- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Thick Whois Comments
by Elisa Cooper Dec. 30, 2011

Dec. 30, 2011

BC Members, Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the Preliminary Issues Report on 'Thick Whois' comments. I will be submitting these comments within the next few hours. Have a wonderful New Year. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH

1 0

BC pre council call, 10th of January, 10am EST
by bc-secretariat＠icann.org Dec. 30, 2011

Dec. 30, 2011

Dear Bc Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC pre council call scheduled for the 10th of January at 10am est (3pm UTC/4pm CET). Dial in details and agenda will follow. Thank you, Kind regards Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

3 3

RE: [Bc-private] URGENT - redrafted letter from officers to ICANN Board re improvements in the new gTLD program
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com Dec. 29, 2011

Dec. 29, 2011

Why are our deliberations about policy positions so often pushed by a few members to the private list? I think that is contrary to the reason we have a public list, and to our stated commitment to develop policy openly and transparently. I am moving it back to the public list where it belongs. I attach a redline with suggestions for improvement and accuracy in Marilyn's redraft. It requires changes, or at least a formal policy process per our Charter if she is going to maintain some of her stated positions. The major issues I see with this, at this point: 1. The BC has never discussed or recommended any sort of "block list" policy, and this would be a major policy recommendation that must go through the policy development procedures in Section 7 of the BC Charter <http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm> . The implementation of such a policy across all TLDs would be unfathomable. As you state it, United can go and prevent anyone from registering United in any TLD? (Um, "which United". one might ask.) Oh, and lucky for Siemens, they own 'MUSIC' as a registered trademark for hearing aids in the USA since 1997! ICANN has already given away new TLD operators' rights to use any country name, ICANN's trademarks, etc., for absolutely no logical reason. Now you want the BC to propose that all words that are registered trademarks anywhere in the world can be blocked by any holder of any such registration, across every new TLD in the world? At minimum, this will require more thoughtful, and formal, written policy development per our Charter. You can't just throw this skeletal and dubious proposal into a letter to the Board, merely because you and a few other members like the idea. Particularly while giving the membership just one holiday weekend to consider your idea?! There is no rush to get such a position developed, if that is what the membership wants to do, but I suspect the idea will die fairly quickly once people think for a moment about the implications. 2. Your statement about Community Priority should restate the position we have agreed upon in prior, formally developed policy positions on this issue. Specifically, we have recommended lessening the CPE passing score from 12 to 11 points. We have never discussed giving 'brands' any priority over other applicants, unless somehow they can qualify as a community-based applicant. Again the practical implementation of such a policy is unfathomable, given that almost every single word imaginable is registered somewhere as a trademark, or otherwise used as a 'brand' by someone, somewhere. 3. The BC has never proposed a centralized URS service, and I don't know what you mean by this. Instead we have expected it to operate similar to the UDRP, with several accredited providers, and we suggest ICANN have a contract with all providers. So that proposal needs to come out. 4. Agreed with URS transfer option, as we have long agreed in our written policy positions, but why are we now suggesting an additional fee to trademark owners? Again this seems like a new and unhelpful idea that has not been properly discussed, so that proposal should come out. 5. We should reiterate our call for the TMC to include "brand + keyword" and brand typosquats, as we have previously agreed in prior written policy documents. That would be the single biggest help to trademark owners and businesses, and could be easily achievable as there really is no downside consequence from additional notices going out to applicants for domain registration. I hope everyone has a happy new year, it is regretful that some in the BC leadership are so urgently pushing new proposals to us at this point in time. I frankly don't see the urgency, unless someone is hoping to delay the new TLD application window from opening, as scheduled for more than six months now. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: bc-private-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:53 AM To: bc-private icann.org Subject: [Bc-private] URGENT - redrafted letter from officers to ICANN Board re improvements in the new gTLD program Dear BC members -- although it is a holiday period, I must ask that you focus on the redraft of the improvements document which has been circulating on the bc-private list. I have edited the earlier version of the improvements, added in accurate WHOIS at the request of a member, and a reference to not sending 'brands' or NGO or charitable gTLD string applicants into auctions. This was called to my attention by an applicant for BC membership that has just began to learn about ICANN. The significant addition is the do not register/registry block service, which is modeled after the IFFOR .XXX service in many ways. It is challenging to consider defensive registrations costs and UDRP costs across potentially hundreds of new gTLDs, a single cross all gTLD block on a number of names associated with trademarks will at least lower the defensive registration burden somewhat. I proposed a three year period, followed by an assessment. In order to have impact, this really needs to be sent out Tuesday, January 3. The letter is silent on a delay, but does recognize that many global businesses are highly concerned, and that the BC has consistently tried to get improvements to the program. Some are expensive to ICANN, but all are achievable improvements. I incorporated the request to express support for multi stakeholder nature of ICANN raised by a couple of members.

