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

Policy calendar for 8-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco 04 Dec '13

04 Dec '13

There's a lot happening so I prepared a Policy Calendar for tomorrow's BC call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 12-Aug). Current working draft is attached. I started with Stephane, J Scott and Bill Smith's version fmor 5-Aug and added the two paragraphs by Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. Let's discuss on the call. Issues on the table include: Are Bill and others okay with Marie's language to express concerns about SSR? Are we comfortable with Stephane's gentle suggestion that this could apply to ccTLDs, too? Should "Commercial entities" be prevented from using privacy/proxy services? 2. Renewal of .org registry agreement (reply comments close 12-Aug) 3. Draft report on universal acceptance of IDN TLDs (reply comments close 16-Aug) 4. Postponement of GNS review (reply comments close 29-Aug) 5. .mobi and .pro request to remove cross-ownership restrictions (initial comments by 16-Aug) 6. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (initial comments by 23-Aug) 7. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug) 8. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug) 9. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch so far. Would the volunteer drafters be willing to circulate a letter for member consideration? --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Report on Council telecon meeting held 1-Aug-2013. (agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-01aug13-en.htm>) Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)

14 21

BC GNSO Councilor Elections: Nominations now open
by Benedetta Rossi 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

From: BC Secretariat Date: September 30, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery, Returning Officer ,Robert Hoggarth, Verifying Officer, <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC GNSO Councilor Elections: Nominations now open Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for one of the two BC GNSO Councilor seats . The election process opens today, Sep. 30, 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, Sep. 30th 2013, and will close in two weeks, on Oct. 14th, 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

Crocker to speak at second gTLD collisions summit | DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion
by Phil Corwin 28 Sep '13

28 Sep '13

http://domainincite.com/14569-crocker-to-speak-at-second-gtld-collisions-su… 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

FOR REVIEW by 6-Oct-2013: Draft BC position on IGO-INGO Protections
by Steve DelBianco 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

ICANN has asked for public comment on a draft final report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf>) for protecting the identifiers of certain International Governmental Organizations ("IGOs") and International Non-Governmental Organizations ("INGOs") in all gTLDs. Initial comments are due 11-Oct (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> to comment page) As discussed on last week's member call, the working group for this project asked the BC for its position before they finalized their report. Your executive committee did not believe we had enough time or prior BC positions to respond. So we need to develop a position on these recommendations now. The attached document includes draft BC positions on the WG recommendations, based on an assessment by Elisa Cooper and Steve DelBianco. (shows in grey tex at bottom of each table row. e.g. "CBUC: Support" ) Thru page 9, we reflected "Support" based on our previous work on this topic, and our strong support for TM Clearinghouse improvements to help "brands" like these at the second level. The tricky part is how to protect acronyms for groups other than Red Cross and Olympics, starting on page 10. There are several hundred acronyms to consider (link<http://csonet.org/content/documents/E2011INF4.pdf>). e.g., CAN, ISO, MRC, NIB, ECO The WG proposal is to place all these in the Guidebook as "ineligible for delegation". Elisa and Steve believe that is too hard a line and would prefer these protected organizations use the Rights Objection mechanism to stop a TLD application they oppose. If their objection failed, we have seen how the GAC could exercise its power of Advice to stop a TLD, too. Please review and indicate your agreement or objection to the attached draft positions by 6-October. Then we need a volunteer to draft the text of our comments — based on whatever recommendations are approved. Thank you, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

1 0

BC Councilor Election 2013 - Process & Announcement of Election
by Benedetta Rossi 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

From: Benedetta Rossi, BC Secretariat Date: September 27th, 2013 CC: Glen De Saint Gery Rob Hoggarth <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: BC GNSO Councilor Election - Process Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for one of the two seats the BC holds on GNSO Council. The election process opens on Monday, Sep. 30th, 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 seat . 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 year's GNSO Councilor election will open on Sep. 30th, and close on Oct. 30th, 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, Sep. 30th, 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

