- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ICANN responds to Congress on gTLD
by Chris Chaplow June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

The Honorable Robert Goodlatte U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information after the May 4, 2011 hearing regarding ICANNs new gTLD program before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. Below you will find ICANNs responses to Representative Cobles written question, as well as further information on questions raised during the hearing. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards, Kurt Pritz Senior Vice President, Stakeholder Relations http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-goodlatte-07jun11-en.pdf 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.

2 1

FW: Business Constituency comment on FY 2012 SSR Framework
by Steve DelBianco June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011

Below (and attached) are comments the BC submitted today for ICANN's proposed 2012 framework for Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR). http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-fy12 As discussed on last week's BC call and my follow-up email, we re-submitted the BC's 4-Apr response to SSR review team issues. In the body of our comment submission (below), we adapted the introductory paragraphs from that submission, with minor edits by Marilyn Cade and I. Thanks again to Berry Cobb and Mikey O'Connor for their work on the SSR review team comments earlier this year. --Steve ---- The Business Constituency (BC) is fully committed and concerned with maintaining the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS. In the designated comment period for this proposed SSR Framework, the BC was otherwise engaged and therefore unable to do a detailed analysis and response. However, the BC would like to re-iterate relevant concerns that we submitted on 6-Apr-2011, for the SSR Affirmation Review Team Set of Issues (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssr-rt-issues/msg00004.html) Business users rely on a stable and secure Internet and e-commerce experience, one that serves their users and customers on a global basis. Although ICANN is an independent non-profit corporation, its decisions directly impact a larger eco system that is extensively designed and financed by BC members, including communication service providers, ISPs, cable providers; application and content service providers, as well as domain portfolio managers, and the online commerce community. The BC supports ICANN's continuing effort to improve SSR and believes that attention should be focused on four areas of current concern: 1. Adequacy of measures to prevent DNS Abuse 2. Lack of Collaboration with Enterprise Community 3. Oversight and resources to ensure compliance obligations are enforced 4. Strategic planning for SSR should include the business user community ICANN's Bylaws require it 'to ensure the stable and secure operation' of the DNS. Therefore, ICANN must view participation in coordinated industry efforts to combat malicious DNS activity as absolutely essential to that mission. Fraudulent WHOIS, manipulation of DNS records, and ICANN's failure to adequately enforce obligations of contracted parties continues to provide fertile ground for abuses that erode trust in e-commerce. The BC is encouraging ICANN to recognize that its mission requires timely enforcement of contracted party compliance obligations and collaborative support for enterprise efforts to identify and address attacks that abuse DNS technologies. The BC has strong concerns that ICANN's current SSR plans fail to adequately emphasize cooperation with the business community to protect e-commerce. The SSR plan also lacks a detailed description of how ICANN will focus on creating an effective compliance program. The lack of an emphasis on improving compliance leaves doubt that any plan will be effective. ICANN continues to endorse a narrow view of its compliance obligations. This provides little assurance that ICANN will take the necessary action to enforce security standards. The current SSR proposal appears heavy with good intentions, but provides few substantive details or assurances of action that would persuade the BC that it would be effective. The introduction of new gTLDs -- including IDNs with their special characteristics -- makes this a critically important moment for ICANN to develop a robust SSR plan that will protect e-commerce and promote security. This SSR Review is an excellent way to describe shortfalls in current plans and compliance, and to recommend improvements that can be implemented before doubling or tripling the number of TLDs in use. The planned SSR Summit lacks input from the business user community, and the BC welcomes the opportunity to identify the relevance, scope and purpose of the proposed summit. The full text of our SSR submission to the Affirmation Review team are attached. We look forward to receiving details underlying the SSR Framework and to making further comments at the Singapore meeting. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency http://Www.bizconst.org

1 1

Singapore Meeting Guide
by Benedetta Rossi June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the Meeting Guide for ICANN's Singapore meeting. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0

Reminder: upcoming BC Members call
by Benedetta Rossi June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

Dear BC Members, I'm just sending you a reminder for the upcoming BC Members call in preparation for the Singapore meeting, which will take place on Monday June 13th at 10am EST (2pm UTC). Dial in details and agenda will follow. Please let me know if you require a dial out. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0

ICANN Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy Implementation
by Benedetta Rossi June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