2 2

Trade Mark Clearing House
by Chris Chaplow Dec. 29, 2011

Dec. 29, 2011

Hi there, I notice that section 3.2 the TMC is only for Word Marks not design marks. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-clearinghouse-clean-12nov 10-en.pdf Currently design marks are accepted by registry in sunrise applications. I use them for a number of clients. I am not sure why design marks are not included in TMC, perhaps Zahid who was on the IRT would remember. Does this have implications for any other BC member? This must reduce the impact of the TMC best 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

ICANN Assets $100M and Growing
by Phil Corwin Dec. 28, 2011

Dec. 28, 2011

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111221_icann_publishes_its_annual_report_re… 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: NYTimes Calls for Slowdown of New gTLD Program
by Phil Corwin Dec. 27, 2011

Dec. 27, 2011

FYI--- http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?a… ________________________________ December 25, 2011 Expanding Internet Domains Come January, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers plans to allow businesses, nonprofits and others to apply for their own “top-level domain” with their own online suffix, like the familiar .com and .org suffixes that now rule the Internet. Icann, the nonprofit that manages the Internet’s address system, says increasing the number of top-level domains will ease crowding and create opportunities for businesses to connect with consumers. For instance, Canon plans to buy .canon to put its Web sites in one spot and the American Bankers Association is reportedly considering .bank, where banks could offer secure online banking. But a plethora of new suffixes is just as likely to cause confusion for consumers and enable malefactors to use the new arenas for deception. Icann expects 500 to 1,000 applications in next year’s 90-day application window. Before it approves any of them, it needs to slow down and put in place better safeguards against consumer fraud. The expansion of top domains could be costly for businesses, which might have to buy new domains (Icann is charging $185,000 per application) to protect their brands from fraudsters making money by squatting on brands. The Web is full of sites that masquerade as legitimate companies to sell pirated goods or steal consumers’ financial information. Fraudsters avoid detection by registering their sites using proxy services and false identities. The administrators of the online address system — Icann, the registries that operate suffixes like VeriSign, and agents like GoDaddy that sell Internet addresses to the public — are doing a terrible job curbing fraud. A recent Icann report acknowledged that the system to identify Web site owners “is broken and needs to be repaired.” Icann says it will increase security in the new domains, including thorough background checks of all applicants. There will be a clearinghouse for owners of trademarks, who would get first dibs on domains connected to their brand. If anybody but the Coca-Cola Company applied for .coke, he or she would have to prove a legitimate, non-infringing reason to run it. And there would be a “rapid takedown” procedure to close infringing domains. But companies will still have to spend a lot on defense, registering domains to avoid squatting on their brands and keeping an eye out for potentially infringing Web sites across hundreds of new suffixes. And Icann’s current inability to deal with abusive domain name registrations undermines confidence in its ability to address the risks of this vast expansion. The Federal Trade Commission is rightly urging<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm> Icann to require that registries and registrars be able to verify the identity of owners of all domains that have a commercial purpose, and to impose meaningful penalties for those who break the rules. There is no pressing need to create hundreds of new suffixes next year. It would be far better for Icann to start with a pilot program to work out problems before expanding the 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

2 3

FW: [soac-discussion] Upcoming Public Comments - 2012
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

ICANN is introducing a more formalized approach to developing public comments for the public meetings. We have a deadline of Jan 21 to provide input, and a template is provided for submission by the Chair of the Constituencies/SOs. I'd like to use a nomination process from the members, supported by suggestions from the officers/councilors, to put together a BC reviewed submission. This will help us tremendously in our preparation for upcoming ICANN meetings and allow us to return to gathering member input prior to the actual meeting. Ad hoc items may be added, but in general, this is an improvement which I hope we can maximize contributing to. Bene, would you put together a reminder schedule, and also the CSG can brainstorm some ideas and distribute to the members early in January, for your advice and improvements. In the meantime, we will add this process to our preparation process for all public meetings, and our Secretariat will start a timely reminder process for us so that our BC prep calls include this topic in a timely manner for all face to face meetings. Marilyn CadeBC Chair Following the process (attached) that is now in place since June 2011 (based on the implementation of ATRT recommendation 21), ICANN is instituting a more formal approach for time for me to ask for input for the 2012 Upcoming Public Comments list to be published at:http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-en.htm Following the process, after receiving input, ICANN will publish the list for 2012 by February and make another call for updates after March meeting in Costa Rica.