1 0

Minutes, transcript, MP3 recording and policy calendar: BC members call on Sep. 19th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi 27 Sep '13

27 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes, transcript and policy calendar drafted by Steve DelBianco - V. Chair Policy Coordination - from the BC Members call which took place on Sep. 19th 2013 at 11 am EDT. The MP3 recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/w0pjey3dgbwr6bn80er1.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/w0pjey3dgbwr6bn80er1.mp3 Please note these materials are also available on the BC wiki, here: 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

FW: Agenda - TLD Security Forum
by Phil Corwin 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

BC members in the DC area next Tuesday may find this free event of interest- http://www.tldsecurity.net/agenda.html 8:00-9:00 Breakfast 9:00-9:15 Introduction Tim Switzer, NTAG 9:15-10:15 Speed Talks: Analysis of DITL Name Collision Data Alex Stamos, Artemis | Chris Cowherd, Donuts | Quentin Spencer, Neustar | Roy Hooper & Wayne MacLaurin, Demand Media 10:15-10:45 Open Discussion: Proposed Mitigations of Name Collisions Alex Stamos, Artemis | Chris Cowherd, Donuts | Quentin Spencer, Neustar | Roy Hooper & Wayne MacLaurin, Demand Media 10:45-11:20 Perspectives from the SSAC Jim Galvin, Afilias 11:20-12:00 Morning Keynote Laureen Kapin, FTC 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-13:30 Privacy, Security and Freedom in the domain industry Gabriel Rottman, ACLU 13:30-14:10 Panel Discussion: Certificate Authorities TBD 14:10-14:50 Brand Owner Concerns Regarding New gTLD Security Dan Jaffe & Amy Mushahwar, Association of National Advertisers 14:50-15:00 Break 15:00-15:40 TBD Chris Davis & Norm Ritchie, Secure Domain Foundation 15:40-16:00 Conclusion Tim Switzer, NTAG 16:00-19:00 Reception ICANN Rooftop 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<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6638 - Release Date: 09/04/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

3 4

Buenos Aires Preparation: Cross Constituency Breakfast guest preference
by Benedetta Rossi 25 Sep '13

25 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, As it was discussed on the last BC members call, planning for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires is underway. In order to guide decisions for inviting guests to both the Cross Constituency breakfast, scheduled to take place on Tuesday morning at ICANN in Buenos Aires, and planning for CSG engagement with other groups, you are asked to rank the four possible groups that are under consideration in order of your preference. The CSG will have at least one possible time slot for a substantive interaction with one of the groups, besides the Tuesday am breakfast slot. Schedules may prevent availability of a group at a preferred time, but the CSG ExComm will consider priorities from all three groups in the CSG in issuing invitations. Please give me your preferences regarding the groups below, with a simple 1,2,3,4 ranking. With apologies for the short turn around, it would be appreciated if you could respond by Friday. Groups under consideration, listed in alphabetical order: At-Large CCNSO GAC SSAC Thank you ever so much for your input, 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

4 3

Reminder: Update Regarding Call for Volunteers to Evaluate Metrics Related to Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice
by Benedetta Rossi 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below a reminder regarding the Update Regarding Call for Volunteers to Evaluate Metrics Related to Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice. 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 Dear All- ICANN has updated its call for volunteers to evaluate metrics related to Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice. As described more fully in the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17sep13-en.htm> updated announcement, volunteers will now have more certainty regarding the timing of their commitment. The group of volunteers to be convened this year will serve for a limited duration and scope-focusing exclusively on evaluating the proposed metrics for data gathering to support a future AoC review. As this will be a precursor to help inform the future review, the volunteer team for this initial activity will be referred to as the "Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice." Since the review team will not be convened until such time as new gTLDs have been in operation for one year, it is not necessary to follow the procedures under the AoC for selection of review team members. As a result, representatives from and endorsements of SO/ACs are no longer requested. Instead, the Implementation Advisory Group will be open to all interested volunteers, and it is hoped that volunteers from all SO/ACs will choose to participate in this important effort. Individuals interested in serving on the Implementation Advisory Group for CCT are encouraged to email <mailto:iag-cct@icann.org> iag-cct(a)icann.org by 15 October 2013. Please reply by specifying your interest in this group, your affiliation (if any) with an SO/AC, and your background. Very best regards, ICANN Staff

