- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

GCOT request for input from CBUC members
by BC Secretariat Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

Dear Members Please find below a mail (and attachment) from Ray Fassett, Chair of the GNSO Council Operations Work Team Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------- The GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) is requesting feedback from you and your members with regards to the attached document. While we are asking one question as noted below, all comments are welcome as our goal is for broader community feedback at this time. In this light, our aim is for individual feedback vs. formal Constituency statement. Our request is to distribute to your members. All replies should be to Julie Hedlund at julie.hedlund(a)icann.org, assisting our Work Team in an administrative position. Julie will then forward all comments received to our Work Team discussion list. The Operating Steering Committee GNSO Operations Work Team ("Work Team") has been tasked with determining high-level operating principles for the GNSO. In line with this mandate, the Work Team has been considering how to establish a stronger, more effective GNSO. This document describes a Generic Name Supporting Organization with two separate, functional bodies (as opposed to our existing single body known as the Policy Council), which we think may achieve the goal stated above. THE WORK TEAM WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS A FIRM RECOMMENDATION. NEITHER SHOULD IT BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS CONSENSUS FOR THIS APPROACH WITHIN THE WORK TEAM. We feel that it is appropriate to seek broader input from the ICANN Community on an approach that would fundamentally change the GNSO structure and working arrangements of the GNSO through the separation of its core functions, i.e. creating separate bodies: one for policy development management and one for the administration of the SO. THEREFORE, TO BE CLEAR, THE WORK TEAM IS ASKING YOU ONE QUESTION ONLY: Do you think that the establishment of a new, additional body to address specific responsibilities - as described herein - would better serve the stakeholder groups that make up the GNSO, or not? The feedback received from the ICANN Community will establish the way forward for the Work Team regarding our work on this high-level GNSO operating principle. Any additional comments or questions you may have are welcomed. Please reply to: julie.hedlund(a)icann.org We take this opportunity to thank you in advance for providing our Work Team with this much needed direction. Sincerely, Ray Fassett Chair GCOT 1-216-426-1500 Ext 3

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
by Phil Corwin July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

I believe that ICA took the position that the separation requirement could be relaxed for closed registries where DNs could not be obtained by the general public - e.g., .acmecorp where registry only open to employees, suppliers, etc. That could of course be combined with a numerical limit. The potential problem with just a numerical limit is that a registry operator for a premium generic could choose to cap registrations just under the limit to create artificial scarcity and then operate the registrar function at high annual fees. The purpose of separation for open gTLDs is to have registrar competition that keeps prices to registrants low. This is arguably one of ICANN's most successful policies. Relaxing it should be done with great caution. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: Michael D. Palage <michael(a)palage.com> Cc: 'BC gnso' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Jul 31 14:01:02 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue <grin> if we presume that somebody is going to make a lot of money off of those premium generics, i'm not sure i care whether it's the registrar or the registry... m On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote: Mike, Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics? "With a limited exception, a registrar should not sell domain services of an affiliated registry. This limit is set to a certain threshold, in this model, 100,000 domain names. (The registrar may continue to manage its existing base of registrations once the threshold is met)" See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/regy-regr-separation-18feb09-en.pdf Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:22 PM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue hi all, i don't feel very strongly about this. times have changed from the days when there was one monopoly provider being broken up. now there are lots of strong/capable entities that have the income statement, technical expertise and customer-facing capabilities to run registrars and registries. so i'm not sure we need to throw our collective body on the tracks in the way of that train. especially when they're saying that a registrar can't be a registry for the same TLD. my 2 cents, m On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: I sent this around about five weeks ago, and other than George I do not believe anyone has commented. I have been asked if the BC has a view on this issue. It seems like a big issue with respect to new TLDs, and could be retroapplied to existing TLDs. Does anyone else care? My view is that the proponents of the change (abolishing the longstanding rule of separation) ought to have a fairly heavy burden to prove the need for the change. I have not seen a very good case for it, and think the www.registryregistrarseparation.org website presents a compelling case against it. I also am bothered that Staff seemed to unilaterally incorporate such a radical change into the Draft Applicant Guidebook, without any formal direction to do so. So I hope they change it back in the next iteration, due in September. If the BC is fairly unanimous on this issue, then I would like us to make comments to that effect very soon. Please let me know what you think. I summarized the factual situation in a recent blog post on NameSmash.com: NEW TLDs -- CONCERNS ABOUT REGISTRY-REGISTRAR SEPARATION ICANN was formed eleven years ago, when the .com 'monopoly' was broken apart. At that time, Network Solutions was the sole registry and registrar of gTLD domain names. ICANN created the system we have today, where registrants place orders with ICANN-accredited registrars, who in turn place the orders with ICANN-contracted TLD registries, many of which use the back-end services of third party registry operators. It was thought that this system would increase competition for the suppliers of domain names, and thus lower prices for registrants. It is hard to argue that this has not held true, insofar as the price of .com domain names has dropped dramatically in that time (but is now allowed to rise again by 7% almost every year, under the 2006 agreement between ICANN and VeriSign). To ensure this structure held, ICANN restricted registries from acquiring directly or indirectly a substantial percentage of any registrar, so VeriSign cannot buy a controlling interest in GoDaddy, for example. Some of the largest registrars have become registry operators which also register those TLD names to the public. For example GoDaddy provides the registry for country-code .me (so Montenegro makes the rules, not ICANN). Other large registrars, such as Network Solutions and eNom, now are pressing ICANN to eliminate the restrictions on registry-registrar cross ownership of gTLD registries, so that those registrars can compete as registry businesses, sell new gTLD domains directly to the public, and sell them to all other ICANN accredited registrars as well. Existing registry operators, such as NeuStar (.biz), Public Interest Registry (.org) and others, are in support of any entity becoming a registry or registry operator, so long as that entity does not distribute domain names in the same TLD that they operate as a registry. They are fighting this new proposal on the basis that registrars have a substantial head start in marketing domain names to the public, and thus can offer prime distribution opportunities to new registries. These registries and registry operators argue that allowing cross ownership would put them at a competitive disadvantage in convincing new TLD operators to use their back-end services. On the other hand, some large registrars argue that no registrar or registry business -- other than VeriSign with .com and .net -- has any 'market power' which can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes, and thus they ought not be regulated by cross-ownership restrictions. They note that, absent proven 'market power', it is in consumers' interests to allow cross-ownership because it will bring operational efficiencies and lower prices to the marketplace. The registries counter that a number registrars do in fact have market power in deciding which TLDs to promote, and how. They argue that a registrar that owns a registry will choose to promote its own cross-owned TLDs over any non-affiliated TLD, thereby actually reducing competition. A public comment forum concerning antitrust experts' reports on this issue has recently closed, http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-final/, and ICANN staff is expected to make recommendations which then will be subject to further public debate and comment before the next iteration of the new TLD Applicant Guidebook, expected in late September. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:39 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: FW: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue FYI the site at www.registryregistrarseparation.org. I know this issue is of serious concern to many members. Adam Palmer and Jeff Neuman have agree to present briefly and take questions at our BC meeting on Tuesday. All comments welcome, and it would be wonderful if a member or two wanted to lead the BC thinking and engagement on this issue. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: Adam Palmer [mailto:APalmer@pir.org] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:51 PM To: Adam Palmer Subject: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue All, Please see the below site on registry/registrar cross ownership. ICANN will also be having a panel on this on Monday. Strong vocal support is welcome both on the website and at the ICANN Monday panel meeting. Please forward this site link to anyone else that might support our concerns on this issue. Let me know if any questions. Thanks, Adam Palmer Link: http://www.registryregistrarseparation.org/supporters - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

