- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Folks, give us some additional advice: Chris and I will be on budget calls Tues and Wed. If NOT a Summit, or IF a Summit, what? We can't do much on substance on a budget camm, BUT we can say: high concern. Didn't get it right on any front. NOT representative of parties most affected. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:40:50 To: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be>; <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <johnberard(a)aol.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? I respect Phil and his diligent representation of his domainer clients on this issue but I disagree. The UDRP's preponderance of evidence standard combined with establishing the already high bar of bad faith registration, use or trafficking in domain names has worked well. As someone with experience suing cybersquatters, we can obtain "clear and convincing" evidence usually only after months and sometimes years of litigation through discovery. I agree with Anjali that business owners need to have a real remedy like the do not sell list that prevents registrations of brands at the second level along with a workable URS. The URS problems go way beyond the price. As currently drafted, the process is fatally flawed at $300 and certainly will not get better at a higher price. The issue goes needs a better and fuller reevaluation process with broader participation, including from BC members. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be>; 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'John Berard' <johnberard(a)aol.com>; 'Steve Delbianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; 'Chris at Andalucia' <chris(a)andalucia.com>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: 'Zahid Jamil' <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Lowering the current burden of proof from "clear and convincing evidence" (strong case) to the same as the UDRP, which is "preponderance of the evidence" (which could be as low as 51/49) is not consistent with targeting "clear cut cases of trade mark infringement". That would bring in "shades of grey" cases that are not suitable for URS (intended for slam dunk, black and white cases) and belong in UDRP. It would also convert URS from a supplement to a substitute vis-à-vis UDRP. No competent examiner can properly weigh the evidence and provide adequate due process in such a case for a fee in the $300 to $500 range, which includes not just their compensation but the administrative costs of the accredited provider. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 6:55 AM To: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'John Berard'; 'Steve Delbianco'; 'Chris at Andalucia'; 'bc - GNSO list' Cc: 'Zahid Jamil' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Dear all, AIM's members believe that we definitely need the URS, and as soon as possible. We need it to be a faster and cheaper solution than the UDRP, as the URS was originally meant to be. We also very much support the lowering of the burden of proof to deal with clear cut cases of trade mark infringement. Kind regards Marie From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: lundi 7 mai 2012 4:59 To: Marilyn Cade; John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? I agree - I think without really understanding what it is that they plan to "reconfigure", it's difficult to know whether it's policy or implementation. If we wait and see, will it be too late? What kind of preemptive action could we take here? Best, Elisa From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] <mailto:[mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM To: John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised? Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree. We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ---------------- Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com <mailto:johnberard@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com <mailto:zahid@dndrc.com> To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> ; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper@markmonitor.com> Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> > Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> " <council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? All, Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget document (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) just put out for comment is a note on "reconfiguring" the URS. Excerpt provided below. I guess they could not find any URS providers that could do it for the costs that they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 summits to work on a new model. My question for the Council, is whether this is really a policy issue that should be referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the controversy around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) - $175K At present there is a significant gap between the features specified for the URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize URS Model in consultation with current UDRP providers and community members; and conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. The goal is have a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/> ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12

3 2

Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised?Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree.We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; chris(a)andalucia.com; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? All, Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget document (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) just put out for comment is a note on “reconfiguring” the URS. Excerpt provided below. I guess they could not find any URS providers that could do it for the costs that they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 summits to work on a new model. My question for the Council, is whether this is really a policy issue that should be referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the controversy around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – $175K At present there is a significant gap between the features specified for the URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize URS Model in consultation with current UDRP providers and community members; and conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. The goal is have a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz

5 6

Re: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012)
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