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Steve DelBianco 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…>) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs>) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…>) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…>), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: • Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes • Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; • Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…>), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

9 17

NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs
by Benedetta Rossi 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12sep13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12sep13-en.htm NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs 12 September 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 10 September 2013 and, among other things, reached a decision regarding the GAC's <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-e n> further advice on new gTLDs. The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique _Durban_20130717.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1374215119858&api=v2> Durban Communiqué [PDF, 103 KB], issued on 18 July 2013. Applicants submitted responses to the advice on 23 August 2013. At its most recent meeting, the NGPC adopted the Durban Scorecard, available at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -10sep13-en.pdf> Annex 1 [PDF, 119 KB], disposing of all of the GAC's further advice with one exception the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting. The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These include the advice pertaining to protections for IGO names and acronyms; Category 1 Safeguard advice; and Category 2 advice with respect to exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items. The NGPC will next meet on 28.09.2013 and will provide a further update following that meeting. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing and Durban Advice. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures
by Benedetta Rossi 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 10 September 2013 Comment Close Date: 1 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 2 October 2013 Reply Close Date: 22 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm> Public Comment Announcement <mailto:comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13/> View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): A consultation on User Instructions and Source of Policy for Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD). Current Status: Initial public consultation Next Steps: Review comments received Staff Contact: Michelle Cotton <mailto:michelle.cotton@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Consultation%20on%20gTLD%20Delegation%20and%20Redelegation%20User%20Instructions%20and%20Source%20of%20Policy%20and%20Procedures%20public%20comment%20period> Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract ( <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective: C.2.6 Transparency and Accountability — [No later than 1 October 2013], the Contractor shall develop performance standards, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, develop user instructions including technical requirements for each corresponding IANA function and post via a website. C.2.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders – [No later than 1 October 2013], the contractor shall, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.C, develop for each of the IANA functions a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it will apply the relevant policies and procedures for the corresponding IANA function and post via a website. This consultation involves the operation of the Delegations and Redelegations of Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) described in the IANA functions contract as the following: C.2.9.2.d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) ‑ The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework including specific documentation demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. Section II: Background: This is one of a series of consultations to establish user instructions and source of policy for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13-en.…> Consultation on Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) User Instructions and Source of Policy [PDF, 167 KB] * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-10sep13-en.pdf> User Documentation on Delegating and Redelegating Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) [PDF, 295 KB] * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> Section IV: Additional Information: None _____ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

U.S. official: If the UN keeps trying to regulate the Web, we should consider pulling funding
by Phil Corwin 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

FYI-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/12/u-s-official-i… U.S. official: If the UN keeps trying to regulate the Web, we should consider pulling funding By Brian Fung, Updated: September 12, 2013 The United States should consider withdrawing its funding from the International Telecommunications Union if the UN agency keeps trying to assert regulatory authority over the Internet, a U.S. official said Thursday. Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, hinted that the intergovernmental body's proposed rules<http://www.zdnet.com/itu-chief-claims-dubai-meeting-success-despite-collaps…> - which critics say gives governments more power to censor the Web - may have put the group's future in jeopardy. "If the organization decides to become an international regulatory authority for the Internet," he said at a Washington conference for gay and lesbian technology advocates, "we will have to ask ourselves whether the United States should remain one of its top two funders." The United States contributes<http://defundtheitu.com/uploads/S11-CL-C-0041.pdf> nearly $11 million a year to the ITU, a figure that accounts for 7.7 percent of the agency's budget. Japan is the only other country to donate as much. Last year, the United States and dozens of other countries walked away from an ITU plan that would have targeted spam and enhanced broadband access in developing countries, largely over a separate provision<http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/9/3747402/countries-propose-greater-itu-inf…> that would have allowed governments to manage their domestic Internets more intensively. Free-speech advocates worried that the rule would have given countries such as Russia and China greater freedom to suppress politically sensitive content. In response, one opposition organization launched a bid to defund the ITU. The North American Network Operators' Group started a White House petition in January, but failed to attract enough co-signers<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/de-fund-itu/mSJ49QcV> to require a response from the Obama administration. Pai is among the first U.S. officials to publicly sympathize with the idea. The next meeting of the ITU isn't until next year in Busan, South Korea. But that gives anti-ITU activists plenty of time to build support for the movement. (c) The Washington Post Company 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

