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

NTIA announcement and its impact on the budget process
by Chris Chaplow April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

BC, Just an FYI that the FY15 Draft Budget publication is delayed by the NTIA announcement. I am personally surprised that it would have large budget impact. Since outcomes would be FY16, this must be in respect to process in FY15. (July 14 to June 15) Expect more panels and advisors and funded WGs? De: community-finance-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:community-finance-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Xavier J. Calvez Enviado el: sábado, 26 de abril de 2014 6:50 Para: community-finance(a)icann.org CC: BFC Asunto: [community-finance] FY15 Budget draft: Update on the process timeline Dear SO/AC leaders and community members, I would like to provide an update on the Operating/Budget process: you may have noticed that we have not published the draft FY15 Budget information for public comment yesterday, as originally planned. Instead, the publication of the FY15 Draft Operating plan and Budget will be delayed until a tentative date of May 8th. Kickoff calls will be rescheduled to the days following this date. The main driver to this delay is the NTIA announcement and its impact on the budget process: the management needed to change the allocation of resources in order to allow the organization to prioritize the USG transition work, and therefore adjust the resource allocation of the rest of the organization. Performing this exercise, and communicating it thoroughly with the BFC, has added approximately 2 weeks to the process of finalizing the draft budget. The BFC and Board are meeting during a workshop from Monday 28th to Wednesday 30th of April (next week). During these meetings, the full updated schedule of the budget process until Board approval will be determined by the BFC and reviewed for consent by the Board. We will then publish a more comprehensive announcement relative to this timeline change. We are not happy to delay a significant milestone of the process, but needed to dedicate the necessary amount of time to take into account the change of circumstances. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this transition phase. Best regards, Xavier

1 0

FILED: BC Comment on Namespace Collision Mitigation Report
by Steve DelBianco April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014

Today we submitted the attached comment regarding JAS Global Advisors' Report on Namespace Collision Mitigation. Thanks to Jim Baskin for leading the drafting of these comments. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

2 1

FILED: BC Comment on Initial PDP Report for IRTP Part D
by Steve DelBianco April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014

The BC filed the attached comments today, regarding the initial PDP report for IRTP Part D. Thanks to our drafters: Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: LAST CALL: BC comment on IRTP part D ICANN is soliciting comments on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. ) On 9-April, we circulated draft comments prepared by Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. (attached) reply comments close 25-Apr, so please reply all with your comments before end of day 24-April. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: Policy calendar for 10-Apr-2014 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 10-Apr-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: 1. Cross-community WG on ICANN’s submission to NETMundial (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ccwg-ig-netmundial-08apr14-en.…>) (initial comment by 29-Apr) BC members in this WG are Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, David Fares, and Phil Corwin 2. Proposal for Policy Advisory Boards for Regulated Industries and Consumer-Trust-Sensitive New gTLDs (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pab-new-gtld-strings-21mar14-e…>) (initial comments close 16-Apr) ALAC approved this proposal to address perceived deficiencies in the Public Interest Commitment Specifications of some new TLD operators. 3. IDN Variant TLDs – Label generation rules (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/msr-03mar14-en.htm>) (reply comments close 22-Apr) 4. Mitigating risk of DNS namespace Collisions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 21-Apr) 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-…>). Jim Baskin, Sarah Deutsch, and Marilyn Cade indicated some willingness to draft comments for BC. 5. Draft plan for WHOIS accuracy and reporting system (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-accuracy-reporting-11mar…>) (reply comments by 23-Apr) This plan will be used to generate an RFP for WHOIS accuracy reporting systems. 6. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (reply comments close 25-Apr) Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper drafted comments we should approve before 25-Apr deadline. (attachment 1) 7. ICANN future meetings strategy (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 25-Apr) Michelle Chaplow, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack drafted BC comments (attachment 2). They are finalizing today, to account for Tim Chen’s perspective. BC posted these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Comments%20on%20ICANN's%20proposal%20for%20consolidated%20meetings.pdf> comments in Nov-2012. 8. Issues report on IGO and INGO access to rights protection in UDRP and URS (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en…>) (initial comments by 14-Apr) BC comments on IGO/INGO from Nov-2013 (Link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00021.html>) 9. ICANN Strategy Panels (comments close 30-Apr) In Durban, the ICANN CEO appointed experts to 4 strategy panels to make recommendations. Steve and Marilyn will provide template language about the top-down process and status of these Strategy Panel reports. The 4 panels: Strategy Panel on Identifier Technology Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-tech…>). Elsia Cooper volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance’ Ecosystem (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecos…>). Marilyn, Aparana, Steve, and Angie volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholde…>). Gabi Szlak, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 3 ) Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsi…>). This panel’s membership, transcripts, videos, webinars, etc. are here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsi…>. Jimson circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 4 ) 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 10-Apr-2014 at 14:00 UTC. (Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-10apr14-en.htm>) Item 4: Discussion of Spec 13 for new gTLD registry agreement, to determine whether NGPC resolution is consistent with 2007 GNSO principles on new gTLDs. Several BC members participated in email dialog on this question last week, with nearly all agreeing that Spec 13 is consistent with GSNO principles. Item 5: Discussion of internet governance issues Item 6: Submission of Council input on Strategy Panels and Future Meetings Strategy --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Election for GNSO representative to the ICANN Board. --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Call for Public Input: ICANN’s Draft Proposal of the Principles, Mechanisms, and Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a…>) (comments close 8-May) This document includes a very tight scoping of the transition proposal: "To ensure a clear understanding of the specific issues for which a proposal is sought, a document describing the scope of the document (and what is not in scope): (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr…>)” This scoping document excludes the external accountability that NTIA provides through its authority to award the IANA contract to an entity other than ICANN. As Larry Strickling told the CSG in Singapore: I do think that there really are two sets of issues here that are teed up by our announcement. One is the very specific one of how do the INA functions work and defining the US role in that, and I do think personally although we would never dictate this, that it might make sense to have that specific question answered by people largely out of the customer base of INA, because they’re the ones that at the end of the day have to be satisfied with this. That’s not our decision. That’s the community decision, so that might make sense, but there’s also the other issue that’s clearly been teed up by this, and everyone recognizes it, and many of you have spoken eloquently about this since we got here on Friday, and that’s the symbolic role that we’ve played, whether it’s providing confidence to the community that these systems are going to work right, if the extent that people think that we were able to discipline ICANN by virtue of having - I know that’s Steve’s made that point quite directly throughout the weekend. And so that’s an important topic for the community to work through as well, and that was I think teed up in the second session yesterday. From our perspective we think the issues are interrelated. We certainly think it’s appropriate for the community to take on both issues. I think all we would like to see is that it be organized as efficiently as possible so that we get a good outcome at the end, and that we get a consensus outcome that the community can buy into.

