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

FILED: BC comment on PDP recommendation for translation of contact information
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 10, 2015

Aug. 10, 2015

Today we filed the attached (and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BC-comment-on-translatio…>) comment on the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration. Thanks again to Steve Coates for drafting.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on geo-names in .GLOBAL .BNPPARIBAS .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 2, 2015

Aug. 2, 2015

Today the BC filed comment on release of geo-names in four new gTLDs (.GLOBAL .BNPPARIBAS .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE) See attached, here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BC-comment-on-geo-names-…>, or below. Thanks again to Andy Abrams for drafting. Date: Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM To: "comments-ctn-release-tlds-21jun15(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-ctn-release-tlds-21jun15@icann.org>" Subject: Business Constituency (BC) comment on geo-names in .GLOBAL .BNPPARIBAS .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE The Business Constituency (BC) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed amendments to the .GLOBAL, .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE registry agreements submitted through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (“RSEP”) on 21-May-2015, 28-May-2015, 28-May-2015, and 28-May-2015, respectively, and posted for public comment on 21-June-2015 (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-06-21-en>). The BC has consistently supported the release of country and territory names at all levels in .BRAND TLDs; this comment aligns with those prior comments. See Comment on Neustar's Proposal for Country and Territory Names<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ctn-release-neustar-19sep14/pdfjYdQmb…> (Nov. 8, 2014); Comment on the Release of Country and Territory Names in the .BMW and .MINI TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bmw-mini-amendment-11dec14/msg00001.h…> (Jan. 24, 2015); Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .EMERCK, .BERLIN, and .HAMBURG TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-emerck-hamburg-berlin-amendment-02mar…> (April 1, 2015); Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .HONDA, .AXA, .EPSON, .HSBC, .XYZ and .COLLEGE TLDs<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ctn-release-tlds-31mar15/msg00000.html> (April 28, 2015); Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .SONY, .ARCHI, .BIO and .SAARLAND TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BC-comment-on-Release-of…> (June 14, 2015); Comment on Release of Country and Territory Names for the .KOMATSU and .RICOH TLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/comment-on-proposed-amen…> (June 14, 2015). The .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE Requests In their respective RSEP requests, Registry Operators BNP Paribas and Bridgestone Corporation 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 .BNPPARIBAS, .BRIDGESTONE and .FIRESTONE TLDs. The BC fully supports these requests submitted by .BRAND registries. As set forth in our previous comments supporting similar RSEP requests, the BC believes that the use of country and territory names will allow .BRAND registries to create customized and relevant localized content for consumers in various countries and regions across the world, especially in developing nations with predominantly non-English-speaking populations. This geographic segmentation will not only bring greater efficacy to .BRAND TLDs, but it will benefit businesses and consumers alike by fueling economic development in regions which currently have limited choice with respect to linguistically and culturally tailored 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. Finally, the BC considers that use of country and territory names within a .BRAND registry will always avoid confusion with an official government web property. Indeed, the very basis of the .BRAND TLD model is for the brand to serve a unique source identifying function at the top-level, and for geographic names to serve a purely descriptive function at the second level. Thus, especially given the context of the underlying commercial sites, consumers directed to country.brand domain names will always be aware that they are engaging with a geographically-targeted version of a company’s official web site as opposed to a government property. The BC also notes the historical availability of country and territory names at all levels in all legacy TLDs. .BRAND TLDs should be afforded the same opportunity to allocate such names, given that the risk of abuse or confusion by the use of such names in a .BRAND registry is low. The .GLOBAL Request In its RSEP request, Registry Operator Dot Global Domain Registry Limited 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 .GLOBAL TLD. The .GLOBAL request is distinct from the RSEP requests discussed above because it relates to an open TLD, as opposed to .BRAND TLDs or geographic TLDs. In our view, the historical availability of country and territory names at all levels in all legacy TLDs still militates in favor of a presumptive approval of the request for the release of country and territory names. However, in recognition of the fact that the geographic segmentation and non-confusion arguments set forth in the previous sections are less persuasive for open TLDs than for .BRANDs or geographic TLDs, we believe that the presumption of approval may be overcome by a particular government’s objection to the release of its country or territory name. In contrast, for .BRAND and .GEO TLDs, the BC strongly believes that the presumption of approval should only be able to be rebutted upon a showing of a justified and well-supported objection that convincingly demonstrates probable harm and/or confusion due to the use of its country or territory name at the second level. Thus, given the above rationale, to the BC the central question is one of degree, whereby restricted-access TLDs, such as .BRANDS and geographic TLDs, should enjoy the strongest presumption of approval (rebutted only upon justified and well-supported governmental objections), whereas purely open TLDs should enjoy a lesser presumption of approval (rebutted upon any governmental objection). In the future, in order to make the requested delineation more clear, the BC would support bifurcating similar public comment periods on country and territory names into buckets corresponding to restricted access TLDs, such as .Brands or geographic TLDs, versus purely open TLDs. These comments were drafted by Andy Abrams and approved in accordance with our charter.