Renewed Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Benedetta Rossi 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below the renewed call for volunteers for the drafting team to devemop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Renewed Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm Date: 6 September 2013 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. Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site should be sent to webmaster [at] gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)
by Benedetta Rossi 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) 6 September 2013 ICANN is pleased to announce that the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Top Level Domain (TLD) Program has completed the selection of the Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR). We received many applications from well-qualified individuals and we thank all the applicants for their interest in the IDN Variant TLD Program. The Integration Panel is a vital component in the implementation of the <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/draft-lgr-procedure-20ma r13-en.pdf> Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels [PDF, 1.39 MB] (the Procedure), and its success depends on having Integration Panel members with the right skills to perform the substantive work. The Procedure defines a two-pass process for the creation of IDN label generation rules (LGR) for the root zone. These rules are used to determine sets of potential "variants" of a given label that may be afforded specific treatment in the various root zone processes. ICANN published the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-06jun13-en.htm> Call for Subject Matter Experts for IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels on 6 June 2013. In response, ICANN received 22 eligible submissions and utilized the following selection process: 1. ICANN reviewed the candidates' submissions against the predefined criteria. The selection criteria were shared with the candidates and candidates were given the opportunity to provide any additional information in support of their candidature: * The selection criteria for members of the Integration Panel included at least one area of primary expertise in Unicode, Linguistics and Writing Systems, Domain Name System (DNS) and IDNA. * The selection process also took into account secondary experience the candidates had in those same areas of expertise. * In addition, the selection criteria required demonstrable ability and experience to perform systematic and detailed analysis of large data sets and to produce accurate and comprehensive results, have prior work experience, and demonstrated ability to advocate positions and build group consensus. 2. Each selection criterion was assigned a score. The evaluation team ranked each candidate's submission in relation to the selection criteria. The process allowed the evaluation team to identify the candidates who best satisfied the selection criteria. 3. Based on the scores for each of the candidates, the evaluation team arrived at a list of the most suitable candidates. For each area of expertise, the evaluation team reviewed the top candidates and made the final selection based on the aggregate expertise of the panel to ensure that all areas had appropriate representation. Selected panel members are listed below: * Marc Blanchet * Asmus Freytag * Michel Suignard * Nicholas Ostler * Wil Tan Integration Panel members are expected to serve an initial term through June 2014. Responsibilities of the Integration Panel members are stated in the Procedure and the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-06jun13-en.htm> call for subject matter experts. The decisions by the integration Panel are required to be unanimous. Expert advisors are available to the Integration Panel to aid its deliberations. These advisors aid the Integration Panel by lending their subject matter expertise, based on specific requests from the Panel. Using the same selection criteria as used for Panel members, the following advisor has been selected: * Michael Everson The selected Advisor will serve an initial term through June 2014. Additional advisors may be added at a later time as requested by the Panel and as specified in the Procedure. The Integration Panel will undertake the work through periodic conference calls and face-to-face meetings. The first face-to-face meeting is planned for early October 2013. Initial work includes preparing the maximal set of code points and default whole label variant evaluation rules for the root zone. This will serve as a starting point for the community Generation Panels, the second part in the two-pass process. For more information on the IDN Variant TLD Program, please visit <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency Comments on Potential Postponement of GNSO Review
by Steve DelBianco 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

