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

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 01 Sep '13

01 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 31 Aug '13

31 Aug '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