND WHICH ARE IN CONTENTION WITH COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, THE RESPONSE TO THE ADVICE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE KEY CONCERNS THAT THE COMMUNITY INTEREST SHOULD BE FULLY RECOGNIZED IN SITUATIONS. WE WOULD ALSO BE GRATEFUL IF YOU COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TODAY ON THE RATIONALE BECAUSE SINGULAR AND PLURAL DECISIONS AS WE CONSIDER THEY'RE STILL CONFUSABILITY CONCERNS FOR THE EU. AND LAST NOT LEAST WE REMAIN AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO CONTINUE GIVING HIGH-LEVEL ADVICE TO SUPPORT ICANN IN MOOING FORWARD TOWARDS A SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE gTLD PROGRAM, IN A FRAMEWORK OF RESPECT AND LEGITIMACY ESPECIALLY SINCE THE (INDISCERNIBLE) IN ALL OF THE FORA. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, EU COMMISSION. SO NEXT I HAVE GERMANY, THAN AUSTRALIA, U.K. AND SPAIN. GERMANY. >>GERMANY: YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO OUR COLLEAGUE FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WHICH -- AS GERMANY FULLY ENDORSES THE POSITION. I WOULD GO BACK, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO CHRIS' REQUESTS AND QUESTION AND THIS WAS A RATHER CONCRETE QUESTION THAT HE WAS MENTIONING THAT SOME OF THE STRINGS FROM ICANN POINT OF VIEW AND BOARD POINT OF VIEW SEEM TO BE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND MY QUESTION -- AND YOU ARE ASKING ME -- ASK THE GAC WHETHER WE COULD REDUCE, AS I UNDERSTOOD, THE LIST AND DELETE ONE OR OTHER STRING. MY REACTION ON THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FIRST, WHICH ARE THE STRINGS THAT SEEM TO BE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND WHERE ARE THE PROBLEMS? IT IS FOR US TO UNDERSTAND BUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND WHICH ARE THE STRINGS YOU COULD APPLY, THIS WOULD BE A WAY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS YOU ARE FACING. AND I HOPE THIS IS A POSITIVE APPROACH. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, GERMANY. CHRIS, PLEASE. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: YES. HUBERT, THANK YOU. YES, PRECISELY WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. AND WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT WE'RE STRIVE TO GO DO IS TO FIND THE RIGHT FORMAT IN WHICH TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. IF THE RIGHT FORMAT IS SIMPLY THAT WE WRITE TO YOU, YOU WRITE BACK TO US, WE -- THEN SO BE IT. BUT WE WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH YOU AND TO BE CLEAR WITH YOU WHAT THAT DIALOGUE IS ABOUT. SO ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU. THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU SAID ABOUT YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY, COMPLETELY AGREE. AND WE NEED TO LAUNCH THAT PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, IN SOME FORMAT. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS. SO WE HAVE IDENTIFIED WHAT IS THE KEY DRIVING QUESTION AND THAT IS TO IDENTIFY WHICH ARE THE STRINGS THAT ARE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND WHY AND THAT WOULD BE THE FOCUS OF THE JOINT EFFORTS THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE NEW gTLD COMMITTEE. OKAY. I HAVE AUSTRALIA, U.K. AND THEN SPAIN. AUSTRALIA, PLEASE. >>AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M RETHINKING MY INTERVENTION AS IT'S BEEN PARTLY OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS, BUT IT SEEMS WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE AROUND THE TABLE THAT EVERYONE SEEMS VERY HAPPY AND WILLING AND TO UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY OF CONTINUED DIALOGUE HERE. SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A GIVEN FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM COLLEAGUES AROUND THE TABLE. AND AS CHRIS HAS SAID, PERHAPS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE MECHANISM. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE HERE AT THE MICROPHONE TODAY. THAT'S REASONABLY CLEAR. BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMITTEE AS WELL, THERE IS PERHAPS A LIMITED SET OF QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY EXPLICIT IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT CHRIS HAS SAID THAT IT'S -- IT'S CLEAR THAT SOME STRINGS ARE PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, NOT AS DIFFICULT AS OTHERS AND FROM THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO LISTS, THE HIGHLY REGULATED, BANK, LAWYER, PHARMACY WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING PERHAPS THEY'RE NOT THAT DIFFICULT AND THAT CONTROVERSIAL AND PERHAPS SOME OTHERS ARE. IT MAY BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE FOR US TO AGREE THAT SOME ISSUES CAN BE AGREED AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO SOME TRICKY QUESTIONS. PERHAPS WE WORK THROUGH SOME PRINCIPLE. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. BUT I'M -- HAVING THOUGHT ON MY FEET, PERHAPS THE QUESTION IS, I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF A FEW MECHANISMS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT MY CHAIR NOW, WONDERING WHETHER THE GAC NEEDS TO DISCUSS THIS AFTERWARDS AND GET BACK TO YOU. I KNOW WE HAVE TIME WITH THE BOARD LATER IN THIS -- IN THIS WEEK. AND GIVEN WHERE WE'VE SORT OF ARRIVED AT, I WONDER IF POTENTIALLY IT'S USEFUL FOR US TO TAKE IT AS THE GAC AND FIGURE OUT HOW, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE WOULD BE MOST COMFORTABLE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU. WITH A MIND TO EFFICIENCY AND TIMELINESS. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INTERVENTION, AUSTRALIA, AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN TERMS OF YOUR LAST POINT, IS COME AWAY AGAIN AS A GAC AND THEN THINK WHAT APPROACH WOULD WORK FOR US AND THEN WE CAN WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS AFTERWARDS. BUT I -- I SHARE THE VIEW THAT WE -- WE DO HAVE A GENERAL AGREEMENT HERE THAT WE SHOULD AND CAN FIND A WAY TO CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE WITH THE gTLD COMMITTEE. OKAY, SO NEXT I HAVE THE U.K., PLEASE. >>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE COMMITTEE COMING HERE TODAY. IT'S VERY HELPFUL. I SENT A BRIEFING NOTE TO THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES AND REGULATORS IN THE U.K. LAST WEEK AHEAD OF THIS MEETING SO UPDATE THEM ON PROGRESS AND ACTUALLY I WAS QUITE UPBEAT IN MY NOTE, YOU KNOW, RECOUNTING THE SUBMISSION OF ADVICE ON SAFEGUARDS AND THE FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS HARD AT WORK AND WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE, AS OTHERS HAVE SAID BEFORE ME. IT IS A VERY COMPLEX AREA, VERY CHALLENGING. AND WE KNOW WE'RE ALL WORKING WITH THE SAME OBJECTIVE. SO I WAS QUITE UPBEAT AND I SAID WE ANTICIPATED ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR DISCUSSION HERE AT THIS MEETING, AND THAT I'D GO BACK TO THEM ON CONCRETE PROPOSALS, JUST TO GET -- KEEP THEM UP TO SPEED, PROPOSALS COMING FROM ICANN, FROM THE COMMUNITY. SO YOUR FIRST SLIDE WAS A BIT -- VERY DISCOURAGING ACTUALLY. BUT I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GENERAL REQUEST OF MOVING FORWARD AND IDENTIFYING THE MECHANISMS FOR DOING THAT. WITH REGARD TO THE LISTS, MY EXPECTATION WAS THAT WE WOULD TRY TO HELP ICANN, THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IN THIS PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING THOSE gTLD APPLICATIONS THAT GAVE RISE TO VERY MAJOR CONCERNS WITH REGULATORS AND AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, WE WOULD HELP THAT PROCESS WITH PROVIDING A PRETTY GOOD EXEMPTLIFICATION AND I'M CONFIDENT WE'VE DONE THAT AND I THINK THE NEXT STEP FORWARD IS FOR THE COMMITTEE TO TRY AND PREPARE A FIRST DRAFT LIST FOR CONSULTATION WITH THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND WE, THE GOVERNMENTS, WE COULD OBVIOUSLY SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT CONSULTATION. SO THAT THESE GRAY AREAS THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL STRINGS WHICH YOU FEEL DON'T MERIT INCLUSION, THE WHOLE COMMUNITY CAN RESOLVE THAT ISSUE AND ALSO IDENTIFY THOSE THAT WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED IN OUR LISTS AS SWITZERLAND SAID EARLIER. WE'VE DONE OUR BEST IN TERMS OF PROVIDING GUIDANCE BUT WE'RE NOT RESOURCED REALLY TO EXAMINE AND TEST US AS SWITZERLAND PUT IT, OUR CONCLUSIONS THAT THESE PARTICULAR STRINGS FALL INTO THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE HEALTH SECTOR. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO STEER YOU IN THAT -- IN ACHIEVING THAT GOAL, AND I JUST THOUGHT THE PROCESS WAS TO -- FOR THE COMMITTEE AND ITS ADVISERS AND LEGAL ADVISERS AND SO ON TO PREPARE A MORE AUTHORITATIVE LIST. OUR LIST WAS NOT AUTHORITATIVE. IT WAS INDICATIVE AS WE'VE SAID. SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION FOR THE -- WITH REGARDS TO THE LIST. NOW AS REGARDS SAFEGUARDS AND THE DOCUMENT WHERE -- WHERE YOU SET OUT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE SAFEGUARD ADVICE, I FIND SOME OF THIS RATHER PERPLEXING BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, SAFEGUARD NUMBER 3, REGISTRY OPERATORS WILL REQUIRE THAT REGISTRANTS WHO COLLECT AND MAINTAIN SENSITIVE HEALTH AND FINANCIAL DATA IMPLEMENT REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE SECURITY MEASURES COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFERING OF THOSE SERVICES AS DEFINED BY APPLICABLE LAW AND RECOGNIZED INDUSTRY STANDARDS, THAT WAS A CAREFULLY DRAFTED PIECE OF DEFINITION OF A SAFEGUARD. BUT THE RESPONSE IN THE -- THE DOCUMENT SAYS THIS SAFEGUARD IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AND THUS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT IT. WELL, THAT'S A RATHER NEGATIVE REACTION, IN MY VIEW. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND YOU GO ON TO LIST SOME PARTICULAR QUESTIONS AS TO WHO IS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY AND SO ON, WELL YES, WE CAN -- WE CAN TAKE THE ADVICE OF OUR FINANCIAL AND HEALTH REGULATORS AND SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES TO HELP YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT OF COURSE WE ALSO EXPECT YOU TO UNDERTAKE LEGAL AND OTHER AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES OF ADVICE YOURSELVES. BUT I FIND IT RATHER NEGATIVE TO SAY IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH SO WE CAN'T IMPLEMENT IT. I'M KIND OF SURPRISED AT THAT LANGUAGE, PUT IT THAT WAY. AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT. THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION PERHAPS THAT -- NOT PERHAPS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND WE CAN HELP YOU AND YOUR ADVISERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS RESOLVE THOSE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION TO HELP YOU MOVE FORWARD TO A POINT OF PROPOSAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION. SO I -- I'M STILL FEELING POSITIVE. I GOT A VERY NEGATIVE FEEL AT THE START OF THIS SESSION, BUT I STILL FEEL POSITIVE THAT THE ADVICE WE'VE GIVEN IS SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH FOR YOU TO FIND A WAY FORWARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION THAT WILL HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. SO THAT'S MY BASIC APPROACH. I WILL NEED TO CONSULT THE PEOPLE I'VE BEEN CONSULTING WITH, THE POLICY EXPERTS, ON THIS DOCUMENT. I NEED TIME FOR DOING THAT. WE'VE ALL MADE CLEAR, I THINK, THAT THAT IS THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO OUR WORKING METHODS. WE HAVE TO CONSULT WITH OUR CAPITALS AND THAT DOES TAKE A BIT OF TIME. SO WE NEED AN ADEQUATE PERT OF TIME TO EFFECT ON THESE QUESTIONS. BUT I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU AS WE'VE SAID -- COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID BEFORE ME, TO LOOK AT THIS WITH A MORE ACTIVE APPROACH SO SAY YES, WE WILL IMPLEMENT THIS. WE JUST NEED TO RESOLVE THAT. WE'RE HAPPY WITH THAT ADVICE. AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR SECOND SLIDE, YOU'RE NOT REJECTING THIS ADVICE SO YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT IT AND JUST COME BACK TO US WITH POINTS WHERE WE FEEL WE CAN HELP YOU WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION. BUT THERE IS -- THERE IS A -- A LIMIT TO HOW WE CAN ENGAGE IN IMPLEMENTATION. IT'S A VERY HIGH. WE'RE SETTING THE -- WE'VE SET OUT THE ADVICE AND THE ISSUES OF PRINCIPLE, THE OVERRIDING CONCERNS WITH A NUMBER OF STRING APPLICATIONS OVER TO YOU ICANN AND THE COMMUNITY TO SET ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION AND WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO HELP YOU WITH THAT PROCESS. BUT AS TO DEFINING ACTUAL MODALITIES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE SAFEGUARDS, I'M AFRAID, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY. IT SHOULDN'T BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY. WE'VE SET THE PRINCIPLES OF -- OF STANDARDS, IF YOU LIKE, FOR THESE PARTICULAR STRINGS OVER TO YOU, ICANN. SO THAT'S MY BASIC APPROACH TO THIS. SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, U.K. JUST ONE POINT THAT I WOULD CLARIFY. I HAD A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ADVICE. WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE gTLD COMMITTEE HAVE TOLD US IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT REJECTED THAT ADVICE. BUT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THEY WILL NOT. THAT'S STILL AN OPTION. AND I THINK IN COMING TO US TODAY AND IDENTIFYING AREAS TO CLARIFY, TO WORK WITH US, TO FIND A WAY TO IMPLEMENT, THEN THAT IS THEIR PREFERENCE, TO WORK THAT WAY. AND WHAT I AM HEARING FROM COLLEAGUES HERE IS THAT THEY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO DO THIS. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR POINT. SO I UNDERSTAND ERIKA MANN WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. >>ERIKA MANN: THANK YOU SO MUCH, HEATHER. I MUST SAY I'M -- I'M -- FIND THE DISCUSSION INSOFAR AS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT IN MANY WAYS, BECAUSE OF THE PIONEERING CHARACTER OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING HERE AND WE DON'T HAVE A GUIDEBOOK, THERE'S NO BLUEPRINT, THERE'S NO ISO STANDARDS OR WHATEVER NORM WHICH WE CAN JUST LOOK AT AND THEN WE CAN IMPLEMENT IT, WE DANCE A LITTLE BIT AROUND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO DO WHAT, TO CLARIFY EITHER THE LISTS, IS IT LOGICAL, DOES IT APPLY INTERNATIONAL LAW, IS IT REALLY LOOKING INTO ALL NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS, CAN JURISDICTION BE SCALED ON THE GLOBAL LEVEL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE -- IS IT THE GAC, IS IT ICANN? I THINK IT'S -- TO BE FRANK I THINK IT IS ALL OF US TOGETHER BECAUSE -- BECAUSE OF THE -- THE CHARACTER, THE PIONEERING CHARACTER OF OUR INDUSTRY AND BECAUSE OF THE PIONEERING CHARACTER OF THE NEXT STEP WE ARE UNDERTAKING IN THE gTLD ENVIRONMENT AND THE SENSITIVITIES INVOLVED. NOW, I MUST SAY I'M VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE COMMENTS FROM THE GAC. I FIND THIS EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR US, CHERINE AND CHRIS AND FOR THE gTLD BOARD MEMBERS, EXTREMELY ENCOURAGING TO WORK WITH US. WE UNDERSTAND THE LIST, WE SHALL SEE IT REGARDED AS AN INDICATIVE LIST. WE SHALL ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND AND SEE IT AS A GUIDANCE WHICH WAS GIVEN. WE DO UNDERSTAND ON THE SAFEGUARDS, THE SAFEGUARDS ARE SAFEGUARDS, NOT IN A SENSE TO BE TAKEN THAT THEY SHALL BE TAKEN WORD BY WORD BUT THEY SHALL BE TAKEN AS REALLY GUIDANCE TO US TO COME BACK WITH A CLEAR INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF LAWS AND IMPLEMENTATION AND METHODS HOW THIS CAN BE DONE. SO I DO THINK WE HAVE -- ACTUALLY BETWEEN US A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING WHAT SHALL BE DONE. LET ME MAYBE MAKE ONE SUGGESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORKABLE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, BUT FROM MY INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUES IN DIFFERENT -- I MUST ADMIT IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENTS, BUT WE -- WHY NOT BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU ALL MADE AND LOOKING TO THE McCABE AS THE LAST SPEAKER BECAUSE WE ARE HERE PRETTY MUCH FOR A WEEK WHY NOT BUILD A SMALL GROUP FROM THE GTLD COMMUNITY, SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE HERE, I MEAN, WE HAVE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS WHICH ARE PRESENT. WE DO HAVE THE REGISTRY PRESENT. WHY NOT JUST BUILDING A SMALL GROUP AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE METHOD, WHAT WOULD BE THE LOGICAL BECAUSE YOU NEED SOME LOGICAL METHODS TO DEFINE THINGS WHICH YOU DON'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YET, WHY NOT DOING IT, THEN HAVING JUST A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US. I THINK WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD ROAD ALREADY BUT EVEN MORE CLEARER UNDERSTANDING AND THEN WE CAN TAKE IT TO THE COMMUNITY SO THAT IT'S NOT -- EVERYTHING IS LEFT FOR, YOU KNOW, WITH UNKNOWN -- IN CERTAIN AREAS GRAY AS YOU RIGHTLY SAID, THIS GRAY AREAS. SO I -- I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION. NOT SURE IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ONE -- FULLY IN OUR ENVIRONMENT BUT CHERINE, HEATHER, CHRIS, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO AS A NEXT STEP. BECAUSE MY FEELING IS WE ARE PRETTY CLOSE ACTUALLY. WE JUST FIGHT ABOUT THE METHOD. WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT, WHAT WE DON'T WANT, WE JUST FIGHT PRACTICALLY ABOUT THE METHOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU ERIKA, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO AGREE TO THE MODALITIES HERE IN THIS DISCUSSION AND WE ARE RUNNING SHORT OF TIME. SO IN MY SPEAKING ORDER I HAVE SPAIN, THE UNITED STATES, AND A REQUEST FROM IRAN. IF I CAN ASK THESE THREE TO KEEP THEIR COMMENTS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE AND LIMIT INTERVENTIONS TO MAKING NEW COMMENTS TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE ABLE BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE OTHER TOPIC WHILE WE ARE CONVENED STILL HERE TODAY. SO SPAIN, YOU ARE NEXT, PLEASE. >> SPAIN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TRYING TO BE BRIEF. I LIKE TO DEFEND THE NEED TO CORRECT THE GAC LIST OF GAC NON-ACCEPT -- SUBSTANTIVE LIST IN CATEGORY 1 BECAUSE WE HAVE THE WORD "(INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE CHILDREN CATEGORY AND ALSO IN (INDISCERNIBLE) CATEGORY. BUT (INDISCERNIBLE) MEANS (INDISCERNIBLE) ALSO IN SPANISH. THERE WAS A LITTLE MISTAKE WHEN DRAFTING THIS LIST AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO INCLUDE THAT WORD "(INDISCERNIBLE) IN THE (INDISCERNIBLE) CATEGORY. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE REGULATION THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OF SPAIN HAS THAT NAME, THE COMPETENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY REGARDING WITH THAT -- HAS THE NAME, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO WHAT THIS WORD TO THE CATEGORY OF (INDISCERNIBLE). >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SPAIN. I THINK THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ADDRESS THESE KINDS OF ISSUES IF WE FIND THEM. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. UNITED STATES, YOU'RE NEXT, PLEASE. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND THANKS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO ARE HERE. I'M JUST GOING TO CONCUR VERY BRIEFLY WITH COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE EXPRESSED I THINK THE SAME SENTIMENTS THAT WE HOLD AND WE'RE VERY GRATIFIED THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO COME AND MEET WITH US FACE-TO-FACE. WE HAVE FOUND YOUR DOCUMENT ACTUALLY EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN SORT OF HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE COME ACROSS IN YOUR WORK. DO WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE DIRECTED TO THIS WORK. THIS IS NOT AN EASY TASK. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY CONCUR WHEN THE SUGGESTION FROM AUSTRALIA WHICH IS CLEARLY THAT THE GAC ITSELF I THINK NEEDS TO REVISIT THIS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BEST HELP YOU AS A -- IN THIS PARTNERSHIP AND TO CON CUR WITH ERIKA'S SUGGESTION. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. WE DO NEED PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT OF BRAINSTORMING TO SORT OF GO BACK AND FORTH AND PERHAPS WINNOW DOWN SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS WHERE THERE IS CONFUSION, THEN IT'S -- I BELIEVE IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT CONFUSION. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION THAT THESE ISSUES ARE BEING -- THAT IS BEING DEVOTED TO THESE ISSUES AND THAT WE ARE QUITE COMMITTED TO WORKING TOGETHER IN PARTNERSHIP TO CLEAR THE AIR AND TO MOVE FORWARD. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. IRAN, PLEASE. >>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I THINK MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE TERM "THEY ARE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE," PERHAPS IT MEANT THAT AT THE FORM THAT THEY ARE OR IN THE CURRENT FORM OR AT THIS STAGE OR SO ON AND SO FORTH BUT WAS NOT DEFINITIVELY UNIMPLEMENTABLE. THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED, YES. BUT THE SITUATION IS THAT LET'S TAKE THE SAFEGUARD. SAFEGUARD IS A RESULT OF THE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD IN BEIJING, BACK AND FORTH. PEOPLE PLAY-NOT PLAY, PROPOSE WORDS, IT WAS EXCHANGED, IT WAS COME BACK OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO, SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT THAT IS THE WAY THAT ALL THIS TYPE OF THE NEXT ARE PUT TOGETHER, ARE THE RESULT OF CONSENSUS, AS THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION, YES, IT IS NOT UP TO THE GAC TO PROVIDE THE MODALITY OF IMPLEMENTATION, HOWEVER, PERHAPS THERE MIGHT BE AREAS THAT CLARIFICATION ARE REQUIRED WHAT WAS MEANT BECAUSE EVERY TEXT IT HAS TWO THINGS. ONE IS THE LETTER AND THE OTHER IS PRINT. LETTER IS THERE BUT THE SPIRIT OR THE AREA OF IMPLEMENTATION -- OR ATMOSPHERE OR ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THESE TEXTS WERE PUT TOGETHER, THAT PERHAPS SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE NOT OF -- AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME OR THEY WERE NOT LISTENING TO THAT TIME OR IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEE UNDER WHAT ENVIRONMENT THIS TEXT WERE PUT TOGETHER AND CRAFTED SO I THINK THAT THE END RESULT WOULD BE THAT THEY NEED CLARIFICATION, AND CLARIFICATION NEED TO BE PROVIDED. HOWEVER, ONE LAST POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. THE SAFEGUARD, AND THE ADVICE YOU HAVE GIVEN WERE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF GIVING ADVICE. AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CRITICIZED. THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE WORK. IF THE FORMULATION IS NOT CORRECT, IF THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT CORRECT, THAT IS ANOTHER THING. BUT CURRENTLY, WE BASE OURSELVES ON THE PRINCIPLES, HOW TO PROVIDE ADVICE. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN. OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE NEXT TOPIC ON OUR AGENDA, AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF IGO ACRONYMS AND HOW TO TREAT THEM AT THE SECOND LEVEL IN THE CURRENT ROUND. SO I BELIEVE I CAN HAND OVER TO CHRIS AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC. SO, PLEASE, TAKE IT AWAY. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, HEATHER. WE HAVE, AGAIN, A SMALL NUMBER OF SLIDES IN RESPECT TO THIS. SO BEFORE I PUT UP THE FIRST SLIDE, CAN I SAY THAT IT'S, AGAIN, AN ATTEMPT TO LEVEL SET. AND I HOPE THAT IT'S NOT DISAPPOINTING TO YOU THAT WE ARE -- IT MAY SEEM TO BE SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE, BUT WE'LL GET THROUGH IT AND SEE HOW WE GO. JAMIE, OR IF I COULD HAVE THE FIRST SLIDE UP, PLEASE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO I JUST WANT TO DO A VERY BRIEF HISTORY AND LEVEL SET ON THIS. ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2012, IN YOUR ADVICE TO US YOU ASKED US TO PROTECT THE OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND THE RED CROSS NAMES AT THE TOP AND SECOND LEVEL AS THEY ENJOY TWO-TIER PROTECTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND NATIONAL LAW IN MANY JURISDICTIONS. YOU TOLD US THOSE WERE THE ONLY ENTITIES THAT NEED THE TWO-TIERED PROTECTION AND THAT'S WHY THEY NEEDED TO GET ENHANCED PROTECTION AND YOU ADVISED US THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR IGOs IN THE FIRST ROUND. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT IT FOR THE SECOND ROUND. