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

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