We filed BC comments on the EWG today (see below). Thanks to Aparna and Bill Smith for taking the initiative on this issue. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 6:46 PM To: "comments-gnso-review-15jul13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org>" <comments-gnso-review-15jul13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency Comments on Potential Postponement of GNSO Review Comments of ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) regarding Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review. As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete “silo” constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006. -- Aparna Sridhar and Bill Smith prepared the draft and it was properly approved by BC membership on 6-Sep-2013 Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG
by Steve DelBianco 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

We filed BC comments on the EWG today (see below and attached). I did make one small edit per David Fares' request; seconded by Marilyn Cade. It's on page 6, giving our position on paying for access for data beyond what is free to the public: (new text in red) Cost recovery for an ARDS model should be split amongst the various groups that benefit from the centralized system. The Registries, for example, could pay a small fee per record as the centralized database is a backup for them. Entities accessing the data could pay a fee for retrieving Gated Access information,which could be done as an upfront cost paid at the time of certification/validation or per request. ICANN could also underwrite the validation/certification costs for Gated Access. The BC believes however, that for domain names use for commercial purposes, as defined and discussed above, basic data elements which identify the registrant should be available to Internet users and consumers without a fee. Additional data elements might require a fee, however these fees should be limited to recovery of actual costs. Thanks to Laura for initial draft and to all who contributed. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:46 PM To: "input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>" <input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG Attached are comments of ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. Laura Covington prepared the initial draft and several BC members contributed to the comment before it was properly approved by BC membership on 6-Sep-2013 -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Marilyn Cade 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

I support the need for the fee to be cost recovery. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fares David <DFares(a)21cf.com> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:10:08 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Thanks Steve. I have no objections with the paragraph below. I would suggest that on page 6, if we accept that users should pay a fee for gated access that we should qualify that by saying the fee should be limited to cost recovery. In fact, I question whether gated access shouldn't be part of the cost of doing business for registrars. I would welcome thoughts from others. Thanks for all of your efforts in coordinating these comments. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:04 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Importance: High This is "Last Call" for members who would object to filing the attached comments by tomorrow's deadline. Since I circulated a draft on Monday, we have seen no objections. But we did see some excellent debate about this paragraph: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights. And the EWG's "Maximum Protected Registration" should only be available to registrants who demonstrate a need for privacy to protect at-risk free-speech uses. Google questioned the idea of per-se restricting donation-seeking domains from using privacy/proxy services. Looks to me like the majority of subsequent comments were in favor of retaining the per-se restriction above. But as a by-product of that discussion, several of you wanted to add a few more offenses to the list of things that privacy/proxy eligible domains would promise not to do. So I've revised that first sentence to read: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights, distribution of malware, phishing, or other fraud. Unless more than 5 members object, I will file these comments by 3pm EST on Friday 6-Sep. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:45 AM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs%20> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report
by Steve DelBianco 05 Sep '13

05 Sep '13

As noted on our last 2 member calls, ICANN recently decided it didn't need uniform contracts for its UDRP/URS providers. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13…>) Uniform contracts were a core issue for us on our comments regarding new URS providers. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/msg00007.html> to BC comment) Phil Corwin has drafted a letter raising BC concerns and questions for ICANN leadership about this decision. (below and attached). There is no public comment deadline on this decision, since ICANN didn't allow for public comment at all. So we will take the full 14-day review period as our charter requires. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) So before 17-Sep-2013, please REPLY ALL with comments regarding the attached text. If 10% of members object to the letter after Phil has replied to suggestions, we'll have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support. Once approved, our Chair Elisa Cooper would send this letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair, where it would show as Correspondence. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>) Thanks to Phil Corwin for taking the initiative, and for being ready to handle member questions and suggestions. Steve Vice chair for policy coordination From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:04 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Subject: Draft BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report Steve: I have finally completed a draft letter for BC member consideration. This follows up on my July 21st e-mail in which I closed as follows: 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. The draft letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report – it just states the BC’s long-held position on the need for a standard and enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of questions about some of the statements in the Report. I certainly appreciate any feedback on the form and substance of the letter, as well as the proper way to proceed. Best regards, 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

