- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

URS Review
by Jon Nevett Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

As discussed on the call, STI Recommendation 10.1 references unanimous consent for a mandatory URS review one year after it begins to operate. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17dec09-en.htm Thanks. jon

2 1

URGENT regarding todya's BC call
by Benedetta Rossi Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

dear members, please dial back into the call, the technical issues with the call have been resolved!! -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 1

URGENT - due to a slight delay from ICANN bridge, we will start our call at 10 min after the hour. stay tuned if they change the bridge/call will procd
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

apologies. Bene is addressing with ICANN. the booking is confirmed but somehow not activated by ICANN. Is being fixed. we may use a diff. number, so watch for a second update. Try dialiing in at 10:10 a.m. /equivalent your time. stuff happens. Marilyn

1 0

ATT: for BC call tomorrow: Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 15 December 2011 at 20:00UTC
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Posting the Agenda for the GNSO Council meeting for FYI for members, in preparation for tomorrow's BC members call. We will push to conclude this call in an hour. Some information will be sent separately on background/and status on motions: Motions:I call attention to the UDRP issue: my understanding is that the IPC has developed a 'friendly amendment'. I would ask Zahid to post that to the BC list for information for the members.I am not sure it will be accepted as 'friendly', so the BC Councilors will want to discuss it with the members. Outreach Proposal. John Berard has been 'sherping' a motion that was summitted within the time frame, that would a) thank the previous TF and the former chairb) ask staff [not policy staff] to gather, compile, and summarize existing outreach and participation activities, materials, and include the incoming requests from Constituencies/SGs into the Budget/Operating Plan; and the initiative that Kurt Pritz is briefing the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGs/ ALAC, and SOs next week, but just before the Council meets. c) delay any further GNSO Council discussions until after that summary is provided to the GNSO's constituencies/SGs; GNSO Council, ALAC, GAC, SOs, and Public Participation Committee. I did a lot of the work on that motion, with John's excellent editing and improving. We can discuss the status and probabilities for that motion. Item 6: this item probably needs some attention and thought by all of us. Fraud and abuse is of high interest to many of our BC members. Finally, as noted in an earlier email, Steve DelBianco and I are working on a letter that summarizes the four items the BC has identified for further improvements in the new gTLD Guidebook/before launch of the new gTLD program. I look forward to talking to all of you tomorrow. Marilyn CadeBC Chair -------------------- Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 15 December 2011http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-15dec11-en.htmWiki Agendahttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+Dec… agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdfFor convenience:* An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.Meeting Time 20:00 UTCCoordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris;16 December 2011 05:00 Tokyo; 09:00 WellingtonDial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3uItem 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates· Mason Cole https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Mason+Cole+SOI 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:· 17 November minutes – will be approved on 8 December 2011. . Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting. Refer to Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (Stéphane Van Gelder)• GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change). • Other activities: 10 (11 - Deleted: RAP, request to ICANN Compliance complete) • Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change). • Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).Item 3: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach programAt the previous Council meeting, a motion on this was not approved. It was proposed that a small group be assisted by Staff to produce a new motion that would include specific revisions to the charter.Refer to motion:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+D… Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 3.1 Discussion3.2 Vote3.3 Next stepsItem 4: UDRP (25 minutes)Following the drafting of an Issue Report on a possible review of the UDRP, a motion is before the Council to initiate a PDP on this topic and that a drafting team be formed to write a charter for the working group.Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December… motion was deferred from the Nov 17 Council meeting.4.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) (15 minutes) The JIG is proposing that both GNSO and ccNSO councils ask their Chairs to send to the ICANN Board a letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs.The letter would note discrepancies between the WG's work and the Board resolution.Refer to motion https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December… Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 VoteItem 6: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting (10 minutes)At the previous Council meeting, there was discussion on possible next steps and decisions that could be made on this topic, following SSAC's response (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct1…) .Staff has suggested several options: Adding these issues to the mandate of the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team which is tasked to prepare a request for information for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain further information on the issue of Fake Renewal Notices in order to help inform the GNSO Council on the appropriate next steps, if any. As there are certain similarities, especially between the cross-tld registration scam and fake renewal notices, it might be possible for this DT to also try and obtain further information on that specific issue to help inform the Council's deliberations.Continue discussions on the topic of cross-TLD registration scam with the ccNSO to discuss whether there are any steps that could be taken or considered jointly. The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council had some initial discussions on this topic at its meeting in Dakar and as this is an issue that also affects ccTLDs there might be common approaches to be explored. As noted, such approaches might involve improved communication / education in relation to this issue as it is not clear at this stage that this issue could be addressed through policy development.Do nothing – as there is no set mechanism for data gathering or monitoring of abuses at the moment or any evidence that these practices are in non-compliance with ICANN policies or agreements, the GNSO Council could decide to not undertake any further action at this stage. Note, at any point in time, should further information or data become available, any Council member or SO/AC could raise this issue again for further consideration. This discussion item aims at seeing if this issue should be closed or if work should continue.6.1 Discussion 6.2 Next steps Item 7: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (10 minutes) This agenda item is to update the Council on recent developments in the JAS WG, and more specifically details of the measures being taken to implement the recommendations made in the JAS Final Report that was sent to the Board.7.1 Update from Staff (X Y) 7.2 DiscussionItem 8: Transitioning existing PDP work to the new PDP procedures (10 minutes) At its meeting on December 8, 2011, the Board adopted the new GNSO PDP.Out of that comes the following text: 'For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board'.Currently the following PDPs are under way:- IRTP Part C (Working Group)- Thick Whois (Preliminary Issue Report out for public comment)- RAA (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)- Uniformity of Contracts (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)- UDRP (pending)- Law Enforcement recommendations (pending)8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next stepsItem 9: Any Other Business (5 minutes)Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4) 4.4.1 Applicability Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures. a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP); b. Approve a PDP recommendation; c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws; d. Fill a Council position open for election.4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting‟s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available. 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 22:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Beijing, China (CST ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint GéryGNSO Secretariatgnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.orghttp://gnso.icann.org

