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

US FTC Chair responds to ICANN letter on .SUCKS
by Steve DelBianco May 28, 2015

May 28, 2015

Here is the response from US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ICANN’s letter regarding .SUCKS No action taken, but an investigation might be underway — they can't comment on active investigations. FTC says “it appears that Vox Populi and perhaps other registries may be violating the spirit, even if not the letter, of [RPMs]” FTC reiterates many of the recommendations they made in the past that ICANN did not follow. Including in the area of verifying credentials of registrants in highly regulated markets. FTC says its imperative that ICANN review all these issues in order to improve any future offering of gTLDs.

1 0

Upcoming Pre-ICANN 53 Policy Update Webinar
by Yolande Jimenez May 22, 2015

May 22, 2015

Dear BC Members, Please find below the ICANN announcement for the upcoming Pre-ICANN 53 Policy Update Webinar taking place on 11 June 2015 at 10 UTC and 19 UTC. If you would like to join one of the sessions, please follow the RSVP instructions included on the announcement. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thank you. Kind regards, Yolanda Jimenez Secretariat Support, BC/IPC/ISPCP Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: yolande.jimenez(a)icann.org<mailto:Yolande.jimenez@icann.org> Mobile (33) 6 03 58 88 91 Skype: yolande.jimenez.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ------ https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-21-en Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/9aFRqckV0e> by 5 June 2015. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 8 June 2015. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, summarizing policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions and the ICANN Accountability efforts. Updates will also be provided on topics from ICANN's Support Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Activities * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Report * GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report * GNSO Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Final Report * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Framework of Interpretation Working Group Recommendations * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO) Activities * Government Advisory Committee's (GAC) Update on Country Names Protection * Government Advisory Committee's (GAC) Update on Human Rights and Underserved Regions * GAC's Implementation of the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team's (ATRT2) Recommendations * GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Recent Publications * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Caucus Work Party Update * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Advisory on the Use of Static TLD/suffix lists * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Activity Update The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. The slides and transcript of the session will be translated into Spanish. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org>. Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/9aFRqckV0e> by 5 June 2015. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 8 June 2015.

2 1

FILED: Business Constituency comment on 2nd draft proposal of CWG on IANA naming related functions
by Steve DelBianco May 21, 2015

May 21, 2015

Filed this<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC-on-CWG-2nd-Draft-Prop…> comment tonight. Thanks to Aparna Sridhar, Claudia Selli, Andrew Harris, Ellen Blackler, Stephen Coates, and several other BC members who contributed.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on IRTP Part C Recommendations
by Steve DelBianco May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

We filed these<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Comment-on-IRTP-Part-C.p…> comments on IRTP Part C recommendations over the weekend. Thanks again to Susan Kawaguchi for drafting the comment.

2 1

BC letters sent to ICANN and to US and Canada consumer protection authorities
by Steve DelBianco May 8, 2015

May 8, 2015

These two letters are now posted on the BC website: Letter to ICANN regarding .sucks gTLD policies<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Letter-to-ICANN-dotSucks…> Letter to US and Canada Consumer Protection Authorities, regarding .sucks gTLD policies<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Letter-to-FTC-and-OCA-do…>

2 1

published for public comment: CCWG draft proposal for enhancing ICANN accountability
by Steve DelBianco May 5, 2015

May 5, 2015

Tonight the CCWG has published a draft proposal to enhance ICANN accountability once the IANA contract is no longer there. The public comment page is here<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> and the draft proposal is here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos…>. You’ll recognize many of the proposed community powers and stress tests, since they were proposed almost a year ago by the BC. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-reply-comment-on-Enha…>) The CCWG has a list of 15 structured questions to guide public comment. As your rep on CCWG I will draft preliminary answers for BC member consideration. But I suggest all BC members review the proposal. Comment period ends 3-Jun. —Steve

1 0

Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Steve DelBianco May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

On today’s BC call, several of us talked about Milton Mueller’s post regarding resistance from ICANN legal when it came time to implement the numbers and protocol transition plans. (post is here<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…>, Milton’s email is below) Bill Woodcock just posted a reply to Milton’s post, clarifying his role in the meetings with ICANN. (link<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…>). Bill concludes with a confirmation of the troubling trend that Milton reported: Those particulars aside, the rest of your description of the situation seems accurate to me. The IAB minutes that you cite are particularly worthy of note: that ICANN is _refusing to renew_ the MOU under which they provide Protocol Registry services to the IETF, because it contains a termination clause, I find very disturbing. I have to admit that if I were in the IETF’s shoes, I might very well just take ICANN at their word and go on my merry way, if they say they don’t want to renew the agreement. Let’s assume we will encounter the same resistance when it comes time to ‘negotiate’ implementation of CWG and CCWG proposals. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu> Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 1

FILED: BC comment on Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanisms Review
by Steve DelBianco May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Today we filed a comment on ICANN’s Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanisms Review. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC-comment-on-RPM-review…>) Thanks to drafting team of Andrew Harris, Andy Abrams, Kat McGowan, Phil Corwin, and J. Scott Evans.

1 0