- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FILED: BC comment on ICANN's Policy Status Report
by Steve DelBianco 02 Jul '24

02 Jul '24

BC members, Today we filed the attached BC comment on ICANN’s Policy Status Report<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-update/policy-and-implementation-…>: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Recommendations (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/policy-status-report-gns…> to comments page). Summary posted: Our goal must be to ensure that efficient procedures and processes are in place, allowing for the delivery of timely, evidence-based reports upon which practical recommendations and actions can be formulated. We do not see the need for a proliferation of new working methods and structures within the policy development process. In our comment, we offer assessments and recommendations regarding the listed GNSO processes, and conclude with advice to evaluate every policy outcome to determine whether it is fit for purpose. Thanks to Marie Pattullo for drafting, and to Lawrence Olawale-Roberts and Steve Crocker for edits.

1 0

RDRS Enhancements Released Today
by Steve DelBianco 25 Jun '24

25 Jun '24

See below from ICANN staff, regarding enhancements to the Registrant Data Request System (RDRS): On 6/25/24, 4:51 PM, "Lisa Carter via Gnso-rdrs-sc" <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> wrote: The following RDRS enhancements have been released to production today: * RDRS (Platform) Requestor Enhancements: · Address & phone number is now required; · Organization/Affiliation field is new and optional · Increased character limit from 1000 to 2000 for all open text boxes. · Updated language to better explain what “expedited” means in RDRS · Added language to explain that providing misleading content, including representing yourself as law enforcement if you are not employed by or an official representative of a law enforcement agency, is a violation of the RDRS Terms of Service. * Registrar (NSp) Enhancements · Request submission date now shows inside the request in Naming Service portal · Request now defaults to have the accordion arrows open (instead of closed) so registrar can see the full request without clicks. · Request List View – Last request in list should no longer be blocked by footer of the page Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN [signature_1879731661] From: Lisa Carter <lisa.carter(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 7:29 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: Draft proposed agenda - RDRS Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 17 June 2024 Hi Sarah, Yes, as mentioned in the previous Standing Committee meeting, the next set of enhancements will be released at the end of June. I am reviewing all items for the release with our team on Thursday this week, with the goal of releasing the items next week. Kind regards, Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN [signature_3762633200] From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> Organization: Tucows Reply-To: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> Date: Monday, June 17, 2024 at 5:10 AM To: "gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: Draft proposed agenda - RDRS Standing Committee Meeting - Monday, 17 June 2024 Hi all, Thanks for this agenda, Caitlin! Is an update on the rollout of the current round of changes part of item 4? I look forward to confirmation that the address field is mandatory, etc. Thank you! Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld(a)tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> On 2024-06-16 5:20 a.m., Caitlin Tubergen via Gnso-rdrs-sc wrote: Dear RDRS Standing Committee Members, With apologies for the delay, please find below the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the RDRS Standing Committee on Monday, 17 June 2024 at 17:30 UTC. Best regards, Feodora and Caitlin -- RDRS Standing Committee Meeting Monday, 17 June 2024 at 17:30 UTC Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome 2. ICANN80 RDRS Sessions Debrief/Discussion 3. RDRS Usage Metrics Report * Discuss and agree on the list of new metrics to add to the monthly reports 1. RDRS System Enhancements * Next for Registrars Discuss and agree on the next enhancements (Priority 2, 6 & 7?) from the Impressions Document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/14b6bG1Odmx-p…> * Next for Requestors Discuss and agree on the next enhancements (Priority 1, 2,or 3?) from Impressions Document 1. Update on Impression Document requested changes and management 2. AOB * Follow up on some questions from the Standing Committee on our last call * Corrected Usage Metrics Reports for March and April have been published * Usage Metrics Report for May will be published this week. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list -- gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-rdrs-sc-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

