March 2014 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Geographic names policy in the Domain Name System up to the mid-2000s
by Chris Chaplow 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

Members, I am pleased to say that I have just had a peer reviewed academic paper published in the Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy. http://telsoc.org/ajtde/2014-03-v2-n1 Title: Geographic names policy in the Domain Name System up to the mid-2000s Abstract: The history of the landmark UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) decision in 2006 on <andalucia.com>, related as a memoir by the key protagonist who developed and operated the <andalucia.com> website, shines light on an important legal precedent for the acceptance of non-governmental use of significant geographical names in the Internet Domain Name System. The narrative is supplemented by an overview of the development of geographical names policy in the domain name system from its inception through the development of ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and how Panelists applied it to geographical name disputes including references to the first and second WIPO reports. The same editions also publishes a sister paper by Heather Forrest of the IPC which follows on and brings the subject to date. Title: Challenges for the developing Domain Name System Heather Ann Forrest Abstract: Geographic names have posed challenges for Internet domain name policy makers since the earliest days of the Domain Name System (or DNS, as it is most commonly known). As the DNS develops with the addition of hundreds of new top-level domains and the challenges posed by geographic domains are addressed only on an ad hoc basis, DNS policy on these names reduces coherency, thus reducing confidence in the DNS and its controlling authority, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The broad range of issues currently and foreseeably raised by the use of geographic names in the DNS means that all Internet stakeholders are affected, not simply those claiming rights or interests in such names. This article offers insight into why geographic domain names remain problematic more than two decades after these issues first arose, identifies trends in DNS policy respecting geographic names and highlights the impact on various Internet stakeholders of current policy and decisions. With best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

FW: ICANN Week in DC
by Phil Corwin 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

Great to see all of you who were in Singapore/hope you all made it home safe and sound. FYI--- http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Week_DC DC Trains Laser Focus on ICANN. IANA, and NTIA - ICA Counsel to Speak On U.S Role in Internet Governance The calm is over, and the storm may be about to begin. Congress is back from recess and not one but two Congressional Committees are about to hone in on the implications of the NTIA's March 14th announcement of its intention to surrender its IANA functions contract counterparty status with ICANN by September 2015. Meantime, an exhausting ICANN meeting has just concluded in Singapore, at which much more was learned about the import of that decision and the complexities of implementing it (more on that in a separate post-jetlag post). Everything ICANN-related, including the Internet governance status of business in general and domainers in particular, is up for grabs and at risk for at least the next eighteen months. This is ICANN week in Washington. Besides those two Hill hearings, two major think tanks are also holding ICANN-related programs. Here's the lineup: First, on Wednesday, April 2, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee will explore the question of "Should the Department of Commerce Relinquish Direct Oversight Over ICANN?<http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=027833A0-0028-42E2-A14B-B9…>" at 10 am Eastern Time. While the witness list is not yet available, the Subcommittee is likely to focus on whether NTIA has the legal power to make this decision absent Congressional authorization -- and the potential fallout for Internet free speech and trademark and copyright protection. The following day, the Communications and Telecommunications Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider "Ensuring the Security, Stability, Resilience, and Freedom of the Global Internet"<http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilie…> . This is the Subcommittee with direct NTIA oversight, and the hearing may be contentious. The star-studded witness list consists of: The Honorable Larry Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Administration National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Honorable David A. Gross Partner Wiley Rein, LLP Mr. Fadi Chehadé President and CEO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Mr. Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice Ms. Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin American Resource Center Internet Governance and Human Rights Program New American Foundation Also on Thursday, the influential Information Technology and Innovation Foundation will hold a program on "Bully or Bodyguard? Assessing the Proper Role of the United States in Internet Governance<http://www.itif.org/events/bully-or-bodyguard-assessing-proper-role-united-…>". ICA's Counsel will be one of the presenters. The complete speaker's list is: Robert D. Atkinson President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Moderator Phil Corwin Founding Principal, Virtualaw LLC (and ICA Counsel) Steve DelBianco Executive Director, NetChoice Eli Dourado Research Fellow, Mercatus Center Finally, on Friday, the respected Hudson Institute will host "A Discussion with the Hon. Lawrence Strickling about the future of ICANN<http://www.hudson.org/events/1144-a-discussion-with-the-hon-lawrence-strick…>". Coming just after his Hill appearance, this should be a most interesting session. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, all these events will be webcast live so that you can be an eyewitness to history. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7271 - Release Date: 03/30/14

2 3

CircleID posts on IANA transition and ICANN accountability
by Steve DelBianco 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