1 0

Minutes, transcript, MP3 recording: BC Members call on Aug. 29th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript for the BC Members call which took place on Thursday, Aug. 29th, 2013 at 11 am EDT (3 pm UTC). The MP3 recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3 Please note these materials are also available on the BC Wiki's 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

FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review
by Steve DelBianco 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

BC members — On last Thursday's call, I did not press for a BC comment on ICANN's plan to postpone GNSO review. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm>) This comment period closes 6-Sep and we have several other pressing policy matters, so I encouraged BC members to comment individually. Right after the call, Aparna circulated a draft comment similar to what Google already filed. Bill Smith offered the Bylaws point, several others agreed, and we now have the below text circulating (including the Phil Corwin's edit to the second point.) The BC ExCom has authorized a 3-day review period for this comment, since the comment period closes 6-Sep. This is noted as an "extraordinary" departure from the 14 day review required in our present Charter, and is justified by the limited time remaining in the comment period. If more than 10% of members object to the comment below, our Charter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) requires that we have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support, and requires a quorum of half of members. If you OBJECT to the text below, please REPLY ALL and indicate reason you are objecting. Please know that IF you suggest changes to the text, we have to ask members to re-review the changed text, which will likely take us past the 6-Sep deadline. --Steve Text for Approval: As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete “silo” constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006.

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review
by Marilyn Cade 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

I will support whatever the Membership supports. I do note again for members that this may mean that the Review is going on while other Strategy Plan development activities are underway, including the work of the five mysterious panels, or whatever their correct name is. The Review is not directly tied to restructure, which is a point made by several Board members. And, while this need npt be stated in the Comment (eg, I am not asking for a language change), the review of the Council will be different from the Review of the sub structures of the GNSO. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:56:07 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review BC members - On last Thursday's call, I did not press for a BC comment on ICANN's plan to postpone GNSO review. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm> ) This comment period closes 6-Sep and we have several other pressing policy matters, so I encouraged BC members to comment individually. Right after the call, Aparna circulated a draft comment similar to what Google already filed. Bill Smith offered the Bylaws point, several others agreed, and we now have the below text circulating (including the Phil Corwin's edit to the second point.) The BC ExCom has authorized a 3-day review period for this comment, since the comment period closes 6-Sep. This is noted as an "extraordinary" departure from the 14 day review required in our present Charter, and is justified by the limited time remaining in the comment period. If more than 10% of members object to the comment below, our Charter (link <http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm> ) requires that we have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support, and requires a quorum of half of members. If you OBJECT to the text below, please REPLY ALL and indicate reason you are objecting. Please know that IF you suggest changes to the text, we have to ask members to re-review the changed text, which will likely take us past the 6-Sep deadline. --Steve Text for Approval: 0 0 1 267 1486 NetChoice 27 8 1745 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete "silo" constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Marilyn Cade 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 To: <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <abrams(a)google.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill. Andy first suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited donations. Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible for privacy/proxy services? As Andy notes, donors are often fooled by sites that pretend to be a reputable group helping with an emergency. The Red Cross/Red Crescent has talked about this at ICANN before. Should we really be recommending that ICANN allow privacy/proxy services for any site that solicits donations, as opposed to payments for services/goods/ads? Please read (and react) to the text proposed for this section (page 2, re-attached for your convenience), because the discussion thread sometimes tells only half the story. From: <Smith>, Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM To: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse. On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > wrote: Hi Steve, We really appreciate your work on this document and your efforts to capture the discussions from last week. Our only minor follow-up comment relates to the use of the term "donations" in the first sentence of "Eligibility for Protected Registration." Per our previous comment, I think there are some issues with including "donations" as a per se reason to disqualify one from taking advantage of privacy/proxy services, given the frequent connection between donations and political or other free speech. With that said, I recognize that there is value in preventing a specific abuse relating to donations, namely, charity scams that solicit money. Perhaps we can reach a compromise by removing the term from the sentence, but by broadening the second clause in the sentence to include other abuses beyond IP infringement, including phishing, malware, financial scams, etc. We'd love to hear others' views on this point. Best, Andy and Aparna On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > wrote: As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