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YOUR CURRENT ADVICE IS THAT IGO NAMES AND ACRONYMS WARRANT SPECIAL PROTECTION IN AN EXPANDED DNS. SO WHAT WE THINK YOUR ADVICE MEANS IS THAT IGOs GET A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND THE RED CROSS, FOR WHOM THE PROTECTION EXTENDS TO NAMES ONLY AND NOT ACRONYMS. THE IGOs GET A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN THE SOVEREIGN NATIONS ISO THREE-LETTER COUNTRY CODES WHICH ARE PROTECTED AT THE TOP LEVEL BUT ARE NOT PROTECTED AT THE SECOND LEVEL. AND IF THAT IS YOUR INTENTION, THEN WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ADVISING US. IF IT'S NOT YOUR INTENTION, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE OTHER SOLUTIONS. AND THOSE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE DEVELOPING A REASONABLE MEANS OF DIVIDING THE LIST OF ACRONYMS, IDENTIFYING SOME AS APPROPRIATE FOR BROAD PROTECTIONS, OTHERS AS NOT. REQUIRING ASKING EACH IGO TO IDENTIFY A SUBSET OF THE CURRENTLY APPLIED FOR gTLD STRINGS FOR WHICH ITS DESIGNATED ACRONYM SHOULD BE PROHE TECTD DUE TO THE REPROTECTED NATURE OF THE IGO'S WORK OF THE APPLIED FOR STRING OR IMPLEMENTING A NOTICE OF REGISTRATION PROCESS SIMILAR TO THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE OR SOMETHING ELSE. SO AGAIN, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS ON, WE NEED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE. BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE ON THE CALL THAT WE HELD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO INTERSESSIONALLY WHERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF IGOs AND A NUMBER OF GAC MEMBERS, THE ISSUE FOR THE BOARD IS THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT THE IGOs -- WE'RE NOT SURE WHETHER YOU ARE ACTUALLY TELLING US THAT THE IGOs SHOULD HAVE A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN THE RED CROSS AND THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAN SOVEREIGN STATES. IF YOU ARE TELLING US THAT, THEN, FINE, TELL US THAT AND WE'LL MOVE FROM THERE AND WORK OUT WHAT TO DO. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN THE RESULT OF WHAT YOUR ADVICE CURRENTLY SAYS IS THAT, AND, THEREFORE, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY OF FINDING A WAY FORWARDS THAT DOES NOT, IN FACT, CREATE THAT SITUATION. SO WE HAD ON THE CALL A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THE ISSUE OF -- THE PARTICULAR ISSUE OF ONE COUNTRY'S THREE-LETTER CODE WAS RAISED AS BEING A PROBLEM FOR THEM. BUT I WANT TO STRESS, BEFORE WE OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION, I WANT TO STRESS THAT WE ARE HERE IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION. THAT WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CLEARLY PUT ON THE TABLE THE WAY THIS LOOKS TO US RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DO WANT TO FIND A WAY FORWARDS IF WE CAN. THOSE THINGS UP ON THE BOARD, ON THE SCREEN ARE MERELY SUGGESTIONS OF POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NUMBER 1, FOR EXAMPLE, I SHOULD IMAGINE, WOULD BE IMMENSELY CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED TO BE SPLITTING A LIST AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT IN AN EFFORT TO JUST GIVE SOME THOUGHTS TO WAYS FORWARD, WE THOUGHT WE'D PUT THEM UP. SO AT THAT POINT, HEATHER, I'LL HAND BACK TO YOU AND CHERINE AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CHRIS, FOR INTRODUCING US TO THIS TOPIC AND OUTLINING YOUR CURRENT THINKING ON ADVICE THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED ON THIS MATTER. WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION IN THE GAC ABOUT THIS, BUT IT'S -- AT THESE MEETINGS HERE IN DURBAN BUT IT'S BEEN FAIRLY LIMITED. BUT WE HAVE HAD, AS I SAY, SOME INITIAL EXCHANGES. WOULD ANYONE IN THE GAC LIKE TO COMMENT OR PROVIDE ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND SO ON? NO? CANADA, PLEASE. >>CANADA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. I JUST WANTED TO REAFFIRM THAT CANADA DOES HAVE A PARTICULAR CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO THE ACRONYM CAN, AND WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CONCEPT THAT IGOs GET A GREATER LEVEL OF PROTECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISO ALPHA 3 LIST. WE RECOMMEND THAT PROTECTIONS AWARDED TO IGOs FOR THEIR ACRONYMS INCLUDE EXCEPTIONS FOR ISO ALPHA 3 CODES. THANK YOU.>>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, CANADA. U.K., AND PERU. >>UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST A COMMENT WITH REGARD TO NUMBER 2. AND IT'S A REITERATION, I THINK, OF WHAT I SAID ON THE CALL, WHICH IS THAT THERE ARE SOME IGOs WHICH ARE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY, AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE QUITE DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY A SUBSET FOR THEM. I'M THINKING OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND OECD AND OTHER ENTITIES LIKE THAT. SO JUST A COMMENT ON THAT. AND MY STRONGEST FEELING OF A WAY FORWARD WOULD BE UNDER 3. SOMETHING LIKE A CLEARINGHOUSE APPROACH. BUT THIS IS, AS HEATHER SAID, I THINK IT'S FAIRLY PRELIMINARY WITH REGARD TO GAC DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, U.K. SO NEXT I HAVE PERU, THEN SWITZERLAND, AND UNITED STATES. >>PERU: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AT THIS MOMENT, I WILL SWITCH TO SPANISH TO EXPRESS MYSELF CLEARLY AND COMPLETELY. SO IF YOU MIND, PUT ON THE HEADPHONES FOR THOSE THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND SPANISH. WHAT WE ARE BEING PRESENTED HERE REGARDING THESE TWO ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION THIS MORNING, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL FROM PERU'S PERSPECTIVE. WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO WORK ON A PROCEDURE TO PROVIDE CLEAR CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD AS REGARDS TO HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE ADVICE GIVEN BY THE GAC. WE ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE TOLD THAT THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT ARE NOT CLEAR, AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS A RISK FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING SUCH CRITERIA BECAUSE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE GAC LIES PRECISELY IN THE FACT THAT EVERY ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE GAC WILL ULTIMATELY BE IMPLEMENTED. THAT IS WHY WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO COME TO US AND SPEAK SO FRANKLY AND TELL US THAT THERE IS A CRITICAL PROBLEM THAT YOU REQUIRE CLARIFICATION, THAT WHAT WE HAVE TOLD THEM MIGHT NOT BE USEFUL. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR US TO REACT ON ISSUES THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO CONSULT ON. GOVERNMENTS WORK DIFFERENTLY FROM CIVIL SOCIETY. WE NEED TIME TO DIGEST THE ISSUES, TO UNDERSTAND THEM, AND TO BE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD A NATIONAL POSITION THAT LATER ON CAN BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE GAC AND, LATER, AT THE DIFFERENT ICANN BODIES. AND, IN PARTICULAR, WITHIN THE BOARD FOR IMPLEMENTATION. SO WITH THIS, WE MEAN THAT WE WILL NEED TIME TO PROVIDE A REACTION. THIS IS THE STARTING POINT FOR A DIALOGUE, BUT THIS IS A DIALOGUE THAT WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE IN THE FOLLOWING SESSIONS SO THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION TO GIVE YOU A SUFFICIENT CLARIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTATION. REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF IGO NAMES, AND I'M EXCLUSIVELY REFERRING TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF MY COUNTRY, WE BELIEVE THAT IGOs SHOULD NOT HAVE EXPANDED PROTECTION, GREATER PROTECTION, THAN SOVEREIGN STATES. IF THERE IS THE IMPRESSION THAT SOVEREIGN STATES PROTECTIONS IS LESS THAN THE IGOs, THEN WE HAVE TO REINFORCE THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY NAMES AND GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES FOR THESE COUNTRIES. THAT IS MY FIRST APPROACH. AND MY SECOND COMMENT HAS TO DO WITH COEXISTENCE, IN THE PARTICULAR CASE OF THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY, AND THE ACRONYMS FOR -- THAT IDENTIFY THE COUNTRY AS CANADA. WE HAVE COEXISTED FOR MANY YEARS. PERU IS A MEMBER OF THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY. THIS COMMUNITY HAS EXISTED SINCE THE 1960S AND WE HAVE HAD A PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITHOUT CONFUSION BECAUSE OF THE COURSE. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK CHRIS AND HIS TEAM FOR THIS DIALOGUE. AND I ALSO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DIALOGUE. WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER WE WANT HIGHER PROTECTION FOR COUNTRY NAMES OR FOR IGO NAMES, TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THAT IS A RELEVANT QUESTION TO ASK BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION DO WE WANT HIGHER PROTECTION FOR TRADEMARKS THAN FOR CITY NAMES OR FOR COUNTRY NAMES AND SO ON. I THINK WE HAVE TO GO AND I THINK THE PATH IS ALREADY OUTLINED. WE HAVE TO GO FOR A CONCRETE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. AND AFTER HEARING THE INTERVENTION OF THE COLLEAGUES FROM CANADA AND PERU, I THINK WITH REGARD TO THIS COLLISION OF -- POSSIBLE COLLISION OF IGO ACRONYMS AND COUNTRY ISO LIST ABBREVIATIONS, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM IN PRACTICE. AND IF YOU FOLLOW, I CAN EASILY SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL FROM CANADA. AND I THINK IF WE ALSO LISTEN TO WHAT THE IGO COMMUNITY SAYS, THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE VETO RIGHTS OR LIKE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THE LAST RESORT IN SAYING YES OR NO TO THE USE OF THEIR ACRONYM. THEY WANT A NOTIFICATION PROCESS, AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO FLAG PROBLEMS IF THEY FEEL THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH A NAME, AND THEN SOMEBODY COMPETENT SHOULD TAKE A DECISION AFTER HEARING BOTH PARTIES, THE APPLICANT OR SOMEBODY TRYING TO REGISTER A NAME ON A SECOND LEVEL AND THE CONCERNS BY THE CONCERNED IGO. I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE IDEA. THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE WORK THIS OUT CONCRETELY. AND I ALREADY HAVE MADE THE ALLUSION TO TAKING THE INSPIRATION FROM THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE AND DEVELOPING A SIMILAR PROCESS ALSO WITH DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS FOR THE IGOs. AND I CAN JUST REPEAT WHAT I SAID, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST MEETING. IF WE ARE ABLE TO DEAL WITH TRADEMARKS WHERE YOU HAVE ALSO OVERLAP WITH OTHER TYPES OF NAMES, YOU HAVE OVERLAPS BETWEEN TRADEMARKS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, IF WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH MILLIONS OF TRADEMARKS, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A MECHANISM FOR A FEW HUNDRED ACRONYMS OF IGOs. AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST START AND TRY TO IMPLEMENT THIS CONCRETELY. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, SWITZERLAND. NEXT I HAVE UNITED STATES, PLEASE. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND MY CHANGS TO CHEGS WHO HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE, PARTICULARLY SWITZERLAND, SO IT'S VERY USEFUL FOR ME TO FOLLOW ON BECAUSE ACTUALLY I, TOO, WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS ON YOUR PART. IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED SET OF ISSUES, AND I THINK YOU HAVE RAISED THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH WITH US IN A VERY DIRECT AND VERY CONCRETE MANNER. SO I DON'T THINK OUR APPROACH INTENTIONALLY, CERTAINLY NOT UP FRONT DID WE INTEND TO ELEVATE PROTECTION FOR IGOs OVER COUNTRIES OR EVEN THE IOC/RED CROSS. THAT WAS CERTAINLY NOT AN INTENTION. SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND JUST CUTTING TO THE CHASE, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED A WAY FORWARD. YOU HAVE REACHED OUT TO US TO ASK FOR OUR ASSISTANCE, TO WORK TOGETHER IN FINDING ONE. I THINK THE CONCEPT OF A NOTIFICATION PROCESS OR HOWEVER YOU'RE PRESENTING IT HERE, POINT NUMBER 3, I THINK THAT SOUNTDZ VERY PROMISING. AND I THINK WE NEED TO WORK WITH YOU TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK IN THE CASE OF THE IGOs. SO I JUST WANTED TO SIGNAL THAT I'M VERY, VERY WILLING TO DO THAT WITH COLLEAGUES. AND I THINK THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL WAY FORWARD. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, UNITED STATES. NEXT I HAVE SPAIN, PLEASE. >>SPAIN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THE COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE TALKED BEFORE ME HAVE EXPRESSED WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT THE MAIN POINT HERE IS WHETHER THE BOARD ACCEPTS OR DOESN'T ACCEPT THE GAC ADVICE REGARDING IGOs; THAT IS, THE NEED TO OFFER SAFEGUARD MECHANISM FOR PREVENTING THE ABUSE OF THOSE NAMES. WE HAVEN'T SAID THAT THE NAMES OF THE IGOs SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE NAMES OF COUNTRIES OR TRADEMARKS. WE JUST WANT TO AVOID HAVING CYBER SQUATTING OR ANY OTHER KIND OF ABUSE OF NAMES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. AND IF WE AGREE ON THAT PRINCIPLE, THEN WE CAN WORK ON THE MECHANISMS, THE SYSTEMS TO TRY TO SORT OUT THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SPAIN. PORTUGAL, YOU ARE NEXT, PLEASE. >>PORTUGAL: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN PORTUGUESE.WELL, AFTER THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE HELD AND ALL THE ITEMS DISPOSED, I HAVE THREE ITEMS TO RAISE, I WANT TO RAISE TO THE BOARD. WHY DO YOU ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ACRONYMS OF IGOs AND THE COUNTRY LETTERS? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SEMANTICS. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS RELATIONSHIP. MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU GIVING MORE PROTECTION TO IGOs? THE RED CROSS, THE IOC, WHY ARE YOU GIVING MORE PROTECTION TO THAT? WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT? AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING. I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, IN THE CASE OF ICANN, DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE INTERNET CORPORATION, THAT'S THE NAME YOU'RE TO. NOT ICANN. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, PORTUGAL. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT IDENTIFYING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN THE COUNTRY NAMES AND THE IGOs, I BELIEVE THE GAC ASKED THE gTLD COMMITTEE TO DO THAT, TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. SO NEXT I HAVE PERU. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. PLEASE. >>PERU: THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A BRIEF CLARIFICATION ON MY PRIOR INTERVENTION, WHICH IS THE FOLLOWING. THOUGH WE ARE SAYING THAT THE NAMES AND ACRONYMS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DO DESERVE A SPECIAL PROTECTION LEVEL WHICH SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARILY HIGHER THAN THAT OF COUNTRIES, BUT PROBABLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE COUNTRIES, BY NO MEANS WE WANTED THAT TO EQUATE THAT TO THE CASE OF TRADEMARKS. TRADEMARKS REPRESENT A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. PURSUANT TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER WHILE TRADEMARKS REPRESENT PRIVATE RIGHTS OF A TERRITORIAL CHARACTER. THEREFORE, THEIR SCOPE AND THEIR SETS OF OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. WE DO NOT WANT BY ANY MEANS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT WE ARE EQUATING THEM ON THE SAME STATUS. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, PERU. I SEE GONZALO NAVARRO, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE gTLD COMMITTEE, AND THEN I WILL ASK THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM WIPO TO INTERVENE. GONZALO. >>GONZALO NAVARRO: THANK YOU, HEATHER. WELL, I WILL TAKE THE ADVANTAGE TO SPEAK IN SPANISH, ESPECIALLY TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM PERU. THANK YOU, PERU. I WANTED TO SAY THAT WHAT YOU HAVE CLARIFIED HAS BEEN PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD. THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR. THERE IS A VERY CLEAR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TRADEMARKS AND THE PROTECTIONS SOUGHT FOR IGOs. SO FOR YOUR PEACE OF MIND, YOU HAVE BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE BOARD. AS A WAY TO CLOSE THIS CLARIFICATION, IN THIS MEETING WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WORK TO IDENTIFY THE MECHANISMS DEFINING THE AREAS THAT DESERVE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND FINDING THEM TOGETHER WITH YOU. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY. SO I WOULD NOW LIKE TO HAND OVER TO THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM WIPO, PLEASE. >>WIPO: THANK YOU, HEATHER, AND GAC MEMBERS, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FOR THIS VERY USEFUL AND PERTINENT DISCUSSION. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE IGO COALITION, WE ARE MOST CERTAINLY NOT CLAIMING ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN COUNTRIES, MOST CERTAINLY NOT OF THE STATES HERE. IT'S JUST RATHER AS STATED IN THE GAC COMMUNIQUE, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT IGOs ARE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY AND THEIR NAMES AND ACRONYMS WARRANT SPECIAL PROTECTION IN ANY EXPANDED DNS. WE MOST CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT IF THERE IS ISSUES WITH COUNTRIES AND ISO CODES, THEN CERTAINLY DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT AND PRIORITY CAN BE GIVEN TO THOSE COUNTRIES; HOWEVER, IT IS JUST THAT OUR NAMES AND PARTICULARLY OUR ACRONYMS BEING WHAT WE ARE KNOWN BEST BY DO REQUIRE SOME PROTECTION IN THE NEW gTLD SYSTEM. PRA OF HOWEVER, WE DO RECOGNIZE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE BOARD. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PARTICULAR THAT OF COEXISTENCE. AND WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED IN GOOD FAITH IN DISCUSSIONS AS TO HOW THAT CAN BE BEST MANAGED AND PARTICULARLY PUT FORWARD PAPERS, I BELIEVE THE LATEST BEING IN JUNE, AS TO HOW THAT COULD PARTICULARLY WORK. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE STATED THAT WHERE A POTENTIAL REGISTRANT WISHES TO REGISTER A DOMAIN NAME MATCHING AN IGO NAME OR ACRONYM, THAT IGOs WILL NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF THAT REGISTRATION IF IT IS BONA FIDE AND NOT LIKELY TO MISLEAD OR HARM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE IS SOME CONNECTION WITH THE IGO. WE HAVE PROVIDED WAYS THAT POTENTIAL REGISTRANTS CAN COMMUNICATE WITH US, PERHAPS A NOTIFICATION SIMILAR TO THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE CAN BE USED. AND THE FACT THAT THIS MAY BE OPEN TO REVIEW BY THIRD PARTY IS CERTAINLY ALSO THE POTENTIAL FOR DISCUSSION, THE POTENTIAL TO BE DISCUSSED. HOWEVER, WE WOULD SAY THAT IGOs, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY, SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS IN SOME WAY. AND IF THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE, THEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO BE MANAGED. AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEN THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE POINT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO BE INVOLVED TO MANAGE THAT. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING WITH THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GAC AND THE BOARD TO FIND A REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY FORWARD TO IMPLEMENT THESE PROTECTIONS. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, WIPO. CHRIS, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND. >>CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, HEATHER. AND THANK YOU TO WIPO FOR BEING HERE AND BEING PREPARED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION. I JUST THINK, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, I NEED TO UNDERLINE THE MAIN ISSUE. IT'S BEEN COLLOQUIALLY DESCRIBED IN DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS AS THE JUDGE-AND-JURY APPROACH. ONE OF OUR MAIN CONCERNS IS THE CONCEPT OF HAVING THE IGOs BEING EFFECTIVELY GRANTING PERMISSION OR HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO A BODY, ANOTHER BODY THAT IS OF AT LEAST EQUIVALENT STANDING. WE'VE GIVEN A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES, AND THAT SITS AT THE HEART OF PART OF THESE ISSUES. IT'S WHY THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ALL DEAL WITH NOTIFICATION RATHER THAN PERMISSION, OR NEGOTIATING AREAS IN WHICH THE PROTECTION EXISTS, AS IN NUMBER 2. AND I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MARK'S POINT THAT, IN FACT, NUMBER 2 IS MASSIVELY COMPLICATED IN SOME RESPECTS AND VERY SIMPLE IN OTHERS. BUT THEY COMPLICATED. SO I REALLY DO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WILLINGNESS ON EVERYBODY'S PART TO TALK, BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE, AT LEAST IN PART, HAS TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OF PREEMPTION AND THE RIGHT TO SAY NO. IF WE CAN OVERCOME THAT AND FIND WAYS OF PROVIDING A LEVEL OF PROTECTION THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THAT, THEN WE FOUND A WAY FORWARD. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANKS, HEATHER. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHRIS. I SEE IRAN. >>IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. THE DISCUSSION OF TODAY, IN PARTICULAR WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, STRIKES ME THAT PERHAPS WE IN THE GAC SHOULD BE MORE ATTENTIVE IN SELECTING THE LANGUAGE AND THE WORD THAT WE PUT IN OUR ADVICE. TO THE EXTENT WE CAN FORESEE AND TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AVOID ANY EXTENSION OF UNDERSTANDING TO THAT. SO WE SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT THE SELECTION OF THE WORDS AND THE LANGUAGE WE USE IN THE ADVICE. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? NO. OKAY. PAKISTAN. >>PAKISTAN: THE PRODUCTION OF IGOs AND ACRONYM IS IMPORTANT FOR ICANN, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRIES AND GLOBAL COMMUNITY. I HOPE TODAY THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN GAC AND ICANN COMMUNITY IS USEFUL SO THERE ARE A DIRE NIECE THAT GAC AND THE ICANN NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE MAY CLOSELY LIAISON WITH EACH OTHER AND PROPOSE A SUITABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A (INDISCERNIBLE) RISK IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, PAKISTAN. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT WE HAVE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN AND HOW WE MAY BEGIN TO LOOK AT MOVING FORWARD AS A GAC, WORKING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT TO SUM UP AND WRAP UP OUR DISCUSSIONS. SO I THINK WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A POSITIVE PLACE AND NOW WE CAN, CERTAINLY FROM A GAC POINT OF VIEW, COME AWAY AND DO A BIT OF THINKING ABOUT BOTH OF THE MAIN ISSUES WE DISCUSSED TODAY, AND REGARDING THE FIRST SAFEGUARDS CATEGORY 1 ADVICE, HOW WE CAN BEST ORGANIZE OURSELVES TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. AND, AS WELL, TO LOOK AT THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US IN TERMS OF ACRONYMS FOR THE IGOs. AND I THINK WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFIED WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS, WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES. AND SO I'VE TAKEN CAREFUL NOTE OF THOSE, AND WE CAN USE THAT AS GOOD GUIDANCE. SO THANK YOU FROM THE GAC. AND I WOULD ASK WHETHER, CHERINE, YOU OR CHRIS HAVE ANY CONCLUDING COMMENTS. >>CHERINE CHALABY: HEATHER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE CAME THIS MORNING, AND IF YOU REMEMBER MY OPENING REMARKS, WE SAID WE'RE NOT COMING HERE FOR A DECISION TODAY, NOR, INDEED, WE WISH TO DRAG THE GAC INTO IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES. WE CAME HERE TODAY TO START A DIALOGUE BECAUSE SOME OF THE ADVICE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE NEED CLARIFICATION. I HAVE TO SAY WE ARE REALLY VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE TONE OF THE CONVERSATION, BY YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP, AND BY YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FIND A REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY FORWARD. SO TO ME, THAT WAS A VERY, VERY POSITIVE MEETING, AND WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CONTRIBUTION AND ATTITUDE TO THIS. THANK YOU.