Just wanted to share two posts I made from Singapore this week, on IANA transition and ICANN accountability A Programmer's Perspective on the IANA Transition<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140326_a_programmers_perspective_on_the_ian…> Earlier this week, I posted from Singapore on the challenges we face in designing the transition of IANA functions from the US government to the global multistakeholder community. Now, let's consider how a programmer would design new mechanisms to accomplish this transition. For starters, a programmer would need something more than high-level principles. Coding requires use cases for routine interaction and especially for cases where users don't follow the expected routine and where the real world intervenes with inconvenient problems. more»<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140326_a_programmers_perspective_on_the_ian…> The Path Forward: Accountability Through the IANA Transition<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140323_the_path_forward_accountability_thro…> It's clear that the US government is intent on dropping its legacy contractual role for the IANA functions. Whatever your views on the wisdom or timing of that decision, the challenge now is to ensure that the transition leaves ICANN in the best possible position to succeed. Arriving yesterday to the island nation of Singapore felt strangely appropriate. Over the past week I've been one of the lonely people in the ICANN community to express concern about the US government's decision. more»<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140323_the_path_forward_accountability_thro…> - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

FINAL: BC Statement on IANA transition
by Steve DelBianco 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

Here is the statement we approved today in the BC meeting. Thanks to all for suggestions and quick replies. The ICANN Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) underscores the importance of the announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department to transition the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract to the global multistakeholder community. The BC commits to engage in the ICANN bottom-up, multistakeholder process to develop a consensus-based plan for the transition of IANA and appropriate accountability mechanisms. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Sharing NetChoice Op-Ed on NTIA Announcement
by Jimson Olufuye 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

3 2

Sharing NetChoice Op-Ed on NTIA Announcement
by Steve DelBianco 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

Just a little something to read as your trek or prep for ICANN Singapore. A Washington DC publication aimed at US Congressional audiences ran today in The Hill. (link<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/201079-rewriting-the-futu…> and below) (note: there’s nothing here for political partisans. This is about where we are and the work ahead of us) Rewriting the future of Internet governance Americans created, built, and advanced the Internet, while leading the effort to protect it from censorship or discriminatory taxes and regulation. But now the U.S. government is releasing a big part of its stewardship role, leaving it to others to chart a path that keeps the Internet secure, stable, and successful. Last week the Commerce Department announced that it would relinquish control of its contractual authority over the Internet’s global addressing system. The positive global response was immediate and vocal, signaling that the move might relieve some of the intense pressure from foreign governments demanding an end to the United States’ unique legacy role in Internet oversight. That pressure, which has existed for more than a decade, spiked following the Snowden revelations, despite the lack of any linkage between NSA surveillance and the technical operation of the Internet’s addressing system. By relinquishing its legacy ties, the administration may relieve a thorny diplomatic problem, but the effect this move will have on the Internet itself is less clear. Commerce has asked for a transition plan to move control of the Domain Name System into the hands of “the global multistakeholder community”, and it called upon ICANN to develop that plan. ICANN is the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, created by the Clinton Administration in 1998 to assume day-to-day functions and policymaking for Internet addresses. The Commerce Department had oversight over ICANN for the subsequent decade, conducting performance reviews and occasionally reassuring the world about U.S. stewardship. In 2005 when some nations hinted at shifting the U.S. role to the United Nations, Commerce “committed to taking no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the DNS and will therefore maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” By 2009, ICANN had matured to the point that oversight could be relaxed in favor of an agreement with the Commerce Department, known as the Affirmation of Commitments. Under this document, the U.S. Government gave up its direct oversight in exchange for ICANN’s commitment to serve the global public interest, subject to regular reviews of its accountability and transparency, and the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. For all its worth, however, the Affirmation can be cancelled by ICANN with just a 120-day notice. But with or without the Affirmation in place, the U.S. Government has always retained the contractual authority to pull the plug on ICANN if it failed to live up to its obligations. In 2012, for example, Commerce Undersecretary Larry Strickling used his contractual authority to pressure ICANN to raise its operational standards for managing the root zone. Now, the Commerce Department is letting go of the plug, suggesting this kind of contract leverage is no longer needed and that ICANN has matured to the point that it needs no external authority. While the politics of this decision may make all the sense in the world, the process of transition and the methods that will replace U.S. oversight have yet to be developed. The government’s current contract with ICANN runs through September 2015, by which time the Commerce Department must approve the transition plan ICANN comes up with. Commerce announced a few conditions under which it will approve a transition proposal, and there is plenty of time for the Administration to raise the bar for ICANN. The Commerce Department should reject any transition plan that leaves ICANN accountable only to itself and to the world, since that’s like being accountable to nobody at all. If ICANN is no longer going to answer to the U.S. Government, it must answer to someone with the authority to correct the organization if it goes astray. Commerce has promised it would reject any transition plan that gives control to governments or intergovernmental bodies like the UN. But once ICANN has full control, Commerce won’t have the contractual leverage to prevent governments from capturing ICANN. Congress can also play a role, by asking how the Administration came to this decision at this time, and by advising the Commerce Department on how to hand-off control without dropping the ball on the Internet’s security and stability. But ultimately, it will fall to the private sector and civil society – through our participation in ICANN – to design mechanisms that pressure ICANN to be responsible and accountable. The “global multistakeholder community” may not be ready for the task that the Commerce Department has handed us. But ready or not, the future of the Internet may hinge on our success. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

