- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency response to WHOIS Review Team questions
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 9, 2012

Feb. 9, 2012

Attached is the response of the Business Constituency (BC) to questions from The WHOIS Policy Review Team. This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our charter. Sarah Deutsch served as Rapporteur for this response. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency http://Www.bizconst.org <http://Www.bizconst.org/>

4 6

Re: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

John Berard asked me which options the WG is likely to pursue. Can't really predict that, but it would be good to express what BC members think are the best options. Would any BC members object to endorsing these options that I would recommend? Q1: Option 5. Give GAC the Reserve status sought, and allow letter of non-objection. Q2: Option 2. Give GAC the protection they seek in all translations of the listed names. Q3: Option 3. Reserve policy would apply in this round, with no decision on subsequent rounds. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sun, February 05, 2012 2:21 pm To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO Working Group on answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red Cross and the Olympics. Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level. We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the questions below, with respect to just top-level domains: --Steve Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review. · Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered “Reserved Names” b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. · Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 4a – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 4b – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. · Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. · Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.” c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.

7 10

Interesting Blog Post
by Smith, Bill Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Of possible interest to members: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com.

2 1

CSG Budget and Operating Plan Update
by Chris Chaplow Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Dear Members, Following up from my CSG Budget and Operating Plan WG Here is a link to the FY13 framework plan. http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2013-en.pdf It contains 13 - ICANN Priorities - page 6 14 - Core Operations page 11 15 Ongoing Strategic Projects page 13 22 New Strategic Projects page 13 Framework p24 and assumption p25 to 29 Revenue p30 and assumptions p31 to 32 Contingency p33 and Investment and Reserves The Budget Group's Wik which Bene maintains for usi: <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31163092 Which includes call notes and transcripts from previous calls as well as current deadlines and background documentation Looking forwards to receiving any member comments when we circulate the draft. An new members welcome to help comment either globally or more specifically on any Core operation or Strategic Project. Best regards Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

WHOIS RT Public Meetings
by Smith, Bill Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Sunday 13:00-17:30 -- WHOIS Review Team Meeting Description: This is the WHOIS Policy Review Team's working session. Public attendance is welcome but comments should be submitted during the Interaction with the Community Session scheduled for Monday, 12 March, 14:00-15:30 or through its public comment box at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/whois-rt-draft-final-report-05dec11-… 17:30-18:30 -- WHOIS Review Team – GNSO Council meeting Monday 14:00-15:30 -- WHOIS Interaction with the Community Description: Presentation of draft final report recommendations for the community's consideration and feedback. For more information please refer to: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm Tuesday 11:00-12:00 -- WHOIS Review Team - GAC meeting Wednesday 08:00-17:00 -- WHOIS Policy Review Team Meeting

1 0

FW: Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations
by Phil Corwin Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