1 0

ICANN Labs New Microsite to be launched tomorrow
by Chris Chaplow July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

Hi there, Please find link to new ICANN Micro site <http://labs.icann.org/> http://labs.icann.org/ with its own blog <http://icannlabs.tumblr.com/> http://icannlabs.tumblr.com/ and Twitter to follow <https://twitter.com/ICANNLabs> https://twitter.com/ICANNLabs 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.

1 0

FW: New LinkedIn Group for ICANN Business Enagagement
by Steve DelBianco July 14, 2013

July 14, 2013

Here's the ICANN for Business website we're discussing in Durban this morning. ICANN for Business<http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICANN-Business-5097881> <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICANN-Business-5097881> on LinkedIn. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 Subject: New LinkedIn Group for ICANN Business Enagagement To Stakeholders of ICANN in the Business Community: Over the past six months you have helped shape our thinking on how to engage with organizations like yours. Here's what we've heard: we need to make ICANN easier to follow and continue show its relevance to a variety of businesses. To that end, we are launching ICANN for Business<http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICANN-Business-5097881> <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/ICANN-Business-5097881> on LinkedIn. Please join today and comment on what you see! Thank you for your attention and advice. I hope you will continue to provide feedback to me or to our content coordinator, Riccardo Ruffolo. Christopher Mondini VP, Stakeholder Engagement North America and Global Business Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300; Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 chris.mondini(a)icann.org<mailto:chris.mondini@icann.org> +1 (310) 578-8658 (direct) +1 (650) 796-4665 (mobile) Skype: chris.mondini.icann

1 0

Information about Gala in Durban
by Benedetta Rossi July 13, 2013

July 13, 2013

Dear BC members, Please note that this information has been posted on the ICANN website regarding the gala tickets: Guests can collect their invitations from the .ZA booth (#6) situated in exhibition hall 3A of the ICC from Monday, 15 July 2013. 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

2 1

regarding Jeff Neuman's motion to amend ICANN Bylaws
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2013

July 13, 2013

Regrading Jeff's motion that we are discussing now: Here are the ICANN Bylaws -- with Jeff's amendment in GREEN: ARTICLE X: GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION Section 1. DESCRIPTION There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. The GNSO is also responsible for providing advice to the ICANN Board on the implementation of policies relating to gTLDs. [add section requiring a formal consultation process if Board determines to take action not consistent with GNSO advice] Section 2. ORGANIZATION The GNSO shall consist of: (i) A number of Constituencies, where applicable, organized within the Stakeholder Groups as described in Section 5 of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-5>; (ii) Four Stakeholder Groups organized within Houses as described inSection 5 of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-5>; (iii) Two Houses within the GNSO Council as described in Section 3(8) of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.8>; and (iv) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO, as described in Section 3 of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3>. Except as otherwise defined in these Bylaws, the four Stakeholder Groups and the Constituencies will be responsible for defining their own charters with the approval of their members and of the ICANN Board of Directors. Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL 1. Subject to the provisions of Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XX-5> and as described in Section 5 of Article X<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-5>, the GNSO Council shall consist of: a. three representatives selected from the Registries Stakeholder Group; b. three representatives selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group; c. six representatives selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group; d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and e. three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one of which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House (as described in Section 3(8) of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.8>) by the Nominating Committee. No individual representative may hold more than one seat on the GNSOCouncil at the same time. Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender. There may also be liaisons to the GNSO Council from other ICANNSupporting Organizations and/or Advisory Committees, from time to time. The appointing organization shall designate, revoke, or change its liaison on the GNSO Council by providing written notice to the Chair of the GNSOCouncil and to the ICANN Secretary. Liaisons shall not be members of or entitled to vote, to make or second motions, or to serve as an officer on theGNSO Council, but otherwise liaisons shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the GNSO Council. 2. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article XX, and Section 5 of these Bylaws<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XX-5>, the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter. The regular term of two representatives selected from Stakeholder Groups with three Council seats shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other representative selected from that Stakeholder Group shall begin in odd-numbered years. The regular term of three representatives selected from Stakeholder Groups with six Council seats shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other three representatives selected from that Stakeholder Group shall begin in odd-numbered years. The regular term of one of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other two of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in odd-numbered years. Each GNSO Council member shall hold office during his or her regular term and until a successor has been selected and qualified or until that member resigns or is removed in accordance with these Bylaws. Except in a "special circumstance," such as, but not limited to, meeting geographic or other diversity requirements defined in the Stakeholder Group charters, where no alternative representative is available to serve, no Council member may be selected to serve more than two consecutive terms, in such a special circumstance a Council member may serve one additional term. For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term shall not be deemed to have served that term. A former Council member who has served two consecutive terms must remain out of office for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term as Council member. A "special circumstance" is defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. 3. A vacancy on the GNSO Council shall be deemed to exist in the case of the death, resignation, or removal of any member. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term by the appropriate Nominating Committee or Stakeholder Group that selected the member holding the position before the vacancy occurred by giving the GNSO Secretariat written notice of its selection. Procedures for handling Stakeholder Group-appointed GNSOCouncil member vacancies, resignations, and removals are prescribed in the applicable Stakeholder Group Charter. A GNSO Council member selected by the Nominating Committee may be removed for cause: i) stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all members of the applicable House to which the Nominating Committee appointee is assigned; or ii) stated by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of all members of each House in the case of the non-voting Nominating Committee appointee (seeSection 3(8) of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.8>). Such removal shall be subject to reversal by theICANN Board on appeal by the affected GNSO Council member. 4. The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures (the "GNSOOperating Procedures") as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by a majority vote of each House. The GNSO Operating Procedures shall be effective upon the expiration of a twenty-one (21) day public comment period, and shall be subject to Board oversight and review. Until any modifications are recommended by the GNSO Council, the applicable procedures shall be as set forth in Section 6 of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-6>. 5. No more than one officer, director or employee of any particular corporation or other organization (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) shall serve on the GNSO Council at any given time. 6. The GNSO shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANNBoard by written ballot or by action at a meeting. Each of the two voting Houses of the GNSO, as described in Section 3(8) of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.8>, shall make a selection to fill one of two ICANN Board seats, as outlined below; any such selection must have affirmative votes compromising sixty percent (60%) of all the respective voting House members: a. the Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 13; and b. the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 14 Election procedures are defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Notification of the Board seat selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4)<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VI-8.4>and 12(1)<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VI-12.1>. 7. The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSOCouncil specifies, but not longer than one year. Each House (as described in Section 3.8 of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.8>) shall select a Vice-Chair, who will be a Vice-Chair of the whole of the GNSO Council, for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year. The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSOChair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be held. 8. Except as otherwise required in these Bylaws, for voting purposes, theGNSO Council (see Section 3(1) of this Article<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.1>) shall be organized into a bicameral House structure as described below: a. the Contracted Parties House includes the Registries Stakeholder Group (three members), the Registrars Stakeholder Group (three members), and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee for a total of seven voting members; and b. the Non Contracted Parties House includes the Commercial Stakeholder Group (six members), the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (six members), and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee to that House for a total of thirteen voting members. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, each member of a voting House is entitled to cast one vote in each separate matter before the GNSOCouncil. 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA> hereto, or theGNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSOCouncil motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority. d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House. e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSOSupermajority. f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For anyPDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, theGNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House. g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination. h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSOSupermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation. i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSOSupermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSOSupermajority, j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where anICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, theGNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded. k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDPRecommendation may be modified or amended by theGNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote. l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House."

2 1

Small Steps for Business Engagement: Launching New Platforms
by Phil Corwin July 13, 2013

July 13, 2013

http://blog.icann.org/2013/07/small-steps-for-business-engagement-launching… 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

1 0

current draft of the Policy / Implementation charter
by Steve DelBianco July 13, 2013

July 13, 2013

In Saturday's GNSO Working session, we're discussing the draft charter for the Policy Implementation PDP. Attached is current draft, which is actively being revised by the Drafting Team. BC will have opportunity to comment on this, and to participate in the PDP Working Group once it convenes. The discussion page is here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41886402>. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Letter from Stacey King to Steve Crocker, Fadi Chehade, and Cherine Chalaby
by Phil Corwin July 12, 2013

July 12, 2013

Re: .Amazon http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/king-to-crocker-et-al-04jul13-e… 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

1 0

Fwd: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless?
by Phil Corwin July 12, 2013

July 12, 2013

Excellent post by Stephane... 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 Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: July 9, 2013, 10:56:59 PM EDT To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Subject: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless? http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130709_technical_impact_of_new_gtlds_are_we… 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

6 5

DURBAN: Agendas BC & CSG Meetings, Cross Constituency Breakfast invitation, Annotated agenda
by Benedetta Rossi July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the following useful documents for the meeting in Durban: 1. Agendas for all BC meetings 2. Agendas for all CSG meetings 3. Cross Constituency Breakfast invitation 4. BC Annotated agenda 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

Helpful analysis documents by Angie Graves
by Steve DelBianco July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013

Last week, BC member Angie Graves asked me if there were any policy coordination projects she could help with. I suggested 2 documents that would help BC members going into the Durban meeting. Angie came thru with the two attachments: 1. Analysis of the public comments on GAC Safeguard Advice. (first attachment) Here, Angie went thru all 130 of the public comments on GAC Safeguard advice, and categorized them (applicant, contract party, registrant, user). This should help us distinguish GAC support/opposition coming from "customers" of ICANN versus contract parties and TLD applicants. Angie welcomes further insights on correcting the categorizations. 2. Analysis of the BC's RAA requests, versus what the Board approved in the final 2013 RAA. (second attachment) As we anticipated, few of our requests were granted. Thank you, Angie, for your contributions to the BC's policy work. --Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

5 4

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Helpful analysis documents by Angie Graves
by Ron Andruff July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

I would like to echo our Chair in appreciation of the work you undertook, Angie. So many if us in the BC are caught up in our daily workload that it is hard to find time to participate in the ICANN activities that seem to flow like a waterfall these days. But engage we must if the ICANN model is to prevail over the ITU and others that would have it another way. So many thanks to you for stepping up. Looking forward to seeing you in Durban. RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com> Date: 07/10/2013 15:09 (GMT-05:00) To: Angie Graves <angie12345(a)gmail.com> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Helpful analysis documents by Angie Graves Angie, Many, many thanks for this analysis. It is extremely helpful, and your support is appreciated immensely. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:39 AM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: Angie Graves Subject: [bc-gnso] Helpful analysis documents by Angie Graves Last week, BC member Angie Graves asked me if there were any policy coordination projects she could help with. I suggested 2 documents that would help BC members going into the Durban meeting. Angie came thru with the two attachments: 1. Analysis of the public comments on GAC Safeguard Advice. (first attachment) Here, Angie went thru all 130 of the public comments on GAC Safeguard advice, and categorized them (applicant, contract party, registrant, user). This should help us distinguish GAC support/opposition coming from "customers" of ICANN versus contract parties and TLD applicants. Angie welcomes further insights on correcting the categorizations. 2. Analysis of the BC's RAA requests, versus what the Board approved in the final 2013 RAA. (second attachment) As we anticipated, few of our requests were granted. Thank you, Angie, for your contributions to the BC's policy work. --Steve -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Expert Volunteers Needed to Define Requirements for Internationalized Registration Data and Corresponding Data Model for gTLD Registries
by Benedetta Rossi July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement for a call for volunteers to define requirements for internationalized registration data and corresponding data model for gTLD registries. -- 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://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08jul13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08jul13-en.htm Expert Volunteers Needed to Define Requirements for Internationalized Registration Data and Corresponding Data Model for gTLD Registries 8 July 2013 As part of the process to implement WHOIS review team recommendations related to Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements, ICANN seeks volunteers who are community representatives with expertise in linguistics, IDNA, policy and registry/registrar operations to participate in a working group to determine appropriate Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements and data model for Registration Data Directory Services (aka WHOIS services). Interested experts are invited to submit their résumé and an expression of interest statement demonstrating how they meet the qualifications for one or more of the expertise areas specified. The <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/call-for-experts-ird-08jul13 -en.pdf> call for volunteers document [PDF, 143 KB] that describes the type of expertise needed, as well as the process for selecting members. Applications should be sent to <mailto:whois-rt-12@icann.org> whois-rt-12(a)icann.org no later than 16 August 2013. The working group is expected to: * Determine the requirements for internationalized registration data * Produce a data model for the IRD that matches the requirement In doing so the working group is expected to build on previous community efforts related to this issue, most notably: * <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> SSAC-GNSO Final Report on Internationalized Registration Data [PDF, 641 KB] * <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-054-en.pdf> SAC 054: SSAC Report on Domain Name Registration Data Model [PDF, 575 KB] The result of the WG product will go through a public comment process to ensure broad input is received. It will form the basis for further policy development and/or contractual framework for generic Top-level domains, as well as ideally becoming a best practice for country code top-level domains. Successful completion of the project depends on having team members with the right skills. Therefore ICANN, through its Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and through its contacts with the international Internet community, is soliciting the participation of community volunteers. The formation of the working group is part of the process to implement the internationalized registration data recommendations of the <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> ICANN WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report [PDF, 1.44 MB] as <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-08nov12-en.htm> adopted by the ICANN Board

