- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

[Fwd: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are]
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Who we are From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be Date: Thu, December 9, 2010 19:27 To: john(a)crediblecontext.com Cc: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope the proposal that the Bc mission is rewritten to promite domain portflio management was a joke. Here's another one. What exactly is our councillor recall procedure ???? Philip > Marilyn, > As we consider a rewrite of the Business Constituency's mission to better > reflect who we are, we might begin with a review of the self-descriptors > used in the round of introductions at our meeting with the new ICANN > finance team. The characteristics fell in two bucket: > To prevent: > FraudBrand abuseMalwarePhishingCybersquattingBarriers to e.commerce > > To promote: > Domain portfolio managementTechnology architectureRisk > managementInnovationEfficiencySecurityEasier e.commerceIP rightsTrademarks > From this, we can build a case for membership in the BC that may resonate > with companies. > Just some raw material for consideration. > Berard >

1 0

FW: ICA Comments on Final Applicant Guidebook
by Phil Corwin Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

Fellow BC members, these were just filed--FYI-- BUTERA & ANDREWS Attorneys at Law 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1701 202-347-6875 Philip S. Corwin, Partner pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com<mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com> December 9, 2010 By E-Mail to 5gtld-guide(a)icann.org<mailto:5gtld-guide@icann.org> Board of Directors Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Re: Proposed Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Dear Members of the ICANN Board: This comment letter is submitted by the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) in regard to ICANN’s November 12th notice establishing a period for public comments on the Proposed Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. This letter supplements all of our comments on prior versions of the proposed Guidebook, the most recent of which was filed on July 21, 2010. ICA is a not-for-profit trade association representing the domain name industry, including domain registrants, domain marketplaces, and direct search providers. Its membership is composed of domain name registrants who invest in domain names (DNs) and develop the associated websites, as well as the companies that serve them. Professional domain name registrants are a major source of the fees that support registrars, registries, and ICANN itself. Executive Summary * The inflexible “three strikes” UDRP loss applicant disqualification criteria must be adjusted to take into account the size of an applicant’s domain portfolio as well as their overall history of UDRP arbitrations. * A UDRP loss that has been reversed upon appeal to a court of proper jurisdiction should not be counted against an applicant. * Applicants that have been found to have engaged in three or more instances of attempted reverse domain name hijacking should be barred from participation in the new gTLD program. * The STI-RT’s recommendation for a 20-day URS response time should be restored or, failing that, extensive guidance should be provided regarding the grounds for which a 7-day “good faith” request for response extension will be granted. Applicant Eligibility Section 1.2.1 of the Final AG now states in part: ICANN will perform background screening in only two areas: (1) General business diligence and criminal history; and (2) History of cybersquatting behavior. The criteria used for criminal history are aligned with the “crimes of trust” standard sometimes used in the banking and finance industry… Applicants with confirmed convictions of the types listed in (a) – (k) below will be automatically disqualified from the program. Circumstances where ICANN may deny an otherwise qualified application include, but are not limited to instances where the applicant, or any individual named in the application: … k. has been involved in of a pattern of decisions indicating that the applicant or individual named in the application was engaged in cybersquatting as defined in the UDRP, ACPA, or other equivalent legislation. Three or more such decisions with one occurring in the last four years will generally be considered to constitute a pattern. While we support the general policy that repeat intentional infringers of intellectual property rights should not be eligible to apply for new gTLDs, we strongly believe that the approach taken by the Final AG in this regard in unreasonably inflexible and fails to even take the entire UDRP process into account. It also fails to contain equivalent sanctions for complainants who abuse the UDRP process. First off, the loss of a UDRP arbitration is not equivalent to a “conviction”, nor is the UDRP “legislation” adjudicated by a reliable and predictable court system. The shortcomings of the current UDRP system were recently noted by ICANN’s Business Constituency (comment at http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html ), citing “increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive consistency in the UDRP process” as its rationale for opposing accreditation of any new UDRP providers until ICANN enters into a standard agreement with all UDRP providers “as that is the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers”. The inflexible “three strikes” rule proposed in the Final AG fails to take into account the gross shortcomings in the present administration of the UDRP. Second, this proposal completely ignores our July 2010 suggestion that the treatment of UDRP losses as evidence of “cybersquatting” behavior should be done on a sliding scale basis that takes portfolio size into account. Clearly, while the loss of three UDRPs against a portfolio of 300 domains (one out of one hundred) might constitute rebuttable but not conclusive evidence of intentional infringement (given the lack of consistency in UDRP administration), three losses against a portfolio of 300,000 names (one out of one hundred thousand) constitutes no such evidence. Many individual and corporate ICA members own or manage domain portfolios of this size or greater, and barring them and their considerable financial resources as potential new gTLD investors on the