FYI--- http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/07/raa-investigation Lifting the lid on ICANN's RAA negotiations by Kieren McCarthy | 7 Feb 2012 | Starting this week and ending on 15 February when a revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) is expected to be published for public review, .Nxt will take you inside the secret negotiations to update the domain name system's key contract. In response to a failure by ICANN to provide sufficient openness or transparency regarding the negotiations, despite promises otherwise, we have been in contact with many of those in and surrounding the negotiations, all of whom have spoken on the condition of anonymity. [Description: http://news.dot-nxt.com/sites/news.dot-nxt.com/files/raa-signing.jpg] Signing the last RAA revision in 2009. The smiles are not there in 2012. Our investigation has uncovered: * The depth of disagreement between registrars * That ICANN is willing to "throw registrars under the bus" in order to keep governments happy and look as if it is solving the problem * The pressure placed on ICANN's negotiating team to force through results dictated from above * A conscious effort by ICANN to force registrars' hands by making public statements about what changes will be included, despite having no idea how to introduce them * A refusal on some registrars' part to acknowledge that the world has changed, to the extent that some are advocating walking away from the whole process Our investigation also highlights a significant number of failures on the part of ICANN staff, including: * Agreeing to a fast-track negotiation despite the likelihood of failure * Insisting on closed-doors discussions, despite a past history of it failing * Failing to keep the community adequately informed * Putting forward the wrong negotiation team * Undermining negotiations through public pronouncements * Failing to fully understand registrar realities but expecting registrars to work in good faith to make changes work shortly after refusing to listen to their concerns We will begin our review later this week with the most contentious part of RAA negotiations - the insistence that there be some kind of verification of registrant data for domain names. But first some quick history When the ICANN Board ordered a fast-track negotiation over the key contract that the organization has with registrars - the RAA - it used unusually strong language. It called for staff and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and to do so "as a matter of extreme urgency""The Board wishes to convey its sense of urgency on this issue," began the resolution<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm#7> of 28 October. Another part read: "The Board requires action." It called for staff and registrars to "rapidly develop a set of amendments" and to do so "as a matter of extreme urgency". Equally strong language had come from the world's governments earlier that week. They were sick of the delay in changes to the RAA to the extent that they threatened to walk away<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/10/24/governments-registrars-fight> from the entire decision-making structure that ICANN embodies. A few months later, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not to mention two Congressional hearings and several business coalitions focussed in on one of the issues tied up with RAA negotiations - the issue of accurate registrant data. Open, transparent? Nope. Both parties were aware this did not please anyoneDespite ICANN's own obligation to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner", it decided to hold negotiations over the RAA in secret, with just ICANN staff and registrar representatives present. Both parties were aware this did not please anyone. In an announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02dec11-en.htm>, ICANN noted: "To promote transparency and timely communications, ICANN has created a dedicated Wiki to describe the communications plan, publish regular status updates on the amendment topics under consideration, and provide comment opportunities to the broader ICANN community." The registrars promised the same<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12335.html>: "To ensure transparency, registrars and ICANN will update the community regarding the substance and progress of negotiations. Decision rationale will be included as part of those communications and at the time the new agreement is published for public comment." As soon as negotiations began, however, the promise of openness and transparency into the discussions was jettisoned. Not only are the meeting reports<https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/RAA+Negotiation+Meeting+Reports> largely meaningless but ICANN has stopped producing them. As of today, 7 February, the last report available is from 5 January. There have been at least two meetings between the parties since 5 January; none are listed. Uncovering the discussion ICANN counted on its negotiations being secretICANN counted on its negotiations being secret. However such is the level of concern at the tactics used, and the failure of key parties on both sides to approach the negotiations in good faith, that those concerned about the process have spoken to us on the condition of anonymity. What results is as damning as the letter<http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/16/ftc-letter-to-icann> sent to ICANN recently by the Federal Trade Commission, which found that ICANN had "neglected to respond to the needs of this community both in the accuracy of Whois data and in response times for access and action". Yet again, ICANN has failed to effectively carry out its job. When the revised RAA is published - which should be on 15 February - we will publish what changes we believe ICANN needs to make in order to maintain confidence in its ability as an organization to look after the domain name system 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4796 - Release Date: 02/08/12

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
by john＠crediblecontext.com Feb. 6, 2012

Feb. 6, 2012

1 0

Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 5, 2012

Feb. 5, 2012

I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO Working Group on answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red Cross and the Olympics. Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level. We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the questions below, with respect to just top-level domains: --Steve Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round GAC Proposal At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review. · Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are not considered “Reserved Names” b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3. · Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that: a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning: a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable. b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review. c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal. · Option 4a – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 4b – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable. · Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government. · Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. · Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD. Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages? a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.” c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages. Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds? a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round. c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results of the evaluation.

1 0

latest draft of "advice" on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 5, 2012

Feb. 5, 2012

As I've mentioned on recent BC member calls, John Berard and I are on a Working Group looking at definitions and metrics for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Competition in the gTLD expansion. I've just circulated the 4th draft of "Advice" to the board on the definitions and measures. (attached) I changed the measures tables to include explanations of anticipated difficulties in obtaining and/or reporting each measure. The intention is to help the community understand the reasoning behind our assessments of difficulty. Hopefully this will stimulate community members to offer suggestions during public comment period. Our WG still needs to carefully review proposed measures in Choice and Competition sections. If possible, indicate your comments and edits about Measures and 3-year targets within the respective table row.After the WG finishes its edits, this draft advice will be posted for public comment. We will conduct a public work session in Costa Rica as well. Then a final version will go to GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC for them to amend / send to the Board. Our next WG call is Tuesday 7-Feb. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.NetChoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482

2 1

Announcement from the Secretariat: Pre-Costa Rica ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 5, 2012

Feb. 5, 2012

Dear BC Members, Please find below an announcement from the GNSO Secretariat regarding a Pre-Costa Rica ICANN Policy Update Webinar, taking place on the 1st of March 2012. If you plan on participating, please follow the RSVP details listed below to receive the dial in details. The webinar will be a review of all major policy issues currently under discussion, in preparation for the Costa Rica meeting. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-03feb12-en.htm Pre-Costa Rica ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 3 February 2012 *In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat** *(***gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>**) to receive the call details.* Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Costa Rica remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on *Thursday 1 March at 13.00 UTC and Thursday 1 March at 20.00 UTC*, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy * RAA Improvements * Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * Framework of Interpretation Working Group for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group * Participation and Engagement activities in Costa Rica The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. 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 of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 13.00 UTC or Thursday at 20.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address.

1 0