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

FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report
by Steve DelBianco 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

Today we filed our comment on WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report. See attached or here.<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BC-comment-on-Whois-Accu…> Thanks to Angie Graves for the original draft. Thanks to J Scott Evans, Susan Kawaguchi, and Ellen Blackler for their edits. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Updates Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels
by Steve DelBianco 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

This is relevant to discussion on yesterday’s BC Member call, regarding streamlined approvals for geo names in dot-brand TLDs. In particular, note that 2-char release requests will identify whether the TLD is a dot-brand. (see red text below) [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-20-en ________________________________ ICANN Updates Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels 20 February 2015 Today, ICANN is announcing updates to the "Authorization Process for the Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels" to take into account additional direction from the ICANN Board. On 12 February 2015, the Board took action<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-02-12-en#2.a> to accept advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on this subject issued in the GAC's 11 February 2015 Communiqué – Singapore<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…> [PDF, 113 KB], and directed the President and CEO, or his designee, to proceed immediately to implement the following changes to the process: * Implement improvements to the process to alert relevant governments when requests are initiated. Comments from relevant governments will be fully considered. * For new requests, the comment period will be for 60 days. * For requests with pending or completed comment periods, extend or re-open the comment period so that each request will undergo 60 days of comment period in total. The updates to the process are effective as of 23 February 2015. The webpage where users can review requests has also been updated with several enhancements to improve navigability and allow users to find information more easily. New features include the following: * Requests can now be sorted by reference number, TLD, registry name and date posted. * The list of all requests for letter/letter two-character ASCII labels is now available for download as a .csv file. * A column has been added to identify whether a TLD has been granted a .BRAND specification. * The "View Comments" page has been updated to show all comments made in a calendar year, rather than showing comments on a month-by-month basis. Please refer to the Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels<https://www.icann.org/resources/two-character-labels> webpage for additional details.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH
by Steve DelBianco 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

Thanks to drafting by Laura Covington, we filed a comment today on this registry agreement amendment. See below or at the BC website (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BC-Comment-on-RSEP-for-D…>). From: Steve DelBianco Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:13 PM To: "comments-ctn-release-tlds-06jan15(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-ctn-release-tlds-06jan15@icann.org>" Subject: Business Constituency comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH The Business Constituency (“BC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on proposed amendments to the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and FLSMIDTH registry agreements, per the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (“RSEP”) by these five registries on 5 Dec 2014 and posted for public comment on 6 Jan 2015 at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-01-06-en In their RSEP requests, Registry Operators Deutsche Vermögensberatung Aktiengesellschaft DVAG, TUI AG, SPIEGEL-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG, Allfinanz Deutsche Vermögensberatung Aktiengesellschaft and FLSmidth A/S seek 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 .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH TLDs, respectively. The BC fully supports these requests. Geographic domains in Dot-BRAND TLDs are an important business user issue (note that geographic names include spelled-out names as well as 2-character country codes). Dot-BRAND TLDs need to be able to use geographic names at the second level in order to safely market and sell their services to businesses, consumers, and users in multiple languages in different locations around the world. We firmly believe that the release of country and territory names for Dot-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 websites. The use of geographic names at the second level will also help reduce abuse by reinforcing to consumers that official, legitimate communications come from the country-specific domain of a Dot-BRAND top level domain. Finally, releasing these names will facilitate online commerce in developing nations by encouraging registries to create customized and localized content (in non-English languages) for consumers in such regions. For all these reasons, the BC fully supports these requests and urges ICANN to amend the registry agreements for the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ, and .FLSMIDTH TLDs accordingly. -- This comment was drafted by Laura Covington and was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

ICC BASIS reply to NMI
by WEISE Constance 13 Feb '15

13 Feb '15

Dear all, For your information, please find attached an ICC BASIS letter<http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Basis/Internet-governance/2015/ICC-BAS…> that was submitted to the NETmundial Organising Partners on 6 February 2015. Best regards, Constance Weise on behalf of ICC BASIS Constance Weise Policy Manager Digital Economy / BASIS International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 33-43 Avenue President Wilson, 75016 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 49 53 33 89 | constance.weise(a)iccwbo.org<mailto:constance.weise@iccwbo.org> Digital Economy: http://www.iccwbo.org/about-icc/policy-commissions/digital-economy/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iccwbo.org/about-icc/…> BASIS: http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/&k=Z…>