May-2024 RDRS Usage Metrics report is published.
by Steve DelBianco 17 Jun '24

17 Jun '24

The May RDRS Usage Metrics Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdrs-usage-metrics-17jun24-en.p…> and CSV<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdrs-usage-metrics-17jun24-en.c…> for the 1-31 May reporting period have been published to the RDRS page. The Standing Committee meets today. Steve C. and Steve D. will be attending. --Steve

1 0

2024 Contracted Parties Summit Statement
by Steve DelBianco 09 Jun '24

09 Jun '24

BC members – sharing the Contract Parties statement<https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-CP-Summit-Statement.pdf> from the summit in Paris last month (highlights are mine): 2024 Contracted Parties Summit Statement ICANN Contracted Parties (gTLD Registrars and Registries) met in Paris over May 7- 9 for the 2024 Contracted Parties Summit (CP Summit). The Summit provided Contracted Parties an opportunity to engage and address issues of mutual interest and importance. The CP Summit featured 28 sessions across three full days with over 400 participants. A range of issues were discussed including recent and ongoing geopolitical developments. As a result of these discussions, Contracted Party participants agreed to the following issues of importance and committed to: ● Continuing to support and work through the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance, specifically within the policy-making context of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), to maintain and enhance the security, stability, and resiliency of the global Domain Name System (DNS). ● Advancing efforts to better engage and share information with the global Internet community, including regional organizations and national governments as well as the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee, in an effort to build capacity, understand the respective perspectives and needs of those groups, and work together to advance common goals of improving the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. ● Continuing registration data related efforts, working within the ICANN multistakeholder process to implement recommendations and explore resources, concerns, and solutions including the accuracy of data. ● Continuing work aimed at combating DNS Abuse, including: ongoing and new voluntary efforts to improve abuse reporting; complying with new contractual requirements; developing metrics to ascertain effectiveness of existing requirements; and engaging with the ICANN Community to understand their perspectives on this important issue. ● Continuing efforts to preserve and protect the privacy rights of registrants. Contracted Parties recognize that the protection of personal data is an essential aspect of security and trust in the DNS. Contracted Parties look forward to engaging with the broader Internet community in furthering this work in a manner that reflects the community’s needs and preserves a single, interoperable, secure, and resilient Internet. We offer this statement for consideration by the ICANN Community as well as by governments and other Internet governance related fora and entities. On 6/9/24, 2:55 PM, "aheineman--- via SO-AC-SG-CLeaders" <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear SO-AC-SG Leaders,er We are proud to announce and share the first ever Contracted Parties Summit “Statement” following our recent meeting in Paris. Our intention was to memorialize priority issues and our commitment to addressing them as Contracted Parties. https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-CP-Summit-Statement.pdf Please feel free to share this within your groups and elsewhere. Thanks and looking forward to a successful ICANN 80! Kindest regards, Ashley Heineman/Chair, RrSG Samantha Demetriou, Chair, RySG