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) publishes proposal for comment
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

BC members — the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) published its combined proposal yesterday. (see below). Now there’s a 40-day public comment period. ICG will hold webinars onThursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. To attend, email the ICG Secretariat < admin(a)icgsec.asia<mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> > and indicate which webinar you prefer. We’ll need volunteers to draft the BC comment. Our May comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC-on-CWG-2nd-Draft-Prop…> on the prior draft are a good start, since the final proposal is pretty close to the previous one. Hoping we can re-enlist volunteers from that comment, including Aparna Sridhar, Claudia Selli, Andrew Harris, Ellen Blackler, and Stephen Coates. Also, the CCWG-Accountability will release our second draft report early next week, so we’ll need volunteers for that comment, too. —Steve ICG Seeking Public Input on Key Internet Governance Proposal 31 July 2015 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) today released for public comment the proposal [IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop…> [PDF, 2.2 MB]] for the transition of the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions from the U. S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the global multistakeholder community. This presents a seminal opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal as a whole and how it meets the criteria established by NTIA. The ICG is encouraging the public to review the proposal and share their reactions and comments during the public comment period here<https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per…>. Following the opening of the 40-day public comment period, the ICG will host two briefing webinars<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-will-be-hosting-two-webinars-regarding-the-trans…> open to the public on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. The transition of IANA's stewardship represents an important Internet governance milestone. The proposal for how to carry out the transition is the result of a tremendous undertaking by the global multistakeholder community, including the operational communities with direct operation or service relationships with the IANA functions as well as global business, civil society, governments, and Internet users. These geographically diverse groups came together to work on this process shortly after NTIA announced its intent to transition its stewardship role in March 2014<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-31-en#foot1>. The proposal was developed through a transparent community-led process, open to and inclusive of all interested stakeholders. The proposal combines components related to the three categories of IANA functions – domain names, Internet numbering resources, and protocol parameters – each of which have already been thoroughly and publicly vetted. "The dedication that the Internet community has exhibited to the IANA stewardship transition is nothing short of remarkable," said Alissa Cooper, Chair of the ICG and member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community. "The public comment period presents an opportunity for the public to assess the transition proposal in its entirety and for the ICG to build a public record demonstrating how the proposal meets the expectations set out by the U.S. Government." "It has been a big undertaking to develop a proposal that meets the criteria set forth by the NTIA," said Patrik Fältström, Vice Chair of the ICG and Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). "I am confident that after receiving and analyzing the public comments, we will be poised to put this proposal forward to the U.S. Government for review and approval." "The ICG is looking forward to receiving broad input concerning key questions about the proposal," said Mohamed El Bashir ( محمد البشير ), Vice Chair of the ICG and member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), "The public's input is absolutely crucial to this process." In parallel to the ICG, a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability) was formed to facilitate the process of developing enhancements to ICANN's accountability in light of the transition away from the U.S. Government. The CCWG-Accountability proposal will be available for public comment on Monday, 3 August. The public should direct comments about the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal to the CCWG-Accountability and comments about the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to the ICG. Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect Room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. If you are interested in attending a webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to the ICG Secretariat < admin(a)icgsec.asia<mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> > and indicate which webinar you would like to attend. Please note that the webinars will be conducted in English and will be live interpreted in the 5 UN languages plus Portuguese. They will also be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and Portuguese and posted.

1 0