January 2015 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Results of BC GNSO Councilor Election
by Brenda Brewer 28 Jan '15

28 Jan '15

Dear all, Phil Corwin has been elected as a BC GNSO Councilor for the remainder of 2015. Kind regards, Brenda Brewer

2 1

FILED: BC comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .BMW and .MINI TLDs
by Steve DelBianco 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Thanks to drafting by J Scott and Andy Abrams, we filed a comment today on this registry agreement amendment. See below or at the BC website<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-RSEP-for-B…>. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 7:46 PM To: "comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14@icann.org>" <comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .BMW and .MINI TLDs The Business Constituency (“BC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed amendments to the .BMW and .MINI registry agreements submitted through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (“RSEP”) on 13-Nov-2014 and posted for public comment on 11-Dec-2014 at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en. In its RSEP request, Registry Operator Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft seeks the release of all country and territory names, as defined in Section 4 of Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, at all levels of the .BMW and .MINI TLDs. The BC fully supports this request. The BC believes that the use of country and territory names will allow such .BRAND registries to segment their TLDs in a way that is meaningful to Internet users around the globe. Geographic segmentation will bring greater efficacy to .BRAND TLDs, ultimately benefitting businesses and consumers by helping the registry operator target content to audiences in specific geographic regions, using linguistically appropriate domain names and content. In addition, we firmly believe that the release of country and territory names for .BRAND TLDs will enhance security and trust in online commerce by permitting businesses to exercise more control over the security and stability of their customized web sites. For all these reasons, the BC fully supports this proposal and urges ICANN to amend the registry agreements for the .BMW and .MINI TLDs accordingly. -- This comment was drafted by J. Scott Evans and Andy Abrams, and was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Membership notice for BC
by Brenda Brewer 17 Jan '15

17 Jan '15

Dear Glen, Membership update for the BC. Sarah Deutsch is no longer with Verizon and has been removed from the BC-Private mailing list. sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com sarahbdeutsch(a)gmail.com <mailto:sarahbdeutsch@gmail.com> Kind regards, Brenda

2 1

Results of the 2015 BC Officer Election
by Brenda Brewer 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Dear BC Members Voting for the 2015 BC Officer Election closed on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 23 :59 UTC. Please find in summary and attached the full results of the BC Officer election. Each voter can check from the full results whether their vote was correctly registered. Elected Officers: Chair: Elisa Cooper Vice-chair of Operations: Jimson Olufuye Vice-chair of Policy: Steve Del Bianco CSG Representative: David Fares With kind regards, Brenda Brewer Secretariat - BC, IPC, and ISPCP Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> brenda.brewer(a)icann.org Skype ID: brenda.brewer.icann

3 2

BC council nominations
by Marilyn Cade 10 Jan '15

10 Jan '15

Thanks for the notification of the two nominations, Brenda. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2015, at 8:21, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> wrote: > > <image001.gif> > Hello BC Members, > > The nomination period for the GNSO Councilor Election is closed. There are two candidates nominated and their Candidate’s Statements will be distributed on or before January 13, 2015. > > 1. Timeline for 2014/2015 GNSO Councilor Election > > · Nomination period of two weeks: December 29, 2014 – January 09, 2015 > · Provision of Candidate statements to bc-private(a)icann.org on or by January 13, 2015 > · Discussion with Candidates: > Candidates Call on January 16, 2015: Time to be announced. > Recorded and transcribed/posted to BC membership list > > > 6. Formal Distribution of Names of Nominees: On or Before January 13, 2015 > > · The Voting Officer will transmit a list of confirmed and qualified nominees to the BC membership and publish a notification message on or before January 13th and announce a Candidates BC Members Dialogue conference call. > > > With kind regards, > Brenda Brewer > Secretariat - BC, IPC, and ISPCP > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Email: brenda.brewer(a)icann.org > Skype ID: brenda.brewer.icann > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bc-private mailing list > Bc-private(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private

1 0

ICANN Accountability WG and the BC Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco 10 Jan '15