We will add this specific topic to the BC call Friday as a question: how do we/BC affect defensive registrations_what is status of our proposals and how to advance them? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Hansen Anjali <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 15:08:35 To: <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) I am at the INTA conference now and one of the speakers just put up the costs to block and register 5 trademarks - the cost was over $137,000 based on her model of enforcing across X number of new gTLDS. Why do brandholders have to pay these costs? I don't know the ideal process for reining in defensive registrations, but I'm on this committee and not on others. So I am raising it here. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:59 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Well, what you are saying implies reopening policy issues not just for the URS but for the function of the warning service tied to the TMC. If policy is to be reconsidered then why is that the exclusive province of this "committee', "summit", or whatever this newly made up process is when ICANN supposedly has a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up process for developing policy? Who is on this "committee', and from what does it derive its authority? I understand the concerns of TM holders completely in this new gTLD context, although I'm not in agreement that the multiple new rights protections for new gTLDs are insufficient, or that a judgment can be made without seeing them in operation. But if policy matters are to be reopened there should be an explanation of why that is happening beyond the fact that an unrealistic price target for an adjudicative process can't be met, and they should be reconsidered in regular order through standard ICANN process and not something made up on the fly. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Hansen, Anjali [mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org] <mailto:[mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org]> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:43 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) That may be so, but I do not believe it is okay to make trademark holders defensively register in all of these new TLDS, so a compromise should be put forward by this committee. One that takes into account there may be authorized license holders, etc. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] <mailto:[mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 9:13 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Anjali: The TM Clearinghouse is tied to the warning service, which alerts registrants that their domain might be infringing and allows them to consider that, and the fact that they have been warned would almost certainly be a factor in any subsequent UDRP or URS action. However, as to your suggestion that "registrars will thereby put on notice not to sell those trademarks, or deviations thereof, to anyone except the actual trademark holders", that goes too far - there are many instances in which a registrant other than the trademark holder (e.g., an authorized reseller of a particular product or service) could register a domain incorporating a trademark without infringement. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Hansen, Anjali Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 8:15 AM To: 'Benedetta Rossi'; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Thanks Benedetta. 2091 new TLDs to be prepared for. My major concerns about this are below: 1) The first thing that I am up in arms about is that the ICM Registry responsible for the .xxx is also applying for .sex and .adult. ICM will allow all of those trademark owners who registered for domains in .xxx to now do the same in .sex and .adult. As you recall, ICM made many millions off of anyone who didn't want to be associated with its .xxx and now they will be allowed to make millions more. It seems as if the brilliant business model in domaining is to apply for a registry everyone is afraid of being associated with and then take their money . I am hoping this committee might want to insist that ICANN put an end to such trademark blackmail. I'd like to get my money back for the trademarks I've had to block in .xxx. Not to mention that ICM has reserved BBB.xxx for their own use despite not holding the trademark thereto. Thus, we couldn't block our most famous trademark from .xxx. 2) I believe the legal and fair approach is to have everyone file their trademarks in a central Trademark Clearinghouse and the registries and registrars will thereby put on notice not to sell those trademarks, or deviations thereof, to anyone except the actual trademark holders. Otherwise, we might have to defensively register or block in hundreds or even a thousand new TLDs. I'd appreciate it if this committee would take on this issue of defensive registrations again at the appropriate time. I appreciate all that you have done thus far, but ICANN hasn't taken the appropriate measures to date. Thanks everyone. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Benedetta Rossi Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 4:29 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 4 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, held 2091 applications - either submitted or in progress - when it was taken offline on 12 April 2012. In addition, there are 214 potential applications that were registered prior to the 29 March cut-off date, but whose payments have not yet been received or reconciled. ICANN has received approximately USD $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs. As we have reported, we are in the process of notifying applicants whether they were affected by the software glitch, and plan to complete this process on or before Tuesday, 8 May. Shortly after that process is complete, we will announce the schedule for reopening TAS and completing the application period. Once the system is reopened, we will keep it open for at least five business days. We appreciate your understanding as we work to bring the TLD application system back online. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4981 - Release Date: 05/06/12 ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4983 - Release Date: 05/07/12

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012)
by Benedetta Rossi May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org TAS Interruption - Update (4 May 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04may12-en.htm Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 4 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, held 2091 applications - either submitted or in progress - when it was taken offline on 12 April 2012. In addition, there are 214 potential applications that were registered prior to the 29 March cut-off date, but whose payments have not yet been received or reconciled. ICANN has received approximately USD $350 million in fees for applications for new gTLDs. As we have reported, we are in the process of notifying applicants whether they were affected by the software glitch, and plan to complete this process on or before Tuesday, 8 May. Shortly after that process is complete, we will announce the schedule for reopening TAS and completing the application period. Once the system is reopened, we will keep it open for at least five business days. We appreciate your understanding as we work to bring the TLD application system back online. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

5 9

Re: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS?
by Marilyn Cade May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