3 2

Hotel list published for Buenos Aires meeting
by Steve DelBianco 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

ICANN Meetings page on Buenos Airs is here<http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/>. They are using the same hotel complex we used last year in Buenos Aires. http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/hotels

1 0

Fwd: ICANN update on their IG activities /CCWG IG - Thursday a.m. session
by Marilyn Cade 09 Feb '15

09 Feb '15

>> I wanted to call members attention to the Thursday open session on Internet Governance 11:15 a.m. -12:30 p.m. The BC has several members who are actively engaged. > >> Thursday's session has two components --Segment One - NMI focused, update and feedback. >> >> Segment Two which will address the broader WSIS +10, IGF Renewal and the UNESCO Conference. This session is organized by the CCWG-IG, rather than ICANN staff. We had asked for more time, as the CCWG had wanted this to be more of a town hall, but all in all,this is a major step in the right direction as the CCWG-IG proposed this change in planning and organizing during ICANN51. It took a little back and forth but we are clearly moving toward a recognition by participants and ICANN staff that the community expects a more collaborative approach on identifying and designing ICANN's activities in IG. ICANN staff was asked at ICANN51 to update the CCWG-IG in writing. Attached is the update. The CCWG-IG welcomed the report, had some comments, and invited quarterly updates. Some discussion happened about the relationship and interaction between the community and the Staff. That topic might also have been discussed in the Thursday open session, but time really did not permit. >> We will undertake a pilot up to BA in asking ICANN staff to be more proactive in sharing information before implementation on activities in IG. >> Composition of the CCWG-IG - the membership of the CCWG -IG initially was very open, but in the final charter, limits on numbers of participants somehow were added. This CCWG has struggled with time availability of many of the participants. I raised a concern that the CCWG-Accountability had a good model, which allows participants to self nominate, and also allows observers. The CCWG -IG is going to update our Charter to model after the CCWG-IG to enable more flexible and open participation. >>

1 0

Accountability docs to discuss at CSG meeting Sunday afternoon
by Steve DelBianco 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Here are links and docs relevant to CSG discussion of ICANN Accountability Enhancements, scheduled for 5:00 pm today. The wiki page for CCWG-Accountability is here<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>. See Draft 2 of Scope, Measures, and Mechanisms to Empower the ‘community’. (attachment 1) A list of Stress Tests is here<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…>. (scroll down on the page) We apply several stress tests to existing and proposed accountability measures. (attachment 2) And this just in: ICANN’s lawyer at Jones Day issued a memo saying most of these community powers can’t be done. (attachment 3): California law does not provide for a mechanism that would empower the community, regardless of whether ICANN has members or not, to force the Board to take action on a community proposal Looking forward to your questions and suggestions. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] update on CCWG -Accountability, regading Stress Tests
by Jimson Olufuye 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

1 0

FILED: comment on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Initial Report
by Steve DelBianco 01 Feb '15