basis of a rigid three strikes rule based upon a very imperfect and unpredictable UDRP arbitration process is absurd. Third, the proposal fails to take into account a registrant’s overall historic experience of UDRP decisions. The hypothetical owner of a portfolio with 300,000 domains could easily have been the target of 30 UDRP proceedings in a decade (averaging 3 per year), won 27 (90%) and lost 3 (10%), and subsequently had the 3 losses reversed in judicial appeals. Yet this registrant with an overall UDRP acquittal rate of 90%, and 100% acquittal rate following reversal on appeal, would nonetheless be unfairly branded a “cybersquatter” ineligible to invest in a new gTLD venture. Finally, the proposed eligibility screen gives no consideration whatsoever to the only appeals mechanism now available under the UDRP – which is appeal under the national law of the registrant. This leads to the equally absurd potential situation where a domain registrant with a portfolio of 300,000 domains may have lost three UDRP arbitrations in the past decade, one of them in the past four years; may have appealed each of those losses under applicable national law and won reversals in all three cases – and yet would still be barred from eligibility as a gTLD applicant! In addition to these gross shortcomings, the proposed treatment of cybersquatting is also unbalanced in that there is no prohibition against complainants who regularly abuse the UDRP process from being eligible to apply for a new gTLD. Surely such repeated abuse of process in an attempt to illicitly obtain a legitimately registered and used domain – to steal it, in effect –and should be regarded as a “crime of trust” bearing upon eligibility. We therefore propose that the background check criteria be further amended to bar any individual or business entity that has been found in three or more UDRP decisions to have engaged in attempted reverse domain name hijacking to be declared ineligible to be a new gTLD applicant. URS Response Time Section 5.1 of the proposed procedures for Uniform rapid Suspension (URS) shortens the time for a registrant to respond to the filing of a URS complaint against a domain name from 20 to 14 days. Section 5.3 states: Upon request by the Registrant, a limited extension of time to respond may be granted by the URS Provider if there is a good faith basis for doing so. In no event shall the extension be for more than seven (7) calendar days. This revision implements Section 2.6 of the ICANN Board’s September 25th Resolution (http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm ), which neither provided any rationale for this decision nor any greater explanation as to what might constitute acceptable “good faith” justifying such an extension: URS timing: In response to public comment, change the time to respond to a complaint from 20 days to 14 days, with one opportunity for an extension of seven days if there is a good faith basis for such an extension. We are dismayed that the Board chose to revise this element of the URS. The twenty day response period was arrived at after long and careful consideration by the Special Trademark Issues-Review Team (STI-RT) and was based upon its conclusion that this amount of time was necessary to assure that a registrant would indeed receive notice of alleged abuse and would have adequate time to prepare a meaningful response. The STI-RT’s recommendations were unanimously adopted by the GNSO and subsequently by the ICANN Board. If the Board’s intervention on this matter in September was meant to win acceptance from trademark interests for the Spring 2011 launch of the new gTLD program their verbal comments in Cartagena have shown that expectation to be largely unwarranted. We are further dismayed that the Board did not explain its reasons for this surgical strike or give any indication as to what types of circumstances would give rise to the granting of a 7-day extension. A 7-day extension in no way addresses the variety of circumstances in which a registrant may not receive notice of the complaint within the initial 14 days after its filing and indeed may first learn of it when his domain ceases to function, and we therefore believe that the Final AG should restore the full twenty day response time recommended by the STI-RT. Recognizing that reversal of the Board’s decision on this matter may not be attainable, we request that ICANN provide greater guidance as to what type of circumstances may provide the basis for a “good faith” seven day extension of a registrant’s response time. We do not seek rigid or inflexible rules but rather illustrative examples and general principles so that URS examiners make decisions on such requests within a guiding framework rather than on an ad hoc and unpredictable individual basis. Finally, we would note that the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, but that the Final AG still omits that critical requirement and therefore threatens to carry the inconsistency issues that plague the UDRP, noted above, into this new rights protection mechanism. Conclusion Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter. We hope to see responsive changes made in response to them before the Applicant Guidebook is finalized and the new gTLD program is launched. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Counsel, Internet Commerce Association Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Who we are
by john＠crediblecontext.com Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

1 0

Proposed non profit constituency
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

We ran out of time at the Cartagena BC meeting to agree to send a spportive statement to public comments to welcome the formation of the new NPOC. We had a presentation of the new constituency from Debbie Hughes at the CSG meeting earlier in the day. This constituency is the outcome we have been striving for in the composition of the new non conract parties house. I'd like to propose we make the following statement to public comments as the BC. '"The Business Constituency welcomes the proposal to form a new non-profit consituency. We believe this is timely. We believe there will be areas of common interest between this new constituency and our own, both representing as they do users of the DNS.'' Perhaps we could agree to send this on a no objections basis rather than have to put it through our usual policy 14 day window. Deadline 10 December ? Philip