Dear BC Members, Attached is the final status report on Add Grace Period Limits. The staff language is quite laudatory about the results of the AGP. This is an informational posting for BC members' consideration. If you have concerns, please post them to the bc-gnso list to the attention of the ExComm. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat ICANN Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy Implementation2 June 2011http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02jun11-en.htmICANN today is posting its fifth and final status report [PDF, 316 KB] to the GNSO on the implementation of its recommendations for the Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy. As noted in prior status reports, the success of the Policy is evidenced by the 99.7% reduction in AGP deletes since the Policy went into effect in April 2009. ICANN committed to analyzing and reporting on the effects of the Policy to the GNSO at six-month intervals for two years after its implementation. The first status report [PDF, 41 KB] was issued on 10 June 2009, the second status report [PDF, 61 KB] on 14 December 2009, the third status report [PDF, 224 KB] on 1 June 2010, and the fourth status report [PDF, 312 KB] on 18 November 2010. The purpose of these reports has been “to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.” Presented in a prior report was that during GNSO calls in April and May 2010, following inquiry from ICANN Staff about whether or not additional Policy work should be considered, the GNSO decided that the success of the Policy and the low number of exemption requests demonstrated that modifications to the Policy were not warranted at that time. Further, since the time of those calls there have not been any additional GSNO discussions about the Policy and the number and frequency of reported exemption requests from registrars has dropped considerably. The results of the AGP Limits Policy illustrate the success of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members identified the problem, initiated policy discussions, generated a solution, and now monitor the results. The ICANN practice of encouraging and considering broad community input on policy issues leads to effective results.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 2-Jun-2011 BC Member call
by Marilyn Cade June 3, 2011

June 3, 2011

I think the price control issue deserves BC attention. I am not personally affected, but my understanding of the business entities with large defensive portfolios, or just portfolios, is that price increases, even on selective names like brands, could affect them negatively. Steve, did I understand from you that the BC would need a rapporteur on this? Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Felman <Frederick.Felman(a)markmonitor.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 22:58:27 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 2-Jun-2011 BC Member call Marilyn - Thanks for asking for our comment on the relaxation of price controls on the call today. I'm sorry that I was unable to get to a place that was quiet enough to respond. I'm at a conference and there was too much background noise. MM does believe that this is a legitimate and material concern for our clients. Further, I'm sorry that I had to leave the call early. If there are follow-up items or support that you need from us Elisa and I are happy to discuss via email. Best regards - Fred From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 23:19:01 +0000 To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy Calendar for 2-Jun-2011 BC Member call Here is the latest BC policy calendar, for use during 2-Jun BC member call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Commentprocess: ICANN Public Comment page is at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ 1. Proposed Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for Existing gTLDs (1-Jun) 2. Proposed Permanent Charter of GNSO Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (5-Jun) 3. FY 2012 Framework for SSR (Security Stability & Resiliency) (7-Jun) See http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-fy12 4. Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget.Ready for Community Consideration (17-Jun) Chris Chaplow has circulated plan for BC comments 5. The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT (26-Jun) 6. Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP (15-Jul) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual or company comments on any topic. Based on member interest, the BC selects topics on which to submit official positions. Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Upcoming discussions & votes at 9-Jun GNSO Council teleconference. Council agenda at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+9+Ju… Council motions are at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+J… Item 2: Cartagena Board resolution on defining Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation Philip Sheppard has updated draft BC comments for this topic (attached) Item 3: WHOIS studies: motion to proceed with Registrant Identification Study see rationale drafted by Steve DelBianco (attached) see Motion 1 (seconded by John Berard) Item 4: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS) Motion 2: request implementation of Joint Applicant Support Milestone report Item 5: General discussion of cross-community Working Groups - scope and effectiveness. Item 6: GNSO Improvements See Motion 3, to acknowledge WT report and initiate public comment period Item 7: IRTP Part B Working Group Final Report See motion 4, "Requiring Registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact" Item 8: Singapore meeting prep, incl topic suggestions for Board and GAC meetings with GNSO Council -- Also see GNSO Project Status List as of 17-May-2011, at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf Channel 3. Supporting discussion and voting on policy matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Sarah Deutsch (alt Marilyn Cade) Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Affirmation review team for Whois (Susan Kawaguchi, Bill Smith) Affirmation reviewteam for SSR (Security, Stability, & Reslience) (Jeff Brueggeman) New gTLD Guidebook documents: Final Guidebook at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-7-en.htm BC Comments on April-2011Guidebook. http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App&#4… Summary of BC comments in SFO on GAC Scorecard http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01890.html ICANN published new Guidebook on 15-Apr. http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm ICANN revised response to the GAC Scorecard http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/board-notes-gac-scorecard-clean-15apr1… GAC on RPMs http://gac.icann.org/press-release/further-gac-advice-new-gtld-rights-prote… Other recent BC Comments: Proposal for renewal of .net registry contract. BC comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/pdftNAHOlick2.pdf Post-expiration domain name recovery (PEDNR) WG final report. BC comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-proposed-final-report/pdfpWyCmk0InU.pdf