01 Feb '15

We filed our BC comment today on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Initial Report. ( attached and link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BC-comment-on-translatio…>) Hearing no guidance on the comments and questions in the draft circulated last week, I used my judgement to resolve things. Thanks again to Susan Kawaguchi, Ellen Blackler, Steve Coates, and Tim Chen. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:22 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Cc: "Blackler, Ellen M." <Ellen.M.Blackler(a)disney.com<mailto:Ellen.M.Blackler@disney.com>>, Tim Chen <tim(a)domaintools.com<mailto:tim@domaintools.com>>, Stephen Coates <scoates(a)twitter.com<mailto:scoates@twitter.com>>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi(a)fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com>> Subject: FOR FINAL REVIEW: draft 3 of BC comments on translation/transliteration of WHOIS contact data The attached comment is for FINAL REVIEW by BC members by 31-Jan, so we can submit by 1-Feb deadline. As discussed on last week’s BC call, ICANN seeks comment on a PDP initial report onTranslation/transliteration of contact data (<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-… <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-…>link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-…> ) Charter question 1 asks us for arguments for/against translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script. Charter question 2 generated 6 preliminary recommendations, and the BC could comment on each of those. Susan Kawaguchi developed a first draft (while she was en-route to Antarctica). Ellen Blackler, Steve Coates, and Tim Chen made edits, and inserted questions/comments that we need to address. Looking for advice from anyone familiar with WHOIS data in non-English and/or non-Latin scripts. Also, please consider the BC’s prior positions on internationalized registration data (at bottom of this email) Don’t worry about formatting — I’ll take care of that. -- For reference, here are prior BC positions/statements regarding internationalized WHOIS contact data: Jun-2014 comment supporting proposal of WG on Internationalized Registration Data (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/transliteration-contact-initial-2014-…>), Including: -The BC recommends the use of free-form text for all name and address fields. Specifically we support "Proposal 3" for free-form text in the address fields. Applying a different standard for address fields, in the broader workflow of a registrant typing in their identity data, is cumbersome and unnecessary. -To balance the needs of domain name owners, registrars, and users of Whois, It is important that non-ASCII character sets are supported but not required. Per the Whois Accuracy Specification, phone numbers and e-mail address formats should still be validated. -The BC supports localizing data labels based upon registrant location, but it is important that standard US-ASCII data labels still also appear. Mar-2014 comment on status update from Expert Working Group (EWG) on directory services (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-Comments-Status-Repor…>). Nothing specific on internationalized data, but a good statement on centralized data services. Jun-2012 comment on WHIS Policy Review Team final report (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BC-on-WHOIS-RT-Final-Rep…>), including this: 12. Internationalized Registration Data The BC agrees that the ICANN Community should task a working group within six months of publication to determine appropriate internationalized domains name registration data requirements. The BC believes that this defining these standards requires special expertise and is not well-suited to a PDP. 13. Internationalized Registration Data Agreements The BC agrees that the final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected in Registry and Registrar agreements within 6 months of Board adoption. If these new requirements cannot be finalized in time for the next versions of Registry and Registrar agreements, then an explicit placeholder should be implemented. For existing agreements, the new provisions should be incorporated at the time of renewal. 14. Registration Data Accuracy in Local Languages The BC agrees that requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local languages should be finalized along with efforts on internationalization of registration data.

1 0

update on CCWG -Accountability, regading Stress Tests
by Steve DelBianco 31 Jan '15

31 Jan '15

As your CSG rep on the CCWG – Accountability<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>, I’m trying to maintain momentum on contingencies/stress tests (ST-WP<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Test+Work…>). As discussed, we start with the consolidated doc we developed in Frankfurt. On page 1, added excerpt from our charter, regarding our required deliverables for Stress Testing. On page 2, added a table showing how the original 25 stress tests mapped to the 5 consolidated categories. This captures the narrative and consequences developed by Work Team 4. On page 4, added Enterprise-Wide Risks identified by the ICANN Board Risk Committee (27-Jan-2015). The chairs asked us compare to our list and see if changes are suggested. I mapped these items to our 5 stress test categories, noting in red those that are not covered. One ‘risk’ identified by ICANN’s board really caught my eye: Perception of failure to implement and help achieve a global multi-stakeholder distributed IG ecosystem according to the widely accepted Net Mundial Principles On the CCWG call, I flagged this as far outside ICANN’s mission and an example of top-down scope-creep by management. 2 risks that are not explicitly listed in our categories include loss of confidence in M-S model as practiced by iCANN, and lack of capacity to accommodate new stakeholders. I think we can add those to categories IV and V. Before we get to Singapore, we should draft another action item from the chairs: Add a specific contingency. I think of this as example application of stress test against recommended accountability mechanisms. Could do this after we have sufficient consensus around accountability mechanisms to evaluate. Alternatively, we could perform stress test analysis on the Requirements we developed in Frankfurt. —Steve — 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