1 0

Patagonia, Inc. Withdraws Its Application For New gTLD .PATAGONIA | TheDomains.com
by Phil Corwin July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/07/10/patagonia-inc-withdraws-its-applicatio… 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

3 2

Reminder of BC Adobe Connect room link
by Benedetta Rossi July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

BC Adobe Connect room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/busnsconst/ -- 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

Re: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless?
by Marilyn Cade July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

Will fowad when I get into office. There ae three issues related to SS, not just root scaling. SSAC has a short time slot. It may need more attention within BC. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:23:46 To: <jb7454(a)att.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless? Hi Jeff, It is my understanding that we are scheduled to meet with the SSAC when we meet as the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG). Marilyn - can you please send those CSG agendas? Additionally - there is a SSR session on Wednesday and SSAC session on Thursday. Hope this helps. Best, Elisa From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:04 AM To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless? Agreed. The SSR Review Team also raised concerns that the initial SSAC root scaling study was narrowly focused, and we recommended that ICANN conduct a thorough SSR review prior to launching the new gTLD program. Are there sessions scheduled on this topic in Durban? Jeff 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: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:09 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Fwd: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless? Excellent post by Stephane... 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 Begin forwarded message: From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > Date: July 9, 2013, 10:56:59 PM EDT To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > Subject: The Technical Impact of New gTLDs: Are We Pushing on Regardless? http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130709_technical_impact_of_new_gtlds_are_we… 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

1 0

ICANN Durban Meeting: Travel Logistics
by Benedetta Rossi July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below some useful guidelines submitted by ICANN regarding traveling to Durban. 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 Dear Traveler: We look forward to another productive ICANN meeting in Durban, South Africa. If this is your first time to travel to South Africa, below are some helpful travel tips/guidelines to make sure that your travel to Durban is as smooth as possible. VIDEO INTRODUCTION Please watch this video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ROySGZ54cns> introduction to get yourself started with your travel to Durban. TRAVELLING TO DURBAN 1) Have your valid passport, South Africa visa (if necessary), and/or Yellow Fever card (if necessary) prior leaving for the airport. 2) Complete the South Africa landing card the best as you can PRIOR to landing. 3) If you are transiting through Cape Town or Johannesburg to get to Durban, please make sure to: A) Get your boarding pass from Cape Town or Johannesburg to Durban prior to arriving in Cape Town or Johannesburg to allow for a smooth transit. B) If you are checking in luggage(s): * You will need to collect your bags in Cape Town or Johannesburg; your luggage will not go straight to Durban. * You will also need to re-check them again at the main domestic departures. Please be mindful of your connecting flight to Durban. FOREIGN EXCHANGE & ATMS AT THE AIRPORT A bureau de change, on the ground floor of the international arrivals/departures terminal, is open when international flights arrive and depart. ABSA Bank, which is in the public concourse, opens 30 minutes before the first flight and closes 30 minutes after the last flight of the day. (tel +27 (0)31 408 1408) First National Bank, Nedbank, Standard Bank, and ABSA Bank have ATMs in the public concourse. TRAVELLING TO THE HOTEL TRANSPORTATION FROM KING SHAKA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Approx. travel time from airport to hotel: 30 minutes CAR SERVICE Airport transfers MUST be pre-arranged & pre-paid prior to arrival in Durban! The following providers are approved for booking transportation from the airport to your hotel. Terra Nova: Cost: R 330.00 (+ 4% surcharge for CC payments) * Book via email to: icanndurban2013(a)terra-nova.co.za (Contact Name: Inge) EZ Shuttle: Cost: R 365.00 (1-3 pax), and R 620,00 (4-9 pax) +5% discount for ICANN attendees * Book via email to: info(a)ezshuttle.co.za and enter "ICC Durban 2626" in the subject line * Book online at: http://www.ezshuttle.co.za/login_form2.php LOGIN DETAILS: USERNAME: iccdurban2626 PASSWORD: shuttles * All travelers MUST read their confirmation emails/SMS to confirm booking accuracy. TAXI Estimated cost: R 450.00 - R 580.00 ($44 - $57 USD) Official taxi companies operating from the King Shaka International Airport: * A Hassan Taxis +27 (0)31 564 0734 * Aussies Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 309 7888 * Boshoff Taxis +27 (0)31 306 6330 * Checkers Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 465 5573 * Eagle Radio Taxis +27 (0)31 337 2442 Accepted forms of payment may vary. If you plan to take a taxi, you should carry some local currency with you just in case. Use Official Taxi Services Only! Always establish price, & accepted form of payment with driver prior to taking a ride. HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS n View Map <https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=204888582384296127799.0004e08d733775da 30951&msa=0&ll=-29.843771%2c31.033802&spn=0.021776%2c0.039053> HILTON DURBAN 12-14 Walnut Road, Durban 4001 Tel +27 31 336 8100 All guest rooms include Internet Access & Breakfast (served daily 06:00 - 10:00). SOUTHERN SUN ELANGENI & MAHARANI Elangeni or Maharani Tower 63 Snell Parade, Durban 4001 Tel +27 31 362 1300 All guest rooms include Internet Access & Breakfast (served daily 05:30-10:00). CHECK-IN: A credit card will be required at check-in. Expect to pay for all incidentals, including any meals charged to your room. These charges must be settled at check-out. CHECK-OUT: Check out is no later than 11:00 AM - NO LATE CHECK OUTS ARE AUTHORIZED. TRAVELLING TO CONVENTION CENTER n Shuttle Schedule <http://durban47.icann.org/files/meetings/durban2013/ICANN47-Shuttle-Schedul e-3Jul13.png> Shuttle transportation between the ICC Durban and supported hotels is arranged by ICANN for all attendees. Service will start on Friday, 12 July @ 7:30, and daily shuttles will run every 15min throughout the day for the duration of the meeting. Shuttle service routes do not include the Hilton, which is located just a few short steps away from the ICC. If your hotel is at the Southern Sun Elangeni & Maharani, we do not recommend that you walk to/from the hotel to the convention center. We highly urge you to take advantage of the shuttle service. If you do find yourself needing to go to/from the Southern Sun Elangeni & Maharani Hotel and convention center, please consider hiring a taxi. STREET SMARTS * Avoid an ostentatious display of expensive jewelry, cameras, mobile phones and other valuables. * Keep your handbag closed or zipped, and your wallet in an inside pocket and not in the rear pocket of your trousers. Do not leave them unattended. It is ill advised to carry large sums of money with you. * Do not walk around talking on your mobile phone in the street and do not leave your phone unattended. * Exchange your currency at a bank or at the hotel, not on the street. * At night, stay away from dark, isolated areas. It is always better to explore in groups and to stick to well-lit, busy streets. * Do not ask strangers to take group pictures, no matter how friendly they may seem. * Use the Bram Fischer Road only to/from the hotel/convention center. Best wishes, Joseph de Jesus Travel Support Coordinator Diane Schroeder, Joseph de Jesus, and Karen Lettner Constituency Travel Team ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 email: constituency-travel(a)icann.org

1 0

Business Leadership South Africa
by john＠crediblecontext.com July 10, 2013

July 10, 2013

All, In anticipation of my first trip to South Africa and as a GNSO Councillor representing the Commercial and Business Users Constituency, I have been paying closer attention to information about the business community in the country -- always on the look out for new members! I recently came across a story in a public relations industry magazine written by Thero Setilone, CEO of Business Leadership South Africa. Here is a link to the story: http://www.brunswickgroup.com/files/html/brunswickreviewIssue7/assets/pdf/m… I wonder if he or someone from the group will be in Durban for the ICANN meeting. And here is a link to the Business Leadership site: http://www.businessleadership.org.za/home/index.html On the site, I found an interesting Executive Director's report from 2010 that makes for, to me at least, interesting reading. Here is the link: http://www.businessleadership.org.za/gup/filez/Press_Release_SA_as_a_Develo… Cheers, John Berard

1 0

BC NomCom elections: Nominations now open
by Benedetta Rossi July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

From: BC Secretariat Date: July 8th, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery, Returning Officer Robert Hoggarth, Verifying Officer <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC NomCom Elections: Nominations now open Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for the two BC NomCom Delegates for 2014. The election process opens today, July 8th, 2013. The election will be conducted by myself, BC Secretariat, fulfilling the role of Voting Officer for the duration of the election process. For the election process, all communications regarding elections will go to this email address: <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com The attached election procedure covers: time-frames for the three stage process outlined in the BC Charter who is eligible to nominate, or accept a nomination candidate statements when the elections will be held, as exception: ties in any election Please note that the nomination period opens today, July the 8th, and will close in two weeks, on July 22nd, 2013. The detailed description of the Elections and Voting process is provided in the attached document so that all members are fully informed of the Elections Process and can avail themselves fully of the opportunity to nominate or stand for office, and vote, if eligible. Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election. Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi, serving as Voting Officer -- 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: New ICA Webpost on EU Registrar Exemption from RAA Data Retention Requirements
by Phil Corwin July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