1 0

FY12 Op plan and Budget - key documents and update.
by Chris Chaplow June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

Dear Members, Thanks to members who were able to stay on call to listen to my brief FY12 summary. As promised here are key document referred to Ops plan Development presentation in Cartagena which included process for SO/AC comments & support requests. (attached) <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/pdf0ff8EAfjuA.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/pdf0ff8EAfjuA.pdf Summary of SO AC SG Requests - approved/not with rationale (attached) And attached to <http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/msg00011.html> http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2012/msg00011.html FY12 Draft Budget and Operating Plan (attached) And at <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy12 Thanks to volunteers Mikey, Jon Nevett and Marilyn who will be on call in the morning 09.30 EST to pick up this important subject covering a variety of issues. 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

BC members on the DSSA
by Mike O'Connor June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011

hi all, the 3 BC members on DSSA are: me, Scott McCormick and Adam Palmer 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

Fwd: [RC-Members] FW: ICANN Recommends Against Revamping UDRP
by Frederick Felman May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) ICANN Recommends Against Revamping UDRP (Domain Name Wire, 053111) http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/31/icann-recommends-against-revamping-udr… ICANN staff says now is not the time to open wholesale rethink of UDRP. Echoing the sentiments of a number of UDRP providers<http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/10/incumbents-opposed-to-udrp-reform/> as well as prominent UDRP defense attorneys<http://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/11/prominent-udrp-defense-attorneys-also-…>, ICANN’s staff has recommended against having the Generic Names Supporting Organization opening a “policy development process” on UDRP. However, in a new report<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27may11-en.htm> ICANN notes that there are some complaints about process and implementation of UDRP that may warrant review should GNSO feel it necessary to proceed: …if the GNSO Council nevertheless believes that the UDRP should be reviewed, Staff suggests an alternative approach for addressing this issue. After carefully evaluating the issues and concerns expressed by the ICANN community regarding the UDRP, Staff has concluded that many relate to process issues associated with the implementation of the UDRP, rather than the language of the policy itself. The GNSO Council should consider in lieu of commencing a PDP, convening a small group of experts to produce recommendations to improve the process or implementation of the UDRP policy as an initial step… The report includes a good summary of a recent webinar and comments made by various parties of the UDRP. It’s open for comment through July 15<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27may11-en.htm>. It also includes survey responses from each of the four UDRP providers. The responses include what percentage of the time the provider found in favor of the respondent (of those that result in a formal decision): National Arbitration Forum 13% WIPO 14% Czech Arbitration Court 17% (low sample size) Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre 7.4%

1 0

Links to ICANN Announcements
by Benedetta Rossi May 31, 2011

May 31, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please find below the links to the recent ICANN announcements, to support your participation on Thursday's BC Members call. The links are provided with the date public comment closes or with the date the announcement was posted for announcements without a public comment end date. · May 2011 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook 20 June 2011 · Draft Timeline: 2012-2015 Strategic Plan Development Process Dec 2011 · Nine Recommendations to Improve the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Posted 30 May 2011 · Public Comment: Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP 15 July 2011 · Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN International Public Meeting 42 in Dakar, Senegal 9 July 2011 · GAC Comments on the Applicant Guidebook (April 15th, 2011 Version) Posted 27 May 2011 · Public Comment: The FY12 Travel Support Guidelines DRAFT 26 June 2011 · Munich Registry/Registrar Event Posted: 25 May 2011 · Public Comment: Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget…Ready for Community Consideration June 2011 · Pre-Singapore ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation RSVP Before 8 June 2011 · Public Comment Invited on: Proposed Permanent Charter of GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group 5 June 2011 · Public Comment: ICANN FY 12 Security, Stability & Resiliency Framework 7 June 2011 · Public Comment: Proposed ICANN Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for Existing gTLDs 1 June 2011 Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 0