2 1

interesting beta site from Verisign -- info on dropping domain-names
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

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.)

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
by Smith, Bill Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

See IETF, W3C, or any other of a number of organizations that operate by consensus. Their rules don't mean that everyone in the entire organization are part of the consensus. Rather, what MIT means is their is consensus on those participating in and working towards some goal or objective. Agreements reached by voting can rarely be described as consensus-based and as best I can tell, nearly everything in ICANN is decided by, except hotel accommodations and those decisions remain mysterious. On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote: > Consensus is very difficult to define, especially in ICANNland. But > consensus cannot realistically be defined as you suggest -- "closer to > unanimity, or lack of sustained, substantial objection by more than an > insignificant minority, we don't have a consensus decision." If that were > the case, then any insignificant minority could forever delay a process > until their demands are met. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:58 AM > To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com > Cc: Mike Roberts; bc - GNSO list > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings > > I've always maintained that it is easy to tell when you have consensus, for > any reasonable definition of consensus. Given the continued disagreement, > discussion, and debate regarding new gTLDs, it doesn't appear that we have > consensus. If we did, I believe we'd see more head nodding and much less > talking. Even here in the BC, we have discussed and submitted suggestions > for "improvement" to the new system. > > That's not a consensus agreement but something more like what was described > in an earlier message that went something like this; if new gTLDs are a fait > a complit, it's better that we help eliminate the worst aspects and improve > it as best we can. That's fatalism, not consensus. > > While ICANN claims to be a bottoms-up, consensus-based, multi-stakeholder > organization, it has yet to navigate the difficult waters of actually become > the organization it professes to be. In terms of consensus, as far as I know > a simple majority in each of ICANN's constituencies would be sufficient to > declare consensus, by a strict definition, on any issue at the GNSO Council. > The vote would be unanimous. > > So if our definition of consensus is a simple majority of those voting, > ICANN is consensus-based. But if our definition is closer to unanimity, or > lack of sustained, substantial objection by more than an insignificant > minority, we don't have a consensus decision. > > I'd be hard-pressed to sit before Congress and declare that we have reached > consensus. > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:37 PM, "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: > >> >> I disagree with your assessment of community support for the program. >> There was a supermajority vote which approved the new TLD principles, >> including support of the BC and IPC, because we believe that business >> users of the DNS would be better off with more domain name choices, >> more registration service providers, and IDN TLDs, . The ICANN Board >> was nearly unanimous in approving the current implementation plan. >> The BC is still in favor of new TLDs, even if we have some >> reservations about some of the implementation details. There is broad >> community support for them, even if there also remains some broad >> opposition from some business/IP groups who are noisily repeating some >> of the arguments that have been made by the BC and others repeatedly for > years. >> >> So, I am not clear about what you would like the BC to say publicly at >> this point, perhaps you could circulate a draft? >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> Mike Rodenbaugh >> RODENBAUGH LAW >> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 >> http://rodenbaugh.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Mike Roberts >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:38 PM >> To: bc - GNSO list >> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings >> >> >> Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling >> that ICANN is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position >> from which it may not recover. >> >> I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue >> Mosque in Istanbul. Worth a trip if you haven't seen it. >> >> After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down the >> peninsula and ravaged the city. So walls were built. Then sieges were > put >> in place and folks ran out of water. So at great expense the cistern was >> dug and covered over. Then longer sieges, etc. The invaders prevailed. >> >> The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of >> building walls thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day. >> >> The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to cover >> every possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new TLDs. And >> doesn't succeed. >> >> Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple >> relationships to ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, >> the core rationale for our constituency is to represent business users of > the Domain Name >> System. Setting aside IDNs, which have their own rationale, I haven't > seen >> any enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and most of us have been >> opposed but willing to work on the details with ICANN because that seemed > better >> than letting it happen without any input from us. What we have gotten > for >> our trouble is Kurt claiming in his testimony that there is broad >> community support for new TLDs. That has never been the case. >> >> The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program >> has produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense, > including >> more than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of whack. It's time >> for us to acknowledge this, and say so publicly. >> >> - Mike >> >> >> >> >> >