FYI, just posted this at the ICA website... http://internetcommerce.org/RAA_data_retention_loophole EU Registrars Empowered to Seek New RAA Data Retention Exemption ICANN's Board approved the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) on June 27th, and its Resolution doing so noted that "the Board has accepted the GAC Advice in the Beijing Communiqué that the "the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement should be finalized before any new gTLD contracts are approved."" -- and cited as a "highlight" that "The 12 Law Enforcement Recommendations that served as the impetus for these negotiations are all addressed" including "new data retention obligations"[1]. However, a newly disclosed June 6th letter reveals that ICANN was already aware that EU-based registrars would have solid grounds to seek an exemption from those very data retention obligations. That letter[2], sent to CEO Fadi Chehade and Board Chairman Steve Crocker, was signed by Jacob Kohnstamm, Chairman of The Article 29 Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data, is composed of representatives from the national data protection authorities of the EU Member States, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission. The letter unequivocally states that "the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe" and therefore "relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" would violate data privacy law in 27 EU nations if they complied with it. These findings were based on two major factors: * "The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe... Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data." * "[T]he Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement...The fact that these personal data can be useful for law enforcement does not legitimise the retention of these personal data after termination of the contract. Because there is no legal ground for the data processing, the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe." The letter also makes this observation: "The Working Party notes that ICANN has included a procedure for registrars to request a waiver from these requirements if necessary to avoid a violation of applicable data protection law. Such a waiver request can be based on written guidance from a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data retention requirements violates applicable law. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe." The Data Retention Specification (DRS) of the new RAA did not change in any material way between the June 6th transmittal of the Article 29 WP letter and the Board's approval of the RAA three weeks later, so the letter appears to provide EU-based registrars with solid grounds for seeking an exemption from the requirements. The DRS authorizes a registrar to provide written notice to ICANN and request a waiver with a specific term or condition upon: "receipt of either (i) a written legal opinion from a nationally recognized law firm in the applicable jurisdiction that states that the collection and/or retention of any data element specified herein by Registrar is reasonably likely to violate applicable law (the "Opinion") or (ii) a ruling of, or written guidance from, a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data collection and/or retention requirements of this Specification violates applicable law." The Article 29 WP letter fits squarely within the second provision and we expect EU-based registrars to seek exemptions soon after the sign the new RAA. The DRS specifies that after receipt of the waiver request a good faith discussion, ICANN's General Counsel may grant a temporary or permanent waiver. Once ICANN has granted such a waiver to a registrar based in a particular "jurisdiction" (which may well be interpreted to constitute the entire EU, rather than a particular member nation) ICANN is generally obliged to grant a similar waiver to any other registrar in the jurisdiction. It is also possible that registrars outside the EU may seek a similar waiver, probably based upon a legal opinion obtained from an EU-based law firm. As noted above, the letter states that compliance would be unlawful for "relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" (emphasis added), and an argument could be made that if a registrar based outside the EU markets extensively to EU registrants, and they comprise some meaningful portion of its customers, it must likewise seek a waiver or risk legal violation - as well as the loss of its EU customers. It also remains to be seen whether, in a world increasingly concerned about cyber-privacy, EU-based registrars will gain a competitive advantage with registrants through their ability to seek waivers - and what the reaction will be from their overseas counterparts, including those in the U.S. The new RAA will be required for all registrars that wish to sell domains in new gTLDs. In addition, many renewing registry agreements require that they only utilize registrars who have entered into the new RAA once a threshold based upon registrars serving a specified percentage of their registrants is reached. The dialogue within the GAC, and between it and ICANN's Board, is already likely to be crowded in the upcoming Durban meeting, given recent actions by ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee that have frozen hundreds of new gTLD applications - primarily for "closed generics" and for strings involving regulated industries and/or with restricted registration policies - so it remains to be seen whether the possibility of EU-based registrars waiving out of the data retention provisions of the DRS will be added to the lengthy list of agenda matters requiring discussion. The most ironic portion of the Article 29 WP letter is its objection to "the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement". ICANN is indeed a private, non-profit corporation and, lacking sovereign or intergovernmental agency authority, must rely solely on contracts to enforce compliance by registries and registrars. And those data retention provisions were inserted at the insistence of law enforcement officials -- many of them from EU member nations -- and were accepted by ICANN under strong urging from nation states participating in the GAC. Indeed, had ICANN failed to include them in the final RAA it would undoubtedly have faced strong criticism from the GAC. But now EU registrars can readily arbitrage the differing viewpoints of law enforcement officials and data protection authorities and obtain a waiver from those requirements. [1] See https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm#… and also http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/board-approves-raa/ 2 Full text available at http://www.internetnews.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130606_Letter_to_IC… 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: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ [1] See https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-27jun13-en.htm#… and also http://blog.icann.org/2013/06/board-approves-raa/ [2] Full text available at http://www.internetnews.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130606_Letter_to_IC…

1 0

July NomCom report card
by svg＠stephanevangelder.com July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

Colleagues, Please find attached the latest NomCom report card. As usual, these are also archived here (this latest one hasn't been uploaded yet): http://nomcom.icann.org/report-cards-2012-2013.htm Best, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

2 2

FW: U.S. Statement on Geographic Names in Advance of Durban Meeting | NTIA
by Phil Corwin July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/us-statement-geographic-name… 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: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

FW: Article 29 WP To ICANN - EU Registrars Exempt From New RAA Data Retention Requirements
by Phil Corwin July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

FYI-- full text of letter attached--while the letter was sent prior to the adoption of the final RAA, I am told that the relevant provisions are materially unchanged. The letter states that " the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe" and therefore " relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe" would violate data privacy law in 27 EU nations if they complied with it. The finding was based on two major factors: -"The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe... Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data." -"the Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement." As the new RAA permits any registrar to seek an exemption from ICANN if provisions of the RAA conflict with local law we can assume that all EU-based registrars will do so. While not an unintended loophole, this sure creates an unlevel playing field between EU-based registrars and those in other jurisdictions. http://www.internetnews.me/2013/07/04/article-29-working-party-to-icann-eu-… Domain Industry & Internet NewsDomain Name Industry News Article 29 Working Party To ICANN - EU Registrars Exempt From Data Retention Requirements By Michele Neylon on July 4, 2013 in icann, policy, privacy, registrars The 2013 RAA was approved by ICANN's board of directors less than a week ago. The new contract introduces a number of new obligations on ICANN accredited registrars, among them are several related to data validation, verification and retention. The Article 29 Working Party, however, has written to ICANN and made it very clear that it views these requirements to be unlawful. While the letter dates from earlier this month the text of the contract was not changed drastically prior to its acceptance by ICANN's board. The letter makes reference to the new exemption process that ICANN introduced with this version of the contract, which allows registrars to gain exemptions if contractual obligations conflict with local law. And what is sure to be welcomed by EU based registrars is the letter's aim - to avoid duplication of work by data protection authorities (and registrars): In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe Here's the letter's full text: Subject: Statement on the data protection impact of the revision of the ICANN RAA Dear Mr Crocker and Mr Chehadé, In the context of ICANN' s revision of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the final RAA Proposal1, the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (Article 29 WP)2 wishes to provide a harmonised statement concerning compliance with European data protection law. Following up on our letter of 27 September 20123 and previous contributions to the process of collecting and disclosing WHOIS data4, this statement specifically addresses the legitimacy of the data retention obligation for registrars, contained in the new RAA. The Working Party notes that ICANN has included a procedure for registrars to request a waiver from these requirements if necessary to avoid a violation of applicable data protection law. Such a waiver request can be based on written guidance from a governmental body of competent jurisdiction providing that compliance with the data retention requirements violates applicable law. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of work by 27 national data protection authorities in Europe, with this letter, the Working Party wishes to provide a single statement for all relevant registrars targeting individual domain name holders in Europe. The final proposed Data Retention specification roughly distinguishes between name and contact details for the domain name holder (specified in 1.1.1 to 1.1.7) and all other types of data a registrar might collect (specified in 1.2.1 to 1.2.3), such as logfiles and billing records containing the 'means and source of payment', logfiles about the communication with the registrar including source IP address, telephone number, e-mail address, Skype handle or instant messaging identifier, as well as the date, time and time zones of communications. Registrars are required to keep the first category of personal data for a period of two years after the contract for the domain has been ended. The second category of personal data must be retained for six months after the contract has ended. The first category of data includes payment data, defined as: 'card on file', current period third party transaction number, or other recurring payment data. The proposed new data retention requirement does not stem from any legal requirement in Europe.5 It entails the extended processing of personal data such as credit card and communication data by a very large number of registrars. The fact that these data may be useful for law enforcement (including copyright enforcement by private parties) does not equal a necessity to retain these data after termination of the contract. Taking into account the diversity of these registrars in terms of size and technical and organisational security measures, and the chance of data breaches causing adverse effects to individuals holding a domain name, the Working Party finds the benefits of this proposal disproportionate to the risk for individuals and their rights to the protection of their personal data. Secondly, the Working Party reiterates its strong objection to the introduction of data retention by means of a contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement. If there is a pressing social need for specific collections of personal data to be available for law enforcement, and the proposed data retention is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is up to national governments to introduce legislation that meets the demands of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. The fact that these personal data can be useful for law enforcement does not legitimise the retention of these personal data after termination of the contract. Because there is no legal ground for the data processing, the proposed data retention requirement violates data protection law in Europe. In general, we repeat that the problem of inaccurate contact details in the WHOIS database cannot be solved without addressing the root of the problem: the unlimited public accessibility of private contact details in the WHOIS database. In that light, the Working Party welcomes the growing number of registries in Europe that are offering layered access to the WHOIS data. Yours sincerely, On behalf of the Article 29 Working Party About Michele Neylon Michele is founder and managing director of domain registrar and hosting company Blacknight. He also co-hosts the Technology.ie podcast. Site hosted in Ireland by Blacknight © 2013 Domain Industry & Internet News. All Rights Reserved. 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: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6413 - Release Date: 06/15/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Reminder: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
by Benedetta Rossi July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below a call for volunteers for the Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm> http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Introduction At its meeting on 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact information. (See <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+201 3> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013 ) Accordingly a group of volunteers will now be convened to draft the charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Those interested to join this effort are encouraged to contact the GNSO Secretariat by 05 July 2013 at <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org. Task of the Drafting Team The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working Group on the translation and transliteration of contact information. The WG is expected to address the following issues: 1. Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. 2. Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. These issues arise from recommendations in the Final Report provided by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf. Further background on the issues and related questions is described below. In addition, the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf) Working Group identification; Mission; Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, Staffing and Organization; and Rules of Engagement. The proposed Charter will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval. Volunteers If you wish to participate in the Drafting Team, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) by 05 July 2013. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate. Background Information on the Issues The translation and transliteration of contact information were but two issues addressed by the IRD-WG in its Final Report. That Report recommended that the GNSO Council should request an issue report on the translation and transliteration of contact information. In the context of these issues, contact information is a subset of Domain Name Registration Data. It is the information that enables someone using a Domain Name Registration Data Directory Service (such as WHOIS) to contact the domain name registration holder. It includes the name, organization, and postal address of the registered name holder, technical contact, as well as administrative contact. Domain Name Registration Data is accessible to the public via a Directory Service (also known as the WHOIS service). The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA 3.3.1) specifies the data elements that must be provided by registrars (via Port 43 and via web-based services) in response to a query, but it does not require that data elements, such as contact information, must be translated or transliterated. The IRD-WG identified internationalized domain name registration data requirements in addition to the translation and transliteration of contact information. It recommended that ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards for internationalizing various registration data elements. Accordingly, in its 08 November 2012 resolution and Action Plan ( <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12 -en.pdf> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12- en.pdf) the ICANN Board directed staff to: 1) task a working group to determine the appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements, evaluating any relevant recommendations from the SSAC or GNSO; 2) produce a data model that includes (any) requirements for the translation or transliteration of the registration data, taking into account the results of any PDP initiated by the GNSO on translation/ transliteration, and the standardized replacement protocol under development in the IETFs Webbased Extensible Internet Registration Data Working Group; 3) evaluate available solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs). Thus, the results of the PDP on translation and transliteration of contact information will be considered by the working group described above for which a separate Call for Volunteers will be issued. With respect to the two issues identified above concerning the translation and transliteration of contact information, the following additional background may be useful. On the first issue, whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script, the IRD-WG noted that, [t]o balance the needs and capabilities of the local registrant with the need of the (potential) global user of this data, one of the key questions is whether DNRD-DS [Domain Name Registration Data Directory Services] should support multiple representations of the same registration data in different languages or scripts. In particular, the IRD-WG members discussed whether it is desirable to adopt a must be present representation of contact data, in conjunction with local script support for the convenience of local users. By must be present the IRD-WG meant that contact data must be made available in a common script. In general, the IRD-WG recognized that, the internationalized contact data can be translated or transliterated into the must be present representation. As noted above, in this context, Translation is the process of conveying the meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it can be expressed equivalently in another language. Transliteration is the process of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by the characters of a conversion alphabet. Based on this definition, and consistent with the current state of domain name registration data, the IRD-WG noted that if transliteration were desired, then the must be present script would be the Latin script. If translation were desired, then the must be present language would be English. The IRD-WG did note that many language translation systems are inexact and cannot be applied repeatedly to translate from one language to another. Thus the IRD-WG noted that there will likely be problems with both consistency and accuracy, such as: Translation/transliteration may vary significantly across languages using the same script. Two people may translate/transliterate differently even within a language and the same person may translate/transliterate differently at different times for the same language. How would a registrar determine which particular spellings to use for a particular registrant? How would a registrant ever verify the correctness of a translation or transliteration, even if presented such data by the registrar or by a third organization that does the translation/transliteration? Furthermore, the IRD-WG noted that for a given script, there may exist multiple systems for transliteration into Latin scripts. In the case of Chinese, the multiple transliteration systems are not only quite different from each other, but most of the systems use particular Latin characters to represent phonemes that are quite different from the most common phoneme-character pairings in European languages. Finally, it is unclear whether translation or transliteration would serve the needs of the users of contact data. For example it is unclear that translating the name of the registrant and city would be useful. Would one have to translate "Los Angeles" into " City of the Angels" and translate Beijing into "Northern Capital"? The PDP should explore whether such translations facilitate or hinder the ability to contact the registrant. The second issue, who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script, relates to the concern expressed by the IRD-WG in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a PDP determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. The IRD-WG considered several alternatives to address translation and transliteration of contact information as follows: The registrant submits the localized information as well the translated or transliterated information. The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registrar translates and transliterates all internationalized contact information on behalf of the registrant. The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registrars provide a point of contact at a service that could provide translation or transliteration upon request for a fee to be paid by the requester. The registrant only submits the localized information, and the registry provides translation or transliteration. The end users of the registration data translate and transliterate the contact information. During their deliberations the members of the IRD-WG recognized that many registrants will need to access domain names in their local scripts and languages, which is the one of the primary reasons for the expansion of internationalized domain names. Therefore, the IRD-WG determined that it is unreasonable to assume all registrants wherever they happen to be located will be able to enter the registration data in scripts or languages other than their local script or language. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to address the three issues that were identified by the IRD-WG: Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar. Whether to start a PDP to address these questions. The Final Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 and on 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on the translation and transliteration of contact information. The GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. Recommended Reading for Volunteers Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13 -en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13- en.pdf). Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf) GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines ( <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf) Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Benedetta Rossi July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please see below a call for volunteers volunteers for a drafting team to develop a Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting and encourage them to join this group so that all constituencies and stakeholder groups are represented in the policy development. process. http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04jun13-en.htm Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team (DT) that will develop a charter for a new Working Group (WG). The GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG will be tasked with exploring opportunities with respect to reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting, which recommended that such a Working Group should review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. Such a Working Group could also investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that may aid in GNSO policy development efforts. 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 ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> 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%20Uniform ity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports'. The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'. The GNSO in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to better aid the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await any further action regarding Contractual Compliance metrics and reporting until the conclusion of their three-year plan towards the end of 2013. At such time the GNSO Council will consider other actions, if any. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to be performed to help inform the deliberations of the WG. More information can be found on the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/uofr> GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG page. -- 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