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] interesting beta site from Verisign -- info on dropping domain-names
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 10, 2011

Dec. 10, 2011

doh! i had the logic exactly backward -- you're right, of course. mikey On Dec 9, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Interesting site. I wish there were more Facebook domain names on the list. These are all registered by third parties. > > Susan > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 5:17 AM > To: Bc GNSO list > Subject: [bc-gnso] interesting beta site from Verisign -- info on dropping domain-names > > > hi all, > > came across this through Mike Berkins' blog this morning > > http://domaincountdown.verisignlabs.com/index.htm > > DomainCountdown has a listing of about 300,000 domains that are going to expire in the next few days, with all kinds of statistics associated with them. > > several observations; > > -- if you just let the site do its thing, you get a ranked list of names that have preexisting activity -- some of it quite substantial. there might be an indication that some of these domains are unintended expirations. the problem that PEDNR was working on solving. > > -- i typed a few of our member brands into the list (Verizon, Facebook, Paypal, etc.). Verizon fared the best, no domains contained the string. Paypal was in the middle of the pack with 3. Facebook had 8. > > -- i tried my super-generic terms (bar, grill, pub, place, corp) and was surprised at how few names contained those terms. "bar" had the most -- around 15. > > thought some of you might be interested... your interest, and point of view, may vary. :-) > > > mikey > > > - - - - - - - - - > phone 651-647-6109 > fax 866-280-2356 > web http://www.haven2.com > handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) > > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

US says it will not block the new gTLD program
by Phil Corwin Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Further elaboration of NTIA's current stance vis-à-vis ICANN and new gTLDs... http://domainincite.com/us-says-it-will-not-block-the-new-gtld-program/ US says it will not block the new gTLD program<http://domainincite.com/us-says-it-will-not-block-the-new-gtld-program/> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, December 9, 2011, 17:06:18 (UTC), Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy/> NTIA boss Larry Strickling has come out in support of ICANN and its new top-level domains program, warning that its opponents "provide ammunition" to authoritarian regimes. Speaking in Washington DC yesterday, Strickling warned that organizations fighting to put a stop to the new gTLD program risk provoking a UN takeover of the internet. In a strongly worded defense of the six-year-old ICANN multistakeholder process that created the program, he said: we are now seeing parties that did not like the outcome of that multistakeholder process trying to collaterally attack the outcome and seek unilateral action by the U.S. government to overturn or delay the product of a six-year multistakeholder process that engaged folks from all over the world. The multistakeholder process does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. But it is critical to preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached. When parties ask us to overturn the outcomes of these processes, no matter how well-intentioned the request, they are providing "ammunition" to other countries who attempt to justify their unilateral actions to deny their citizens the free flow of information on the Internet. This we will not do. There is too much at stake here. Strickling is assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which oversees the US government's relationship with ICANN and IANA. He's made similar remarks in support of the multistakeholder model in the past, but never quite as firmly or directly aimed at opponents of the new gTLD expansion. While he was diplomatic enough not to single out any one group, he was pretty clearly referring to the recently formed Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight. CRIDO was formed<http://domainincite.com/massive-group-forms-to-kill-off-new-gtlds/> by the Association of National Advertisers to fight new gTLDs. Yesterday, it had its day on Capitol Hill, but failed to convince Senators<http://domainincite.com/notes-from-the-senate-new-gtlds-hearing/> that the program should be stopped. But Strickling did sound a note of caution about new gTLDs, saying that he agreed with Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who expressed concern about possible negative impacts of the expansion: We agree with the Chairman's concerns over how this program will be implemented and its potential negative effect if not implemented properly. We will closely monitor the execution of the program and are committed to working with stakeholders, including U.S. industry, to mitigate any unintended consequences. But the minutiae of the Applicant Guidebook was not Strickling's focus. Instead, it was the wider political picture. The threat of an International Telecommunications Union takeover of the internet's policy-making functions has plagued ICANN for almost as long as it has existed. Strickling noted that the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications is coming up one year from now, and that some nations will attempt to usurp ICANN. Some nations appear to prefer an Internet managed and controlled by nation-states. ... We expect that some states will attempt to rewrite the regulation in a manner that would exclude the contributions of multistakeholder organizations and instead provide for heavy-handed governmental control of the Internet. For the ANA and CRIDO, Strickling's remarks<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-st…> are a huge setback. The ANA has previously said that it planned to use all three branches of the US political system - lobbying Congress and the NTIA, or taking ICANN to court - to achieve its ends. The Senate clearly wasn't interested yesterday and the NTIA has now confirmed that it's on ICANN's side. That leaves only one option. 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 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Business Constituency comments on RySG Alternative for COI
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Attached are comments of the Business Constituency (BC) on the RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity of Operations Instrument We understand that the deadline for this comment has passed, but we needed one additional week to do review and approval by BC members in accordance with our charter. Jon Nevett served as Rapporteur for this document. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency http://Www.bizconst.org

1 0