FILED: BC comment on ATRT-2 Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco 16 Mar '14

16 Mar '14

Thanks to all who contributed. The BC filed our comment and it's posted here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-atrt2-recommendations-09jan14/msg0003…>. - Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

1 0

FOR REVIEW: BC Comment on review mechanism for inconsistent decisions on string confusion
by Steve DelBianco 09 Mar '14

09 Mar '14

Attached are draft BC comments on ICANN's Proposed Review Mechanism to Address Inconsistent Expert Determinations on String Confusion Objections. Comment page here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sco-framework-principles-11feb1…> (Initial comments due 12-Mar; Reply comments close 2-Apr ) The BC wrote to ICANN Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) and 30-Dec (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/cooper-to-ngpc-30dec13-en.pdf>) regarding ICANN's decision to allow both singular and plural forms of the same gTLD. ICANN later acknowledged the need for a new review mechanism for inconsistent string confusion decisions. Inexplicably, this review may look at confusion between .car and .cars, but may not review confusion between .hotel and .hotels. Thanks to Andy Abrams for this excellent draft. All BC members are invited to REPLY ALL with edits (using TRACK CHANGES, please) by22-March. - Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

1 0

BC Annotated Agenda for Singapore
by Benedetta Rossi 07 Mar '14

07 Mar '14

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the BC Annotated agenda for Singapore. It contains meetings of relevance to the BC (highlighted) and all BC and CSG private meetings which do not appear on the public schedule. 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

Policy calendar for 6-Mar-2014 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco 06 Mar '14

06 Mar '14

Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 6-Mar-2014. 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: Privacy/Proxy Accreditation: We had no volunteers to handle questions from a PDP working group on Accreditation of Privacy & Proxy services under the new RAA. Deadline was Friday, so I responded for the BC with previous positions and new questions (not positions). See my response (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position%20PDP%20WG%20On%20Acc…>), and please volunteer for this WG and/or attend session in Singapore on an issue that's vital to BC members. 1. Status update from expert working group on gTLD Directory Services (comments closed 28-Feb) The EWG status update is here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/groups/o…>, and described on this page (link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.icann.org/en/news/ann…>). Jimson Olufuye , Tim Chen, and Susan Kawaguchi drafted and we submitted yesterday (attachment) 2. Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-e…>) (reply comments close 15-Mar) Steve DelBianco drafted BC comments and circulated for review on 17-Feb. I am now sorting through 44 comments from BC members and will circuit a consolidated version for final review. Thanks for your attention to this topic! 3. Qualified Launch Program for new gTLDs (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/qlp-addendum-13feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments close 15-Mar) The new registry agreement allows operator to register 100 names for itself (or to third parties) for promoting their TLDs - prior to the Sunrise period. 4. Proposed Review Mechanism to Address Inconsistent Expert Determinations on String Confusion Objections Comment page here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sco-framework-principles-11feb1…>. (Initial comments due 12-Mar) BC wrote to ICANN Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) and 30-Dec (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/cooper-to-ngpc-30dec13-en.pdf>) regarding this. The BC is pleased ICANN acknowledged need for a new review mechanism for inconsistent string confusion decisions. Inexplicably, this review may look at confusion between .car and .cars, but may not review confusion between .hotel and .hotels. 5. ICANN future meetings strategy (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm>) (initial comments by 20-Mar) BC member Michelle Chaplow is on this WG. BC posted these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Comments%20on%20ICANN's%20proposal%20for%20consolidated%20meetings.pdf> comments in Nov-2012. 6. Mitigating risk of DNS namespace Collisions (initial comments by 31-Mar) BC filed these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20-%20Name%20Coll…> comments on ICANN's proposal to mitigate collisions. Now let's review and respond to the outside expert draft report (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-…>) 7. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (initial comments by 2-Apr) Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. 8. ICANN Strategy Panels (initial comments by 30-Apr) In Durban, the ICANN CEO appointed experts to 4 strategy panels to make recommendations to ICANN Board. This is our first chance to comment on their recommendations. The 4 panels: Strategy Panel on Identifier Technology Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-tech…>) Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance' Ecosystem (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecos…>) Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholde…>) Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsi…>) Note: BC members are encouraged to do their own comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Gabi Szlak, Councilors. Next Council meeting is 26-Mar-2014 in Singapore. Agenda to be published by 15-Mar. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Developments in global internet governance and implications for ICANN and for private sector role. --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) NCUC is hosting a day-long conference in Singapore on 21-March. Conference title is "ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to Sao Paulo, and Beyond". Speakers include Fadi Chehade and Larry Strickling. BC members on panels include Phil Corwin and Steve DelBianco.

3 2