1 0

[icannlabs] Impending Web Site Transition
by Chris Chaplow April 16, 2014

April 16, 2014

FYI From: icannlabs-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:icannlabs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Gift Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:34 PM To: icannlabs(a)icann.org Subject: [icannlabs] Impending Web Site Transition Over the past few months we have been working together to create a new website that better meets ICANN's needs. I'm pleased to report that it's ready for launch and that the transition to the new site will begin shortly. I wanted you to know what this plan entails. Beginning this Wednesday, April 16th <x-apple-data-detectors://0> , a percentage of ICANN.org <http://icann.org/> users will be redirected to the new site where they will be greeted with a banner explaining the transition, with the option to return to the old site. Over the next two weeks, the number of redirected users will increase until everyone is sent straight to the new site. Both sites will remain in parallel during the transition so users can access the old site, if they wish. Once this process is complete and we are certain that everything is functioning as it should, the old site will be deprecated and moved behind the firewall, and new.icann.org <http://new.icann.org/> will become www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> . I can say with absolute truthfulness that we would not be here if it wasn't for this Digital Advisory Group. Your input, guidance, and active participation made all the difference and has allowed us to collectively deliver a far better experience that what we currently offer. But as I mentioned in Singapore, this is the beginning. It is my belief that a site such as ours is never done and it must be constantly improved and updated to meet the communities evolving needs. And I hope that the majority of you will remain with the group, or at the very least, drop in every once in awhile and help us along. So as soon as we complete this launch we'll restart the meetings and collectively pick the next project to begin. I've also attached an FAQ to help answer questions, but feel free to contact Laura Bengford or me for more information Thank you. Chris Gift ICANN +1.949.244.5033

1 0

BC Comment on Meeting Strategy Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

Attached are Business Constituency (BC) comments on Recommendations of the Meeting Strategy Working Group. These comments were approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

RE: [Bc-private] FW: Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs
by Chris Chaplow April 11, 2014

April 11, 2014

Dear Glen, I volunteer to join the Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs best 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. De: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Elisa Cooper Enviado el: jueves, 10 de abril de 2014 20:04 Para: bc-private(a)icann.org Asunto: [Bc-private] FW: Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs FYI From: owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:59 AM To: liaison6c Subject: [liaison6c] Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs Dear All, Would you please make your membership aware of this call for volunteers. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Call for volunteers: Cross-Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization is looking for volunteers to participate in a new cross-community Working Group (CWG) on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (UCTN). This CWG has been charted jointly with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and it is expected to review the current status of representations of country and territory names as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures and to provide advice on whether to develop a framework, applicable across all SOs and ACs and if so, provide advice to the content of such a framework. What this CWG will do The UCTN CWG has been <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf> charted to address three issues: 1. To review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; 2. To provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and 3. Should such a framework be deemed feasible, to provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. When tackling these issues, the UCTN CWG is advised to take into account the <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf> Final Report of the ccNSO Study Group on the Use of Names for Country and Territory. According to its <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf> Charter, the scope of this CWG is limited to: 1) representations of names of countries, territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions, hereafter: Country and Territory names (note: other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded); 2) the use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains (note: the use of Country and Territory names at the second or other level is excluded). However, if issues become apparent to the Co-chairs of the CWG that are considered relevant, but outside the scope of the CWG, the Co-Chairs of the WG, after consulting the members of the WG, shall inform the Chairs of the participating SOs and ACs. How this team will work ICANN WGs use transparent, open processes. The operational aspects of this CWG will be further determined by the co-chairs at the start of the CWGs operations, but typically meetings are recorded, mailing lists are publicly archived and GNSO members are expected to submit Statements of Interest ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> SOI) in order to participate. The group may decide to collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented. Please note that as a working group member you are expected to attend conference calls and to actively participate in online discussions. How to Join The CWG is open to anyone interested to join. If you are interested to participate, please send an email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) preferably by 18 April 2014 at the latest, to indicate your interest to join this Cross Community Working Group. Background The ccNSO Study group on the use of Names for Country and Territory published its Final Report in September 2013 (http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227) The first of the two recommendations of the Study Group to the ccNSO Council was to establish a cross community working group to: · Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures; · Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; · And, should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework. The ccNSO Council adopted the recommendations and, as the objective of the proposed Working Group is considered to be of common interest to the broader community, other Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others were invited to participate in the working group on equal footing, and should be preferably undertaken as a collaborative effort. To this end the ALAC, GNSO and GAC were invited by the ccNSO Council to participate in a Joint Working Group. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CWG at its meeting on 26 March 2014. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0