1 0

FILED: BC comment on IDN phase 2 initial report
by Steve DelBianco 21 May '24

21 May '24

Today we filed the attached comment on the Phase 2 Initial Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-2-initial-report-o…> to comment page). Thanks to Ching Chiao for drafting. On 5/13/24, 10:35 PM, "Bc-private" <bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org> wrote: BC members, Thanks to Ching Chiao for drafting a BC comment (here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-iEoe3Mc3ReZH5W5U_cX-MSsS3a3eKNuMoiNnpQ…> and attached) on Phase 2 Initial Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/phase-2-initial-report-o…> to comment page). Thanks to Hafiz Farooq for volunteering as well. Here’s a summary of the draft: BC is in full support of the wider IDN.IDN adoption with the proper and orderly introduction of the variant domain names at the top and second levels. BC welcomes the IDN EPDP Team’s consistency on the “Same Entity” and “Conservatism” principles. We are glad to learn that the “Same Entity” principle is expanded as “same registrant, same registrar” which we’ve proposed in our previous comment on the Phase 1 report. The BC is however concerned that the IDN EPDP Team chose not to provide a clear recommendation to one key fundamental question in its draft report. The question is: Is an IDN.IDN variant domain a newly created, separated domain from its source IDN.IDNdomain? From BC’s viewpoint, we understand the current industry practice as the following definition in sequence: IDN.IDN (text) domain is equivalent to its XN-- . XN-- ( punycode) domain based on IDNA standards / IDN Guideline For example, the Chinese IDN.IDN (text) “亚马逊.购物” is converted to “xn--jlq480n2rg.xn--g2xx48c” in the DNS for actual domain resolution. IDN.IDN variant (text) domain is equivalent to its IDN.IDN source (text) domain as defined by the IDN language table maintained by the corresponding TLD registry (and approved by ICANN) as well as ICANN’s Root Zone LGR. For example, “亞馬遜.購物” (punycode “xn--nlqs61nl3f.xn--g2xv08c”)is the Traditional Chinese IDN.IDN variant of the source IDN.IDN ““亚马逊.购物” domain in Simplified Chinese. Therefore, if 1 and 2 must co-exist, it means that the IDN.IDN variant domain is not a separable, independent domain name registration from its source domain. Any existing and future variant domain name is in a parent-child relationship to its source domain. An IDNvariant.IDNvariantTLD domain names are generated / auto-generated by the TLD registry as derivative options to the same entity, and the variant or the variant set should not be independently created utilizing “EPP-create” transaction. Since activation of an IDN.IDN variant domain is not considered as a new-create, the registry / registrar therefore should not charge additional fee to its user. Comments close 21-May, so please bring up your questions and suggestions on our 16-May call, or on-list before 20-May. Thanks again to Ching for drafting.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on .XXX renewal agreement
by Steve DelBianco 29 Apr '24

29 Apr '24

Today we filed the attached comment on the Proposed Renewal of the Registry Agreement for .XXX (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-the-…> to comments page). Thanks to Margie Milam for drafting. -- Steve On 4/25/24, 10:13 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: BC members – Thanks to Margie for drafting the attached BC comment on the Proposed Renewal of the Registry Agreement for .XXX (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-the-…> to comments page). The proposed renewal uses the base gTLD Registry Agreement (Base RA), and drops the .XXX sponsorship designation. This would align with the similar .ADULT, .PORN, and .SEX Registry Agreements for generic, non-sponsored, non-community, TLDs. But the BC seeks to have XXX maintain their original promises, as we said in our renewal comments on .MUSEUM <https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2017/2017_10octobe…> , .PRO<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/bc-comment-on-.pro…>, and .TRAVEL<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/bc-comment-on-regi…> Margie’s draft also challenges the contract amendment negotiation process used here, which avoids the elevated scrutiny of an RSEP. Comments close 29-Apr, so please reply all with your edits/suggestions by COB on 28-Apr. Thanks again to Margie for taking the lead on this.

1 0

Eco hosting a webinar
by Steve DelBianco 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Thomas Rickert announced today that eco and ICANN Org are hosting a 1-hour webinar: RDRS – How to access WHOIS data today<https://www.eco.de/event/rdrs-how-to-access-whois-data-today/> 30 April 2024 15:30pm CEST / 13:30pm UTC / 9:30am EDT Setup: The webinar is aimed at all users and requestors of WHOIS data who are not yet familiar with the RDRS. There will be time for questions and answers. The webinar will address: - How to access the RDRS - How the RDRS works - What the RDRS can and cannot do - Request best practices - The learnings from the use so far - Improvements that are on the way Agenda: * RDRS - How to access WHOIS data today Odeline MacDonald Associate General Counsel, European Data Protection, CIPP/E, CIPM, ICANN Adam Peake Global Stakeholder Engagement, ICANN Moderator: Thomas Rickert Director Names & Numbers, eco – Association of the Internet Industry * What does RDRS look like from a registrar's perspective? Sarah Wyld Policy & Privacy Manager, Tucows * How to best use RDRS as a requestor Prudence Malinki Head of Industry Relations, Markmonitor