10 Jan '15

Just a quick update on work in the ICANN Accountability Working Group (CCWG). This week, CCWG member Eric Brunner-Williams circulated draft scenarios to help design and evaluate accountability mechanisms. Earlier, I had circulated the ten BC stress tests<http://bizconst.org/stresstests> as a starting point for scenarios. But Eric included only 3 of our stress tests in his list. So today I added the missing scenarios from what the BC submitted in in May-2014. See my attached markup, or list below, where numbers 14-21 are the ones I added. If you have other ideas for stress tests, please pass them along soon. —Steve Scenarios for the CCWG to consider: 1. Change authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) relating to the content of the IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. 2. Delegation authority for the IANA Root Zone ceases to function, in part or in whole. Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) relating to the delegation from the IANA Root Zone and/or prejudice to the security and stability of one or several TLDs. 3. Litigation arising from existing public policy, e.g., Anti-Trust (Sherman Act, et. seq.). Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) and/or policy development relating to one or more relevant activities. 4. New regulation or legislation (see above). Consequence: significant interference with existing policy (or policies) and/or policy development relating to one or more relevant activities. 5. Domain industry financial crisis. Consequence: significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues and significant increase in registrar and registry continuity costs, threatening Icann’s ability to continue operating. 6. General financial crisis. Consequence: loss affecting reserves sufficient to threaten business continuity . 7. Litigation arising from private contract, e.g., Breach of Contract. Consequence: significant loss of contracted party fees. 8. Technology competing with DNS Consequence: significant reduction in domain sales generated revenues and significant increase in registrar and registry continuity costs. 9. Major corruption of fraud Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant litigation and loss of some or all reserves 10. Chairman, CEO or major officer acting in a manner inconsistent with the organization’s mission. Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant litigation. 11. Compromise of credentials. Consequence: major impact on corporate reputation, significant loss of authentication and/or authorization capacities. 12. Capture by one or several groups of stakeholders Consequence : major impact on trust in multistakeholder model, prejudice to other stakeholders 13. One or several stakeholders excessively rely on accountability mechanism to “paralyze” Icann Consequence : major impact on corporate reputation, inability to take decisions, instability of governance bodies, loss of key staff, … 14. ICANN or NTIA choose to terminate the Affirmation of Commitments. Consequence: ICANN would no longer be held to its Affirmation commitments, including the conduct of community reviews and required implementation of review team recommendations. This consequence could be avoided if Affirmation reviews and commitments are added to ICANN’s bylaws. 15. ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation where Internet users or domain registrants are seeking legal remedies for ICANN’s failure to enforce contracts, or other actions. Consequence: affected parties could be prevented from seeking legal redress for commissions or omissions by ICANN. 16. ICANN uses fee revenue or reserve funds to expand its scope beyond its technical mission, through grants for developing nations or other causes. Consequence: ICANN has the power to determine fees charged to TLD applicants, registries, registrars, and registrants, so it presents a large target for any Internet-related cause seeking funding sources. 17. ICANN attempts to add a new top-level domain in spite of security and stability concerns expressed by technical community or other stakeholder groups. Consequence: DNS security and stability could be undermined, and ICANN actions could impose costs and risks upon external parties. 18. Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for approving advice to ICANN’s board. Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. A majority of governments could thereby approve GAC advice that restricted free online expression, for example. 19. ICANN attempts to re-delegate a gTLD because the registry operator is determined to be in breach of its contract, but the registry operator challenges the action and obtains an injunction from a national court. Consequence: The entity charged with root zone maintenance could face the question of whether to follow ICANN re-delegation request or to follow the court order. 20. A court order is issued to block ICANN’s delegation of a new TLD, because of complaint by existing TLD operators or other aggrieved parties. Consequence: ICANN’s decision about whether to honor such a court order could bring liability to ICANN and its contract parties. 21. A government telecom minister instructs ICANN to re-delegate a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD), despite objections from many current registrants and user communities in the country concerned. Consequence: Faced with this re-delegation request, ICANN lacks measures to resist re-delegation while awaiting the bottom-up consensus decision of affected stakeholders.

1 0

Policy calendar for 8-Jan-2015 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco 08 Jan '15