10 9

FW: URGENT REMINDER AGM information
by Mike Rodenbaugh Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

I was asked by the GNSO Secretariat to prepare a short "post-mortem" on my Council terms, which I created a couple weeks ago and thought I would forward now. It truly has been a pleasure to work with you all, and I look forward to many more years of participation in the ICANN community. My Council term began in Fall, 2006, just as the new gTLD Task Force was beginning its work in earnest. As Yahoo!'s representative to ICANN, our mission was to eliminate domain tasting, and lead efforts to increase awareness about cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems (phishing, etc.) in the DNS. I chaired the Working Group which devised Consensus Policy that has virtually eliminated domain tasting, which in turn has dramatically lowered the instance of new cybersquatting and other related problems since then. With help from many others in the community, we also have succeeded in raising awareness significantly among contract parties and the broader ICANN community respecting cybersquatting and cybersecurity problems, and the contract parties' responsibility to help address those abuses of their systems. I have spread this message through more than a dozen working groups, including various new TLD groups, Domain Tasting, Fast Flux, Registration Abuse Policies, RAA Amendments and others. There is much more work to do in this regard, but there has been significant progress over the past four years. Serving on Council has been a tremendous personal growth and educational experience, so I want to thank you, the entire policy staff at ICANN, Chuck and many others who have been so helpful to me over the years. I appreciate that I have made dozens of friends and met hundreds of colleagues through my work at ICANN, and that truly has been the best part of the experience. I look forward to continuing my involvement in ICANN policy development matters, in different capacities, as the DNS rapidly expands in the future. Kind regards, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:39 AM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com Cc: Glen Subject: URGENT REMINDER AGM information -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry Sent: vendredi 29 octobre 2010 16:29 To: 'icann(a)rodenbaugh.com' Cc: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: AGM information Dear Mike, It is customary at the Annual general Meeting that the Board Chair pays a short tribute to parting Council members and in order to have accurate information, would you please be so kind as to provide a very short resumé of your term on the Council, date you joined and anything else that should be highlighted. If you could please let me have this information by no later than 2 November, it would be most appreciated. Thank you so much, and my apologies for giving you an extra task! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Recognition
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

I today received a certificate and gift from the constituency in respect of my long standing contribution to the BC. This was most flattering and unexpected. It was also most welcome. Thank you all very much. Philip

4 3

] GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting Agenda - Cartagena 12:30-13:30
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

Forwarded for information purposes to the BC list. From: Glen(a)icann.org To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:33:32 -0800 Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting Agenda - Cartagena 12:30-13:30 GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting - Cartagena 9 December 2010, 12:30 COT 17:30 UTC Reference to ICANN Schedule http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15377 Virtual Meeting Room http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ctg39-barahona1 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Wrap-Up Meeting in Cartagena, 9 December 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_9_december_2010 Note: No actions requiring GNSO Council votes will occur in this meeting.The purpose will be to: 1) continue discussion on any items for which there was insufficient time in the Open Council meeting on 8 December; 2) plan and organize next steps for any action items from the 8 December meeting; and 3) evaluate the success of the GNSO meetings in Cartagena and discuss areas for improvement.12:30 COT Cartagena 17:30 UTC, 09:30 PST, 12:30 EST, 14:30 Buenos Aires, 18:30 Paris, 22:30 Karachi,9 December 2010 01:30 Beijing, 02:30 TokyoDial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.Item 1: Administrative matters (5 minutes)1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Review/amend agendaItem 2: GNSO Process decision making (15 minutes)a. Action items from Open Council meeting b. Next steps? Item 3: Role of the Council (15 minutes)a. Questions arising from weekend session § Should we have this session again at next ICANN meeting? § Does Council support the idea of the leaders talking to group chairs? § How to improve the communication between the groups (proposal: standing number for informal group calls)? § How Council may deal with reports, and the broader question of Council freedom to deliberate and act? b. Next steps?Item 4: New GNSO website (5 minutes)a. Suggested changes to prototype site presented during weekend sessions b. Timeline for launch of websiteItem 5: Meeting format (10 minutes)a. Impressions from the Cartagena meeting § Any proposed changes to our schedule? § Should the informal GNSO Council dinner be maintained? § Impressions from the Sunday formal session with the Board?Item 6: Y2011 meetings (10 minutes)a. Frequency of meetings § Keep current format of one meeting every 3 weeks or change to one meeting every 4 weeks? b. Identify any possible clashes in 2011. c. Volunteers to work on agenda for next Open Council meeting (in SF)?Item 7: Council leaders election procedures (10 minutes)a. Evaluation of current election procedures: good as-is or need change? b. Next steps?Item 8: Cross AC-SO working groups (15 minutes) a. Discussion on Council's position with regards to joint SO/AC WGsItem 9: Any other business (5 minutes)a. Best practices, policy work, understanding the way PDPs work. b. Policy staff briefing to Council on possible outcomes of RAP and PEDNR groups. Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 17:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 09:30 Cartagena, Columbia (COT) UTC-5+0DST 12:30 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 12:30 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 14:30 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 1530 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 17:30 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:30 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:30 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:30 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5+0DST 22:30 Hong Kong, Beijing China (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 01:30 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 02:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 04:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 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