1 0

POSTED: BC comment on Registry Service Provider (RSP) handbook
by Steve DelBianco 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

Just posted our comments on the Review of the Draft Registry Service Provider (RSP) Handbook - New gTLD Program<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-regi…> ICANN required us to comment on separate questions in the input form shown here<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-regi…>. But I will post the attached PDF to our Positions page for easier reference. Thanks again to drafters Segunfunmi Olajide, John Berard, Alan Woods, and Vivek Goyal. On 4/22/24, 9:22 AM, "Bc-private" <bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org> wrote: Just added this new comment, thanks to Vivek Goyal: Comment on RSP Evaluation Fee The BC requests ICANN to release the actual sum of RSP Evaluation fees as early as possible. The fees will be a key consideration factor for new RSPs, especially from underrepresented regions, to participate in the program and expand the pool of qualified RSPs. This is important because the current spread of existing RSPs is negligible in the global south. BC also requests ICANN to accept payments via Credit Cards, in addition to wire transfer. In many countries, international wire transfers are a lengthy and cumbersome process. Accepting credit card payments would make it easier for new RSPs to apply. I will submit our comment<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xcEo3vtxOmNNM1e4kNbC3Rv1WYWIprIX6k9Qac4…> in the next few hours. Thanks again to the drafters. On 4/22/24, 6:26 AM, "Alan Woods" <alan.woods(a)cleandns.email> wrote: Thanks to Segunfunmi for the absolute lion’s share here! Alan From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Sunday, 21 April 2024 at 15:44 To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org> Cc: Olajide segunfunmi <olajidesegunfunmi(a)gmail.com>, John Berard <john(a)crediblecontext.com>, Alan Woods <alan.woods(a)cleandns.email> Subject: LAST CALL: draft BC comment on Registry Service Provider (RSP) handbook BC members – attached and here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xcEo3vtxOmNNM1e4kNbC3Rv1WYWIprIX6k9Qac4…> is the draft BC comment on ICANN’s Draft Registry Service Provider (RSP) Handbook - New gTLD Program. (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-regi…> to comment page). Segunfunmi Olajide prepared an initial draft that we shared with members last Wednesday. Since then, we incorporated edits from John Berard and Alan Woods. Comments close 22-Apr, so please reply with your edit suggestions by 12 UTC on 22-Apr. Thanks again to drafters.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on string similarity concerns in new gTLDs
by Steve DelBianco 10 Apr '24

10 Apr '24

BC members, Today we filed the attached BC comment on “String Similarity Review Guidelines 19 March 2024.<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/internationalized-domain-names-idn/strin…>” Thanks to drafting by Hafiz Farooq. --Steve DelBianco

1 0

POSTED: BC comment on Applicant Support Program (ASP) Handbook
by Steve DelBianco 02 Apr '24

02 Apr '24

The attached comment was posted today. Thanks again to David and Vivek for drafting. On 3/27/24, 10:17 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: BC members – Thanks to David Snead and Vivek Goyal, we have a draft comment on ICANN’s Applicant Support Program (ASP) Handbook – New gTLD Program. (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/review-of-the-draft-appl…> to comments page). Please see their draft Google Sheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JuYok6bIZYEuuxvw1DqvGld7YWNendU0aHC…>, with this note from David: Since the comments are basically limited to “does this meet the spec” and we’ve already commented on that, I think this is a lightweight way to do it. I do plan on adding at least one overall observation: the guidebook is very densely written, so it will be very difficult for applicants who need support to even understand it. Back in Sep-2023 we commented<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2023/2023_09S…> on the GNSO Guidance process for applicant support, thanks to Vivek Goyal and David Snead (noting that Lawrence Olawale-Roberts represented us on the working group). Comments close 2-Apr, so please reply all with your edit suggestions by 1-Apr. Thanks again to David, Vivek, and Lawrence for drafting and reviewing.

1 0