September 2018 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency (BC) response to new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP initial report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Attached is the response of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC) on the Initial report from the PDP on procedures for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs (“Subsequent Procedures”). We have provided specific responses and follow-up questions alongside selected recommendations and questions from the PDP working group. Please also see our May-2017 comment to this working group’s prior questions: BC Response to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Questionnaire<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2017/2017_05May_2…>. -- This comment was drafted by Vivek Goyal, Andrew Mack, Susan Kawaguchi, and Marilyn Cade. It was edited by Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on proposed Modification of Domains Protected Marks List service (DPML)
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 24, 2018

Sept. 24, 2018

The Business Constituency (BC) appreciates the clarity that this modification will bring to the operation of the Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) service. Rights holders rely on cost-effective and rapid measures to protect their trade marks against abusive registrations and the resultant consumer confusion and deception that such registrations can cause. All end-users of the DNS deserve to be certain that the string they type into their browser will resolve to the site that they intend to access. the DPML service assists rights holders in trying to ensure that this is indeed the case, helping to maintain a clean online environment for all. -- This comment was drafted by Marie Pattullo and Vivek Goyal. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on ICANN Recommendations for IDN Variant TLDs
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Attached is the comment of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) regarding ICANN Org Recommendations to manage IDN Variant Top-Level Domains. This comment was drafted by Mark Svancarek. It was approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on ICANN's Draft Framework for Unified Access to Full WHOIS Data
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 13, 2018

Sept. 13, 2018

Attached is the comment of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) regarding ICANN Org’s Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data (20-Aug-2018). This comment was drafted by Mason Cole, Tim Chen, and Margie Milam, with edits by Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Draft ICANN Africa Strategic Plan 2016-20
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Attached is the comment of the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Draft ICANN Africa Strategic Plan for 2016-20. This comment was drafted by Jimson Olufuye, Lawrence OlaWale-Roberts, and Marilyn Cade. It was approved in accord with the BC Charter. Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FILED: BC/IPC joint letter regarding Next Steps for Access to Non-Public WHOIS
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 2018

Today the BC and IPC sent the attached joint letter to ICANN Org CEO Goran Marby. Thanks again to Mason Cole for shepherding this thru. --Steve From: Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:18 AM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 6-Sep: BC/IPC joint letter regarding Next Steps for Access to Non-Public WHOIS BC members – back on 24-Jul we circulated a draft of a joint IPC/BC letter to ICANN Org, regarding next steps for an Accreditation and Access model for non-public Whois data. BC members raised no objections at the time, but the IPC said it was drafting edits to the letter. Last week I received an IPC-approved letter (attached), and want to allow BC members to do another quick review. I can tell you that the points in the letter match with the Early Input on the Temp Spec that BC members approved last week (link<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2018/2018_08Augus…>). BC members should reply with edits or objections by midnight on 6-Sep, so we can get this letter over to ICANN Org this week. Thanks to Mason Cole for coordinating edits with the IPC.

1 0

FILED: BC "Early Input" on EPDP for Temp Spec on GDPR
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 3, 2018

Sept. 3, 2018

Today we filed the BC’s “Early Input”requested by the EPDP on the Temp Spec (attached). Thanks again to Mason, Tim, and Margie for drafting. From: Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com>, Alex Deacon <alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com>, Tim Chen <tim(a)domaintools.com> Subject: FOR REVIEW by 30-Aug: draft BC comment on ICANN's latest proposal for access to non-public Whois Correction: the attached draft is actually “early input” on the expedited PDP (EPDP) for the Temp Spec. This was requested by the chair of the EPDP WG, Kurt Pritz. We are ALSO working on a draft reaction to ICANN’s latest unified access model. From: Steven DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 10:12 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole(a)5x5com.com>, Alex Deacon <alex(a)colevalleyconsulting.com>, Tim Chen <tim(a)domaintools.com> Subject: FOR REVIEW by 30-Aug: draft BC comment on ICANN's latest proposal for access to non-public Whois As I noted on last BC call and Policy Calendar, ICANN Org published a “Possible Unified Access Model Published for Community Input<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model-published-for…>” last week. ICANN is seeking public input, but not as part of a formal public comment period. There is no formal deadline, but ICANN is looking for reactions ASAP. Thanks to Mason Cole, Tim Chen, Margie Milam, and Alex Deacon for quickly drafting a BC comment (attached). This draft largely reflects positions the BC has taken on ICANN’s reactions to GDPR. I will probe ICANN about the “deadline” for this comment. Meanwhile, please review immediately and provide reactions before 31-Aug. --Steve

2 1