1 0

POSTED: BC Comments and Recommendations on new gTLD Guidebook
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

At today's voting deadline of 4pm EST, our proposed Guidebook comments were approved by the required majority, and we achieved the required quorum of votes. See posting at http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/msg00026.html Our cover note is shown below and final comments are attached. Thanks to all who contributed to and voted on the proposed comments. This was a huge effort and our work was delivered in time to make a difference. --- >Attached are comments of the Business Constituency (BC) regarding the >Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs > >These comments were approved by BC members in accordance with our charter. > >Note: these comments were approved pursuant to a specified review and >voting period. This time period did not permit us to comment now on the >Economic Analysis-Part II that was published on 3-Dec-2010.

1 0

FW: Respectfully Requesting An Extension of the Comment Deadline
by Phil Corwin Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

FYI, I just filed the comment below on ICA's behalf --- The domain name registrants, investors and developers represented by the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) wish to respectfully request that ICANN extend the comment period on the proposed Final gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AG) by a minimum of two weeks (14 days) and preferably by an additional three weeks. The 28 days allowed for comment on this AG is just over half the average time (50 days) allotted for comment on the four prior iterations of the Guidebook; a 2-3 week extension would bring the length of the comment period in line with that provided for prior versions. This fifth version of the AG does not just contain proposed resolutions of previously discussed matters but significant new material that we are working to assimilate and understand. Many ICA members are present in Cartagena and busy attending sessions and interfacing with staff in this attempt, but meaningful participation at the Cartagena meetings mitigates against preparation of a fully informed comment letter for consideration by our membership prior to its submission in just under four days. The reasonable extension we are requesting should in no way interfere with approval of a Final AG by the ICANN Board that permits opening of the application window for new gTLDs in Spring 2011. We certainly hope that the December 10th comment deadline has not been set in order to facilitate such a vote by the Board in Cartagena. The current comment deadline will occur just hours before the start of the Board Meeting in Columbia, and given the time and work burdens placed on key ICANN staff by this meeting there is no way they can review and meaningfully summarize suggestions and concerns expressed in the final round of comments (most of which are usually submitted within the final 24 hours of any comment period) to aid the Board in understanding them prior to a final vote. Given recent expressions of concern by the GAC and individual national governments regarding ICANN's policy process, and particularly the adequacy of explanations of policy decisions, it is particularly important that the Board vote on the Final AG be conducted in a manner that demonstrates that all submitted comments have been accorded serious consideration. We appreciate your consideration of our suggestion on this matter. Sincerely, Philip S. Corwin Counsel Internet Commerce Association Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

1 0

FW: BC Program for Tuesday
by Marilyn Cade Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

This is a cross posting of the CSG agenda and BC agenda to the bc-public list. Dial in information is posted separately, according to request to provide to BC members only. Tuesday, December 7, 2010 Program for Business Constituency Members and Special Guests 8:00 – 9:45 a.m. Breakfast with Board and Senior Staff/CSG members [Closed] 10 – 12:30 p.m. Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) Barahona 4 J.Scott Evans, Chair, IPC 12:45-1:30 p.m. Closed Session: BC Members Lunch/Special Guests 1:30 – 4: 30 p.m. BC Open Meeting Barahona 4 Chair of Session: Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Elected officers/Councilors will participate Agenda Topics – Moderated by Marilyn Cade, BC Chair Introductions and Review/update and approval of Agenda Debrief from CC breakfast re Future Interactions with Board/Staff Comments from Councilor elect – John Berard Nominating Committee Reps – Priorities for NomComm and BC Members views: Mike Roberts / Chris Martin Outstanding Issues from House Meetings – Sarah Deutsch/Marilyn Cade Announcement of Charter Development/Discussion Session Rob Hoggarth, ICANN Policy Staff/Marilyn Cade Administrative Issues and Updates: Chris Chaplow, V.Chair, Finance and Operations Policy Topics before ICANN and before the GNSO Council for discussion and relevant Action – Moderator, Steve DelBianco, Vice Chair, Policy Coordination Roundtable with Members on any other issues – Marilyn Cade, Chair 4:30 p.m. BC Meeting Closes

1 0