I understand several BC members are at INTA. Perhaps it is possible to get a sense from the IPC members there on their views re this? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 02:58:38 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <johnberard(a)aol.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com> Subject: RE: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Clean false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I agree - I think without really understanding what it is that they plan to "reconfigure", it's difficult to know whether it's policy or implementation. If we wait and see, will it be too late? What kind of preemptive action could we take here? Best, Elisa From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:26 AM To: John Berard; Steve Delbianco; Chris at Andalucia; Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list Cc: Zahid Jamil Subject: Important to hear from members -- Reconfiguring the URS? Thanks, John, the discussion about URS needs to include the full BC. Many members have concerns, and I will note that that in the IRT last approach, some BC members were excluded from participation, in favor of others in the community, so we were not balanced in our BC participants. That was a serious challenge within the BC. Whether a URS; WHAT URS, and HOW URS is a serious topic to more than a few BC members. As to whether it is implementation/ and how that discussion progresses, versus if it is policy, is not clear, right now. What was the policy recommendation that created it? Should that policy recommendation be revised? Is this a change in how to implement a policy recommendation or a proposal to change/modify a policy recommendation? Finally, Summit? What is that? What are the parameters? Did the SO/AC/SG/Constituencies support such a budget proposal, and how and who would be funded to participate? The IPC may love this; the BC and ISPCP need to study it. As to what is 'returned' to Council to provide policy advice on, this is a seriously challenging area for us, I fully agree. We do want to hear from our broader membership on first this particular issue, and then we will talk further in the BC, probably in Prague, on 'what is policy and what is implementation'. I think that we all need to develop clarity on that for future. Whether the BC would take up a further policy clarity discussion on that latter topic would then come from Steve after the BC members offer views. Short term: My view on this for now: I want to see a staff discussion doc that explains the problems. Curtailing the URS and making it less useful doesn't excite me. paying a bit more an having useful option -- willing to discuss and understand. ICANN staff seem headed in a direction against that. Personal view: pay more/have a viable option. IF not, then no use, so don't proceed with URS. PERSONAL views only in that view. Discussion from informed members critical for next 36 hours. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair ---------------- Subject: Fwd: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? From: johnberard(a)aol.com <mailto:johnberard@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:09:38 -0400 CC: zahid(a)dndrc.com <mailto:zahid@dndrc.com> To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> ; elisa.cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper@markmonitor.com> Do we agree with Phil that this is a policy matter? My instinct is to say it is not, but... Berard Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> > Date: May 3, 2012 2:09:09 PM EDT To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> " <council(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Subject: [council] Reconfiguring the URS? All, Thanks to Phil Corwin for catching this, but buried in the new budget document (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm) just put out for comment is a note on "reconfiguring" the URS. Excerpt provided below. I guess they could not find any URS providers that could do it for the costs that they had projected, so ICANN is holding 2 summits to work on a new model. My question for the Council, is whether this is really a policy issue that should be referred back to the GNSO Community as opposed to having ICANN on its own resolving after holding 2 summits. Given the controversy around this over the past few years, any tweaks to the URS should probably go back to the community in my opinion. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) - $175K At present there is a significant gap between the features specified for the URS procedure and the desired cost. In order to bridge this gap we will: hold two summit sessions to reconfigure the URS to arrive at a lower cost model (one session in FY12 budget and another in this FY13 plan), conduct a process to develop and finalize URS Model in consultation with current UDRP providers and community members; and conduct RFP based on URS Model and select URS providers. The goal is have a URS program in place and providers contracted and onboard by June 2013. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz/>

2 1

ALERTS From the Secretariat: IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan
by Benedetta Rossi May 6, 2012

May 6, 2012

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm IDN Variant TLD Program - Revised Program Plan <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04may12-en.htm> *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 4 May 2012 *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of this project is to resolve many of the issues necessary to delegate variant TLDs. The first IDN Variant Issues Project explored the issues associated with the potential inclusion of IDN variant TLDs in the DNS root zone, at the request of the ICANN Board and the community. The first two phases of the project have been completed with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Report on 20 February 2012 and the project is now entering its next phase. ICANN created a program plan for next steps, posted it for public comment, and presented it in a session at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. Based on the comments received to date, the project plan has been updated, and the team is seeking input on the revised plan during this public comment period. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-variant-tld-revised-program… <http://gnso.icann.org>

1 0

BC Initial Notes on Draft FY13 Budget
by Chris Chaplow May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