ICANN Policy Update - July 2009
by BC Secretariat July 31, 2009

July 31, 2009

ICANN Policy Update Policy Update Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ Volume 09, Issue 07 – July 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents 1.. YOUR INPUT NEEDED NOW ON POLICY-RELATED ISSUES 2.. CCNSO WORKING GROUP EYES DNS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING 3.. SYDNEY SESSION FOCUSES ON STRATEGIC PLANNING ISSUES 4.. CCNSO, GNSO COUNCILS SEEK CONSENSUS APPROACH ON gTLD ISSUES 5.. MEMBERS NAMED TO DELEGATION AND RE-DELEGATION WORKING GROUP 6.. ccNSO MEETINGS EVALUATION CONDUCTED 7.. OPERATORS ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN DNSSEC SURVEY 8.. RIRS DISCUSSING GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL FOR RECOVERED IPv4 ADDRESS SPACE 9.. SSAC PREVIEWS REPORTS AT THE ICANN SYDNEY MEETING 10.. GNSO IMPROVEMENTS ADVANCE WITH FOCUS ON STAKEHOLDER GROUP CHARTERS AND BYLAW AMENDMENTS 11.. BOARD APPROVES GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS REVIEW CHARTER 12.. REGISTRATION ABUSE POLICIES GET CLOSER LOOK 13.. GNSO CONSIDERS EXPIRED DOMAIN NAME RECOVERY CHANGES 14.. MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS 15.. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS? 16.. AT-LARGE COMMUNITY’S VIEWS ON SYDNEY SESSIONS ARE ONLINE 17.. AT-LARGE COMMUNITY ACTIVE ON MANY POLICY FRONTS The ICANN Policy Update contains brief summaries of issues being addressed by the ICANN community’s bottom-up policy development structure, as well as information on related policy development activities. ICANN’s Policy Staff publishes these monthly updates to maximize transparency and encourage broad community participation in ICANN’s policy development activities. Links to additional information are included and readers are encouraged to go beyond these brief summaries to learn more about the ICANN community’s work. As always, the Policy Staff welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve its policy communications efforts. Please send these comments to policy-staff(a)icann.org.