3 3

FW: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Baskin, James F (Jim) 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

Resend of Sarah Deutsch's comments on the BC Name Collision draft From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:37 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Steve, Thanks for the thorough list of issues. Unfortunately, I have an 11:30 call on Thursday and may only be able to join you for the first 30 minutes. I'd like to be added to your team working on the domain name collision issue. We have been looking into the issue internally and it's fair to say that we have a growing list of questions and concerns about collisions and their potential negative consequences on businesses that are not currently mitigated by ICANN's proposal. I've edited the attached comments and hope we can at least ask ICANN for more time to study this issue more fully. We have asked ICANN to extend the comment period to allow for further study, but hope the BC can do so as well. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday. I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+August…>). Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 6-Sep). Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug) Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment) While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able. 2. Postponement of GNSO review (reply comments close 6-Sep) 3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep). No comments have yet been filed on this. Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration. (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call. 4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) 7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/dns-risk-mgmt/draft-final-19aug13-en.p…>). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts. Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf%20>. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions. ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: "NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string." As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link<http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/>) There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now? This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard ("so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.") So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

3 2

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Benedetta Rossi 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below the announcement regarding the 2013 Nominating Committee Selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections 2 September 2013 The 2013 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN, listed below for each ICANN body, in alphabetical order by family name: ICANN Board of Directors <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#cherine-chalaby> Cherine Chalaby, Africa Bruno Lanvin <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#bruno-lanvin> , Europe Erika Mann <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#erika-mann> , Europe ALAC <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#rafid-fatani> Rafid Fatani, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#beran-doneh-gille n> Beran Doneh Gillen, Africa <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#leon-sanchez> Leon Sanchez, Latin America/Caribbean Islands GNSO Council <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#daniel-reed> Daniel Reed (Non-Contracted Party House) <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#thomas-rickert> Thomas Rickert (Contracted Party House) ccNSO Council <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#celia-lerman> Celia Lerman Latin America/Caribbean Islands Those selected will take up their positions after the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting, which will take place during the ICANN Public meeting scheduled for November 17-21, 2013, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's leadership. The NomCom is mandated to ensure that overall ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria is that selectees are people of integrity, objectivity and sound judgment, can support decision-making within groups, can work effectively in English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and operation, are committed to its success, experienced in world affairs, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers in the global public trust. Balancing Confidentiality with Transparency Discussing the 2013 Nominating Committee results, Yrjö Länsipuro, the Chair of the 2013 NomCom, shared the following: I am very happy to report that the 2013 NomCom reached a unanimous decision about the entire slate of selectees at our meeting in Durban, South Africa, immediately after the 47th ICANN meeting in that city. There were 110 candidates, a record number reached only once before (2003). This number reflects a growing interest for ICANN leadership positions, and also the strong outreach efforts by the 2013 NomCom. I want to thank all candidates and encourage those whom we could not select this time, to keep up their interest in ICANN. The 2013 NomCom was committed to striking a new balance between the imperative for confidentiality and protecting the privacy of the candidates, with the need to ensure that the NomCom processes are up to ICANN standards of openness and transparency. Accordingly, while maintaining strict confidentiality of candidate specific information, we held NomCom meetings in Beijing and Durban that were open to all community members, both in person and online. We also issued monthly progress report cards of our work to all constituencies and stakeholder groups represented on the committee. Last but not least, I want to thank all NomCom members, and ICANN staff supporting the NomCom, for their commitment to a year of very hard work and carrying it through with persistence, in a cooperative, constructive and collegial spirit. Regional Breakdown As noted above, the 2013 NomCom received 110 Statements of Interest from candidates all over the world (27 female and 83 male), during its open nomination period from 7 November 2012 to 15 May 2013. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: * 12 from Africa * 29 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 33 from Europe * 18 from Latin America/Caribbean * 18 from North America For more information about the NomCom, please visit <http://nomcom.icann.org/> http://nomcom.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited
by Benedetta Rossi 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear BC members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the prohibition of new gTLD Dotless Domains. Kind regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30aug13-en.htm > > New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited > > 30 August 2013 > > At its meeting on 13 August 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted a resolution affirming that "dotless domain names" are prohibited. Dotless domain names are those that consist of a single label (e.g., http://example, or mail@example). Dotless names would require the inclusion of, for example, an A, AAAA, or MX, record in the apex of a TLD zone in the DNS (i.e., the record relates to the TLD-string itself). > > In addition to public comments on dotless domain names, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks associated with dotless domain names highlighted in the following papers: > > On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. > On 10 July 2013 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a statement on dotless domain names, recommending against the use of dotless domain names for TLDs. > On 29 July 2013 Carve Systems delivered a report on dotless domain names, which was commissioned by ICANN. Consistent with the SSAC report, Carve's report on dotless domain names [PDF, 1.02 MB] identifies security and stability issues. > When adopting its resolution, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks identified in these papers, as well as the impracticality of mitigating these risks. Based on the NGPC resolution, ICANN does not plan to pursue any additional studies on the subject. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > >

1 0

Filed: BC supports Board Approval of PDP Recommendation to lock a domain name subject to UDRP
by Steve DelBianco 01 Sep '13

01 Sep '13

As discussed on Thursday's BC member call, I have filed the BC comment advocating Board support for PDP recommendations for locking a domain name subject to a UDRP. There were no comments filed in the initial comment period (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-recommendat…>), so ICANN cancelled the "reply period" that was scheduled thru 13-Sep. Nonetheless, I filed so that our Board knows the BC position. Benedetta, would you please add this to the list of BC "Positions and Statements"? Description: Support for PDP Recommendations on locking a domain name subject to UDRP Date: Aug-2013 Thanks to Elisa for drafting the statement. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:18 PM To: "comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-02aug13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-02aug13@icann.org>" Subject: Business Constituency supports Board Approval of PDP Recommendation to lock a domain name subject to UDRP The Business Constituency (BC) supports recommendations from this Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which have been approved by the GNSO Council. *Please note that the BC supports the development of these limited and narrowly focused best practices, but does NOT support a full UDRP review at this time.* The conclusions and recommendations to the ICANN Board, contained in Section 7 of the PDP Working Group Final Report, are welcomed by the BC. All parties in the chain of registration will benefit from a uniform approach to definitions and procedures surrounding the locking process. Locking of a Domain Name is an important issue for the business community, as the implementation of these best practices could decrease registrant flight, thereby allowing proper prosecution of infringing behavior using domain names. We applaud the PDP Working Group for implementing important changes to the Final Report based on community input to the Initial Report, particularly the ability to request additional time for response, in a way which does not impact the UDRP timelines. The BC urges the ICANN Board to accept these PDP recommendations. As stated in the Final Report, the expected impact of the proposed recommendations is largely positive. The BC agrees that the clarification and standardization of these procedures is necessary and beneficial, and the BC notes that the recommendations are sufficiently flexible to allow Registrars, Complainants and UDRP providers to adjust these best practices to suit their own internal policies. The BC also encourages the ICANN Board and Staff to engage in education and outreach to affected community members in order to quickly facilitate the adoption and comprehension of these best practices. These comments were drafted by Elisa Cooper and approved in accordance with the BC Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0