Dear BC members, Here are my early bird notes on Draft FY13 Budget which was published on time 1 May 2012. The comment closes 25th May before reply round which closes on 15 June ahead of Board Finance Committee meeting and formal Board approval at Prague Meeting. <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy13-01may12-en.htm Highlights Level of is the same as previous years. Ie One level of breakdown followed by text with some numbers. (Cross check this against original presentation in Cartagena with suggested a second level would be created this time). General revenue up to 78m$ in FY13 from 70m$ in FY12 Budget and 71m$ in FY12 Forcast Plus gTLD at 61m$ (part of 500 x 185k$ = 990m$) Operating Expenses 18% up 74m$ in FY13 from 71m$ in FY12 Budget and 63m$ in FY12 Forcast ie FY12 expenses are significant under budget Personal costs 18% up to 30.9m$ in FY13 Staff levels up from 149 to 189 Professional sevvices up 39% to 20.6m$ SSR - 14% up to 9.3 m$ in FY13 from 8.7 m$ in FY12 Budget and 8.0 m$ in FY12 Forcast Compliance - 60% up to 6.1 m$ in FY13 from 4.8 m$ in FY12 Budget and 3.8 m$ in FY12 Forcast Ie FY12 expenses are significant under budget. Contract Compliance up to 20 for FY13 “It is mainly driven by (i) a Compliance department headcount increase from an average of 9 FTE in FY12 to 15 FTE in FY13 for approximately $1.1 million, (ii) Compliance audit for $0.5 million, (iii) Legal allocated costs increase for $0.4 million, (iv) other overhead increases for $0.3 million.” (cross check 9FTE which is not as previously reported in CR) Meeting team increased for 11FTE to 13 FTE. Meeting sponsorship at 400k per meeting. Only 2 meeting in FY13 No fellowship budget identified No communication dept budget identified Large text on Global engagement including: “Participate in events and provide presentations on ICANN at the request of stakeholders, and expect increased interest in all regions as part of global engagement to promote a healthy Internet eco-system “ “Ongoing support for, and development of, the Newcomer Program at ICANN meetings” “Increased accessibility to ICANN materials through the dramatic increase in content translated into all six UN languages. Such translations have increased in volume by roughly 80 percent compared year-over-year. ” “During FY13 there will be an increased use of outreach tools (e.g., provision of a framework for community use) and continuation of current discussions with the community to identify gaps in outreach strategy. The goal of the FY13 work is to support new ICANN community members to take on effective participatory roles, engage existing participants to become ambassadors in the regions, educate and develop leaders within the SO and AC communities, and support existing community members through training and development. “ 25 projects identified with number of FTE and $ for each. (Need to cross reference against the Framework and our comments) Here are a few New Complaince System 1.2m$ Outreach 230k$ 2013-2016 Strat Plan 45k$ New gTLD Second Round $175k TradeMark ClearingHouse $438k Uniform Rapid suspension $175k WHOIS Programme $969k gTLD Budget Senarios for 500, 1000, 2000 aplications 500 applications, net loss in asset -5m$ 1000 applications, net gain in asset -0,6m$ 2000 applications, net loss in asset +30m$ New gTLD Panels Background Screening : Price Waterhouse Cooper DNS Stability and String registry : Interisle Consulting Group String Similarity : InterConnect Communications Geographical Nanes : InterConnect Communications Community Priority Evaluation : InterConnect Communications & Economist Inteligence Unit Financial Technical Operational : Ernst & Young, KPMG, JAS Global Advisors Quality Control : JAS Global Advisors SO /AC budget requests. BC Requests Leadership from Developing Countries Programme $24k YES APPROVED Secretariat Travel $6k NOT APPROVED Outreach and Awareness Event $12k YES APPROVED BC Officer Travel $16k YES APPROVED BC Newsletter $7.5k YES APPROVED (See caveats on page 74) In general most requests were approved. Total budget 530k$ Secretariat Travel and Services was not approved to any Constituency. CSG BOP WG are already studying the document and having a call next week to coordinate CSG and BC comment. re <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092 Hope this is helpful Any comment or request for more elaboration in a particular area most welcome Best Chris Chaplow Copy Paste for FY13 Draft Budget Security, Stability and Resilience Operations (SSR) Page 13 In FY13, budget resources required to support SSR activities are estimated at $9.1 million, a 14 percent increase over FY12’s forecast. The increase for SSR in FY13 is due to continued collaboration and engagement in the following activities:  Work with ICANN’s IT on improving internal infrastructure, network security improvements and mobile device practices  Implement recommendations of the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team  Support root resilience efforts, L-root expansion and contingency exercises with partners  DNS capability training with ccTLD operators, law enforcement and the operational security community (including Interpol, Commonwealth Cybercrime Initiative and other community partners)  Conduct DNS Risk Management Framework assessment based on recommendations from Board-level working group and influenced by community-driven DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA-WG)  Continued engagement and adoption activities for DNSSEC with TLD operators, registrars, ISPs and enterprises; key ceremonies and support to SSAC work party on key rollover  Support the IDN Program with the next phase of the IDN variant project  Security support to gTLD Operations (TAS, Digital Archery and other system security)  Implement objectives contained in the FY13 SSR Framework after the community and Board of Directors buy-in  Follow best practices for internal Information Security and network operations  Physical security improvements in Los Angeles, Brussels and other ICANN office locations  Conduct 4th Global DNS SSR Symposium in FY13 in collaboration with the Anti-Phishing Working Group  Support to Global Partnerships and Regional Vice Presidents in representing ICANN  Provide thought leadership and expertise as requested by others in the Internet ecosystem, such as in the IT Sector DNS Risk Update, and participate in events such as the Internet Governance Forum Contractual Compliance Page 14 In FY13, budget resources for Contractual Compliance are estimated to be $6.1 million, about 60 percent greater than FY12 forecast. It is mainly driven by (i) a Compliance department headcount increase from an average of 9 FTE in FY12 to 15 FTE in FY13 for approximately $1.1 million, (ii) Compliance audit for $0.5 million, (iii) Legal allocated costs increase for $0.4 million, (iv) other overhead increases for $0.3 million. The increase demonstrates ICANN’s continued commitment to “strengthen the Contractual Compliance function and its operations; and to establish clear performance measures and improve communication and reporting to the community”. Work in FY13 will focus in the following areas:  Continue to grow Compliance resources in numbers and expertise to: 1) improve operations with increased monitoring and proactive enforcement of the contracts and policies; 2) proactively engage and collaborate with registrars to improve compliance and reduce complaints; 3) promote a culture of compliance and increase compliance awareness among the contracted parties through global outreach activities  In addition, to support the augmented Contractual Compliance function, resource increases are planned for other ICANN departments, such as the Registrar and Registry Liaison teams, Legal (and external legal services), Information Technology, Finance, Security and Policy  Continue the effort to standardize operations, systems and tools for efficiency and effectiveness. This includes additional automation in complaint processing and tracking, rollout of an internal collaboration tool, enhancements to current systems to reflect the standard Contractual Compliance’s process and templates, launching a program to replace the current complaint intake systems and continue efforts in preparation for new gTLDs  Communicate, develop and implement the plan for a robust risk and audit strategy  Develop performance metrics for core operations and improve and deliver fact-based communications and reporting to the community