Minutes, transcript & recording: BC members call on July 1st, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi July 5, 2013

July 5, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes & transcript from the BC Members call which took place on Monday, July 1st, 2013 at 11 am EST. The MP3 recording can be found here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/9jc2vbx68n8plsbjgdr5.mp3 Please note that all of this information can also be found on the BC Wiki teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ 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

Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing
by Steve DelBianco July 4, 2013

July 4, 2013

ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC advice. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jun13-en.htm>) Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice. Safeguards for all gTLDs Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy checks. GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for safeguard violations. ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a basis for suspension". But that's not the same as actually requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found. Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions that are useful to protect consumers and users. That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue with the GAC. ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of the same TLD. The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice. I don't think this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD. Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s). -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 4

BC Nominating Committee Election for 2014 NomCom - Process & Announcement of Election
by Benedetta Rossi July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

From: Benedetta Rossi, BC Secretariat Date: July 2nd, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery Rob Hoggarth <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC Nominating Committee Election for 2014 - Process Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for the two seats the BC holds on the Nominating Committee. The election process opens on Monday, July 8th, 2013. The election will be conducted by the BC Secretariat, who during elections will fulfill the role of Voting Officer. For the election process, all communications regarding elections will go to a separate email <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. Glen De Saint Gery, ICANN GNSO Secretariat will serve as Returning Officer to verify the vote count, Rob Hoggarth will serve as Verifying Officer and validate the Election Process. Detailed information regarding the election procedure can be found in the election procedure document attached. Please note that this document was drafted by the BC Secretariat, serving as Voting Officer, in accordance with the BC Charter, and was validated by the Returning Officer. The attached election procedure covers: time-frames for the three stage process outlined in the BC Charter description of open seats who is eligible to nominate, or accept a nomination how to nominate how to accept a nomination candidate statements when the election will be held outcomes of election announcement as exception: ties in any election The BC Charter provides the basis for the election and is referenced in the relevant sections of the Elections Process, in particular Sections 4.2-4.7, 5, and 8.2.3. Eligibility for participation in the election process is referenced in Section 11, regarding payment of Membership fees. Eligibility to stand for election is referenced in section 4.7 of the Charter. Questions about status of payment of dues should be sent to <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org, but final status is determined by the BC ExComm who will make final determinations based on payments received. The detailed description of the Elections and Voting process is provided in the attached document so that all members are fully informed of the Elections Process and can avail themselves fully of the opportunity to nominate or stand for office, and vote, if eligible. Dates of Nomination and Election: The 3+ week for this years Nominating Committee election will open on July 8th, 2013, and close on August 9th, 2013. The phases of the Election process are detailed in the Election Procedure attached. All communications regarding the election is conducted by a separate email, password protected, and available only to the Voting Officer, and to the Verifying Officer at <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. Elections Process: Questions regarding the Elections process, as of Monday, July 8th, 2013, should be sent to <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com and the Voting Officer/Returning Officer will be able to respond to questions regarding the Elections Process. Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election. Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi to <mailto:bc-private@icann.org> bc-gnso(a)icann.org Copy to: Glen De Saint Gery, GNSO Secretariat, acting as Returning Officer, Rob Hoggarth, acting as Verifying Officer and to <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com -- 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

2 1

CORRECTED: Minutes, transcript & MP3 Recording - BC Member call on June 20, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the updated minutes from the BC call hosted on the 20th of June 2013. I made an amendment to the first section of the minutes, where I inadvertently had left a section of the previous set of minutes used as outline for the minutes themselves. My apologies for the inconvenience, -- 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 BC Members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript for the BC Members call which took place on June 20, 2013. The MP3 Recording of this meeting can be found here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/kdikdzpaic5g6o1z2ivp.mp3 Please note that these documents and recordings can be found on the BC Wiki on the teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ 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

Minutes, transcript & MP3 Recording - BC Member call on June 20, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript for the BC Members call which took place on June 20, 2013. The MP3 Recording of this meeting can be found here: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/kdikdzpaic5g6o1z2ivp.mp3 Please note that these documents and recordings can be found on the BC Wiki on the teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ 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

BC Memers Call - Finance Update
by Chris Chaplow July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

Members Slightly longer notes on Budget Update than I said on the call today: BC submitted comment on time (31 May) more questions than comments. BC submitted analysis and support of IPC, Ry, ISP, M Oconor in Reply round. (21 June) (thanks Angie) ccNSO submitted comments after close. (25 June) ICANN summary and answers has STILL not been posted despites several announcements. Board Finance Committee approved on 16th May FY14 budget be approved during the Durban meeting, and during the interim, the organization be authorized to operate in a manner consistent with the budget as posted. BC has submitted SO/AC FY13 support requests to the full value of agreed budget yesterday. ie By last day of FY13 to include Beijing and Durban newsletter costs and Leadership Development Programme. I have had receipt conf. Notice Two sessions on the Durban Schedule Wed 11.00 to 12.30 ICANN Finance open Session and Thur 10.00 to 11.00 Finance Process Improvements Working Group 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.

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] NomCom
by Marilyn Cade July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

I didn't hear any discussion along those lines. The transcript will be clear, I think. The Chair said that the CSG and she supported relying on election results, described her own research and familiarity with past selection process (whether election or seconm$ent not mentioned) and discussed the considerations by BC members. Maybe wait for transcript if anyone missed call? I mentioned that there is now a lot more published information from the NC for this year, available for all BC members to review. Which is an improvement to past available information. I think that was all that was discussed on the BC call. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: stephvg(a)gmail.com Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:30:15 To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] NomCom Thanks for that clarification J Scott. Not having been on the call I had not understood that there was discussion about manipulating the results to achieve diversity and obviously agree with you there. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot as a group. Let's get the right reps first, and then worry about fine tuning. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 1 juil. 2013 à 18:27, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > a écrit : Stephane: I agree with you about geographic diversity. I think we should most definitely strive for it. That said, I do not think the Excom should manipulate election results in order to do so. If we are concerned about this issue, perhaps we should change our bylaws to have the reps. nominated by the membership (including self-nomination) and then having the Excom appoint them to ensure a more controlled effort to reach the desired diversity and then have membership ratify the selections. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ---------------- From: "stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> " <stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> > To: J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > Cc: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] NomCom I want to also apologize for not making today's call. I was also traveling and although I had arranged my travel around this call, I ended up being delayed and unable to join. To J Scott's point about the NomCom, having given this some thought I agree that we should aim for two reps that are truly representative of their business areas. As was discussed before on this list, we as a group are fortunate to have two reps so we should make sure we provide the NomCom with appropriate candidates from those two business sectors (large and small). I'm afraid I can't agree with the geo diversity argument however. To me, the need for geo diversity within ICANN is to make sure that regional representation is real, not theoretical. I would have no problem trusting a US rep to represent my views for example, but would still rather there was an actual slot for a European if possible. If no European is available to fill that slot, and a US rep is, then fine. But I think it should work in that order. Sorry if I misunderstood the point. There was obviously some heated discussion during today's call so I certainly do not want to add to it. Best, Stéphane Le 1 juil. 2013 à 17:54, J. Scott Evans <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> > a écrit : Dear All: I am sorry that I could not make the call today. Y! Pride and a husband that has to catch a plane have me committed elsewhere. However, I do want to chime in on the NomCom issue. First, I think I have been crystal clear about the absolute need to have a large business representative and a small business representative from the respective groups in order to maintain the credibility of these two separate seats for the BC. Second, as for geographic diversity, I do not think that we need to manipulate the results of any election to have geographic diversity. I think it is incumbent upon the elected NomCom reps to remember to reach out to non-North American BC members to ensure that we are serving our entire membership in the appropriate manner. That point should go for any position for which we designate a BC member to serve. Lastly, I want to call out Marilyn Cade for behavior that I find totally offensive. Her repeated attempts to assassinate the character of Sarah Deutsch for her previous service to the BC on the NomCom is totally unfounded and offensive. I had the honor of serving with Sarah on the NomCom as the IPC representative. I can, without hesitation, say that Sarah served the BC with honor and fought hard to get good candidates selected to all the positions. What is truly sad is how hard Sarah fought and how Marilyn, who was then Chair, has failed to acknowledge Sarah's service. I know some may not appreciate my being so direct on the list, but I think it is time we openly discuss Marilyn's unprofessional behavior on this point. I respect Marilyn and appreciate all she has done and continues to do for business, but on this issue she is simply wrong. J. Scott j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> ----------------

1 0

BC Annotated Agenda for Durban
by Benedetta Rossi July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the BC Annotated Agenda I drafted in preparation for Durban. This schedule includes all meetings present on the public schedule, but also includes all closed BC & CSG meetings and events. I also highlighted meetings of interest to BC members, and added BC leads to different meetings. Please let me know if you have any questions, Thank you ever so much, -- 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

3 4

Delays due to travel challenges returning from int'l travel.
by Marilyn Cade July 1, 2013

July 1, 2013

Due to travel problems in NE USA, email responses may be delayed. Apologies if my responses are affecting planning for the BC call or follow up. I expect to arrive back in DC evening. Will have intermittent email and phone until then. If there is a question re CSG schedule for Durban, or CSG discussions, please copy the Chair as well, and Secretariat. Thanks much to BC members. Marilyn Cade, CSG rep for BC Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:35:00 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Annotated Agenda for Durban Dear BC Members, Please find attached the BC Annotated Agenda I drafted in preparation for Durban. This schedule includes all meetings present on the public schedule, but also includes all closed BC & CSG meetings and events. I also highlighted meetings of interest to BC members, and added BC leads to different meetings. Please let me know if you have any questions, Thank you ever so much, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0