08 Jan '15

Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 8-Jan-2015 Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process Recently filed: On 22-Dec we filed <http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-pro…> comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-CWG-propos…> on the Community WG on Naming-related IANA functions, draft transition proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en>. Thanks to Aparna Sridhar for leading this draft. Now waiting on staff summary of the comments. (more at the end of this email) On 24-Dec we filed comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BC-comment-on-MADRID-pro…> on proposed launch programs for .MADRID (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/madrid-alp-application-2014-11-11-en>) Thanks to Steve Coates for leading this draft. On 9-Dec we sent a letter<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/BC-comment-on-safeguards…> to ICANN board in support of ALAC’s call to freeze delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. On 19-Dec ICANN’s board replied<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-greenberg-1…> to ALAC, promising engagement but declining to stop the subject TLD delegations. Current ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-comment-2012-02-25-en>. Selected open comment opportunities below: 1. Reply comments on Board Working Group Report for NomCom (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en>). Reply period closes 9-Jan-2015. The BC filed <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bwg-nomcom-21aug14/pdf1orQuZk6DX.pdf> initial comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-BWG-NomCom…> on 13-Nov. The GNSO Council will submit a reply comment <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16956.html> based on a letter drafted by John Berard. 2. Renewal of .JOBS sponsored TLD registry agreement (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/jobs-renewal-2014-12-09-en>). Reply period closes 20-Jan. 3. Release of country and territory names in .BMW and .MINI gTLDs. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bmw-mini-amendment-2014-12-11-en>) Reply period closes 23-Jan. 4. Translation/transliteration of contact data, PDP Initial report. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-…>) Comments due 1-Feb. 5. WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/whois-ars-pilot-2014-12-23-en>). Comments due 27-Feb. Note: BC members are encouraged to file their own comments. The BC selects topics based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Gabi Szlak and Susan Kawaguchi are our Councilors. Next GNSO Council meeting is 15-Jan-2015, at 18:00 UTC. Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-15jan15-en.htm> and motions were not yet posted as of 7-Jan. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison. Intersessional meeting of the GNSO non-contract party house in Washington DC, Jan 12-13, 2015. (agenda attached) BC outreach event in Washington DC, 14-Jan-2015 CCWG on enhancing ICANN Accountability: As the community demanded, ICANN created a cross-community working group (CCWG<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>) to design accountability enhancement that ICANN needs before NTIA hands-over the IANA functions. David Fares worked on the charter<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter>, which includes "Stress testing<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Stress+Tests+from+the+Bus…>”. The CCWG wiki page is here<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. In the CCWG, Steve DelBianco represents the CSG (Commercial Stakeholder Group) and was asked to lead Work Area 2 to document accountability suggestions generated over last several months. Steve generated a list<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51416471>. The CCWG is debating accountability enhancements needed BEFORE the IANA transition, known as Work Stream 1 (WS1). Steve proposed this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs. All other items are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. Some CCWG members are concerned that ICANN Board would reject significant new accountability mechanisms. Steve proposed that the IANA transition creates unique leverage over the board, and that we should not miss this opportunity. On 6-Dec the CCWG consensus was not to ask the board any formal question at this point. Steve will attend the CCWG face-to-face meeting in Frankfurt Jan 18-20. CWG on IANA Transition (Naming-related functions) The CWG is holding an "intensive work weekend" Jan 10-11. Phil Corwin notes: On substance, there was majority support for most of the initial plan but less so for Contract Co. There was broad agreement that the plan lacked adequate details, that the process was going too fast, and that it was impossible to make a meaningful final judgment until we had the interrelated accountability proposal to look at. The CWG is taking an internal survey on how to react to the comments and will be working throughout next weekend to meet its January 15 deadline for submission to the ICG. See Phil’s recent CircleID post on this topic (link<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150105_haste_makes_waste_icann_on_cwg_iana_…>).

2 1

CCWG on ICANN Accountability: Work Stream 1 and the concept of Leverage
by Steve DelBianco 05 Jan '15

05 Jan '15

First, Happy New Year! And second, here’s an update from the Accountability CCWG<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. We had our 4th call on Tuesday (call notes<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414982>). The work team I am leading has documented<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accou…> many accountability mechanisms, placing them into one of 2 ‘work streams’ according to this rationale: Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. At this point the CCWG is debating that rationale, with some members fearing that ICANN's board might reject significant new accountability measures. Below is the response I gave to Alan Greenberg when he expressed that concern: On 1/2/15, 5:12 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Alan Greenberg has questioned the accountability measures we were placing into Work Stream 1, saying, "I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition. Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition.” In responding to Alan, several of us said that a direct link to IANA transition is neither required nor desirable. Instead, the IANA transition is the community’s last bit of leverage to force accountability measures on ICANN’s board. The leverage is directly held by NTIA, who has said they would not transition IANA unless there was consensus about holding ICANN accountable to the community once the IANA contract is gone. And the internet community has indirect leverage, though pressure being brought on the US Administration and on Congress. So I would hope that Alan and others can gain confidence and comfort with the leverage our CCWG holds in this process. With that leverage comes the responsibility to create accountability mechanisms that will guide DNS policy making for decades to come. And we must also get our work done without causing undue delay to the IANA transition process. Alan’s group is the ALAC, which has often felt the lack of leverage over ICANN’s board and and management. As a recent example, ALAC called on ICANN to stop delegating new gTLDs serving highly regulated sectors but lacking enforceable public interest commitments (link<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/alac-to-icann-board-16…>). ICANN’s board and management might continue signing contracts despite concerns of the ALAC and others, perhaps fearing lawsuits by gTLD applicants. The fear of lawsuits may also have led the board to ignore community concerns over delegating both singular and plural forms of the same gTLDs. After all, the ICANN board’s duty is to the interests of the ICANN corporation — not to the community. (see Bylaws <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#VI> Article 6, Section 7). What would be the source of leverage to hold the board accountable to the community for this decision? We have seen the futility of Reconsideration requests and Independent Reviews that lack leverage to reverse a board decision. This IANA transition is our last chance to create mechanisms that could hold ICANN’s board accountable to the community it was designed to serve. Let's embrace that challenge and use all the leverage we have. — 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

3 2