3 3

ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings
by Phil Corwin May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

In my opinion, a step backwards for transparency and accountability -- http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/30/icann-eliminates-friday-public-board-m… . Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

8 14

Save the date: Upcoming BC Members call: Monday May 7th 2012 @ 12 pm EDT
by Benedetta Rossi May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC Members call taking place on *Monday May 7th 2012 at 12 pm EDT. * Dial in details and agenda will follow. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you! -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] PayPal Comments to Staff Roadmap for SAC 051
by Marilyn Cade May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

Thanks, Bill. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 17:44:19 To: <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] PayPal Comments to Staff Roadmap for SAC 051 My bad. My spam filter caught the ICANN "confirmsystem" message and I never saw it. I apologize for wasting everyone's time. On May 1, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Smith, Bill wrote: > I am forwarding this message to the BC list since PayPal's comments were not posted on the public site. Perhaps this is due to my late posting of comments. However, I received no notification that our comments would not be considered or published. > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: William Smith <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> > Subject: PayPal Comments to Staff Roadmap for SAC 051 > Date: April 10, 2012 3:26:07 PM PDT > To: <sac051-draft-roadmap(a)icann.org<mailto:sac051-draft-roadmap@icann.org>> > > Attached Please find PayPal's comments for the Staff Roadmap for SAC 051. > > > <2012-04-10_ICANN.pdf>

1 0