3 2

RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

4 5

ICANN hearings
by Mike Roberts Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling that ICANN is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position from which it may not recover. I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. Worth a trip if you haven't seen it. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down the peninsula and ravaged the city. So walls were built. Then sieges were put in place and folks ran out of water. So at great expense the cistern was dug and covered over. Then longer sieges, etc. The invaders prevailed. The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of building walls thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day. The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to cover every possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new TLDs. And doesn't succeed. Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple relationships to ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, the core rationale for our constituency is to represent business users of the Domain Name System. Setting aside IDNs, which have their own rationale, I haven't seen any enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and most of us have been opposed but willing to work on the details with ICANN because that seemed better than letting it happen without any input from us. What we have gotten for our trouble is Kurt claiming in his testimony that there is broad community support for new TLDs. That has never been the case. The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program has produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense, including more than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of whack. It's time for us to acknowledge this, and say so publicly. - Mike

7 7

FW: On Another DC Subject...
by Phil Corwin Dec. 8, 2011

Dec. 8, 2011

For those of you following the PIPA and SOPA anti-piracy bills pending in Congress, I have posted a letter sent today to the Chairman and other senior members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding the potential impact of SOPA on registrars and other domain name intermediaries - http://internetcommerce.org/SOPA%20Concerns SOPA Could Shutter Registrars and other Domain Name Industry Intermediaries - And Terminate Their Vital Registrant Services The Internet Commerce Association has just sent a letter to senior members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding the likely unintended but potentially devastating impact of H.R. 3261 ("SOPA") as introduced upon ICANN-accredited registrars and other participants in the broad domain name industry, as well as upon the domain registrants who use those services. Registrants, for example, might find it impossible to renew domains due to the extrajudicial termination of payments services sanctioned by the proposal, or to complete domain sales or transfers. Further, many of the domain name industry companies subject to potential payment and advertising service termination under the bill might lack the income to pursue their legal rights, and could well be forced into bankruptcy. This potential impact arises because, while domain names are subject to trademark law, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) as well as ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) place the responsibility for domain name infringement upon the domain registrant and look at a variety of factors, particularly the actual use of the associated domain, before reaching a determination as to whether infringement exists. ICA believes that SOPA, as introduced, creates the strong possibility that trademark rights holders will seek to have payment and ad services terminated to registrars and other domain name intermediaries based upon the allegation that they are facilitating the use of domains that constitute "counterfeit marks" in and of themselves, without reference to actual use or available defenses. This potential shifting of "cybersquatting" responsibility from registrants to registrars and other domain name intermediaries, as well as the failure to incorporate the more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the ACPA and UDRP, appears unjustified and unwise - and could lead to the shutdown of these domain name intermediaries and the associated termination of critical domain-related services to millions of registrants engaged in non-infringing uses of their websites. The letter also expresses concerns that the introduced legislation needs substantial narrowing and is not required to effectively address infringement on websites subject to U.S. court jurisdiction, and will also have negative effects on cybersecurity and on the availability of venture capital for innovative Internet startups. At this time the full House Judiciary Committee is tentatively scheduled to "markup" - amend and vote on reporting the bill to the full House of Representatives - on Thursday, December 15th. U.S.-based domain industry participants who have concerns about any aspect of the legislation should contact their representatives at once, especially if they serve on the Committee. A complete list of Committee members is available at http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html . The full text of ICA's letter follows --- (continue to the website if you wish to read the full letter -- http://internetcommerce.org/SOPA%20Concerns ) 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

Confirmation of Date for the upcoming BC Call: Friday 9th @ 10am EST
by Benedetta Rossi Dec. 5, 2011

Dec. 5, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC members pre council call scheduled for Friday the 9th of December at 10am EST. Please find the agenda attached. Dial in details will follow, please let me know if you require a dial out. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

2 1