1 0

Nominating Committee 2010
by BC Secretariat July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

Dear Members I have received notification from Tricia Drakes, current chair of the Nominating Committee, regarding selection of BC representatives to the Nominating Committee for 2010. In reality, this means our representatives need to be in place in time for the ICANN meetings in Seoul at the end of October. Tricia has asked that our selection process is completed by the end of August. I am aware that some members may be on holiday at this time so this mail is notice of the proposed timescale for the election. As usual, the BC can elect two representatives - one for large business and one for small business. Both Phil Lodico and Liz Williams will have served one term and are eligible to stand again (members can serve for a maximum of two years consecutively). Background information on the Nominating Committee can be found here http://nomcom.icann.org Proposed timetable: Nomination of candidates Monday 17 August for one week Voting Tuesday 25 August for one week I will send a formal notice of nominations closer to the time. Best wishes Gary

2 1

GNSO web site improvement project
by Chris Chaplow July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

Dear BC members, Please see email below from CCT Work Team Staff member Scott Pinzon, Director, Policy Communications. If anybody BC member would like to volunteer for the interview please advise me and I will pass on names to Scott. -------------------- The GNSO web site improvement project is proceeding well and picking up momentum! During the first half of August, I anticipate that the site will reach a state where the back end (servers, databases, etc.) is ready to support anything we want to do with the front end ( the display and organization of the site). However, we lack some of the data we need about how people actually use the GNSO site. We can easily hatch a plan for reorganizing GNSO content, but we need real user input so we can validate that our strategies actually solve the problems users experience. For that reason, I am asking you to suggest names of folks who are heavy users of the GNSO website. I intend to conduct a dozen phone interviews with site users. Ideal candidates could be Council members, WG members, or even members of other ICANN entities (we want the site to work for both insiders and outsiders). The main qualifications are that they must be familiar with the site, and able to answer basic questions such as, When you come to the GNSO web site, what are you usually trying to accomplish? and What do you like least about the site? Why? Please forward names and contact information to me. I will contact individuals to see if they are willing to participate in an interview lasting up to 45 minutes. No need to overthink a name or two has probably already popped into your mind, so please respond today or tomorrow! GNSO Communications team members, this supports the plan I mentioned in our call yesterday. Please feel free to nominate yourselves if you are willing to be interviewed; and naturally, any other power users or interested members who come to mind. Thanks so much! Towards a better GNSO site, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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. Please think of the Environment before you print this email

1 0

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 23 July 2009
by BC Secretariat July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 23 July, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090723.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Thus spake the ICANN CEO
by Philip Sheppard July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/ceo/ceo-message-21jul09-en.htm

1 0

GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters public comment period extended to 23 July 2009
by BC Secretariat July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

Reminder: Extension of Public Comment Period on GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters to 23 July 2009 http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder Explanation: As part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements effort, last year the ICANN Board approved the formation of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). After considering proposed SG Charters that were submitted by the community and posted for public comment, the ICANN Board passed a Resolution in May directing its Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and ICANN Staff to revise the SG Charters to make them consistent with the Board's GNSO Improvements Report (and related Resolutions). Stakeholder Groups are integral elements of a new, restructured GNSO, and are intended to be lightweight "caucuses" bringing together like-minded international groups (Constituencies) to elect the best representatives to fill the SG's allotted Council seats. Stakeholder Groups ensure that the ratio of Council seats among SGs remains the same while encouraging the formation of new Constituencies and the continued growth and diversification of the GNSO community. The overall GNSO Improvements effort and the role SGs will play in that arena is more fully described in the Stakeholder Group section of the GNSO Improvements Information Web Page. The SIC provided the community with the revised charters listed below and discussed these documents during ICANN's recent Sydney meeting. The revised charters are posted here to further encourage public comment through 21 July 2009. Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 29K] Non-Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 59K] Registrars SG Charter [PDF, 60K] Registries SG Charter [PDF, 117K] Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The SIC is opening a 21-day public consultation forum, from 30 June 2009 through 21 July 2009, and invites community comments on the revised SG charters. To submit comments: Comments on the documents are welcome via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters(a)icann.org. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/ The public announcement of this forum can be viewed http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul09-en.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Business Requirements for GNSO Replacement Website
by Philip Sheppard July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

BC member Chris Chaplow has been a part of the creation of this document. Would any BC member with additional comments please let the secretariat know by 7 August. Gary will forward your comments to Chris. Philip _____ From: owner-gnso-osc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:17 PM To: gnso-osc(a)icann.org Cc: Mason Cole; Ken Bour Subject: [gnso-osc] Business Requirements for GNSO Replacement Website Mason Cole, the GNSO Improvements Communications WT chair, requested that OSC members review the attached Business Requirements document for a GNSO Replacement Website and provide any feedback directly to Ken Bour ( <mailto:ken.bour@verizon.net> ken.bour(a)verizon.net) Ken will collect, summarize, and process as appropriate for the WT. The WT is interested in the OSC's thoughts and reactions to this document with particular emphasis on making sure that it captures all the main requirements of a revised GNSO website. Please feel free to share the document and solicit comments from any web experts within your constituency or group as you see fit. Please provide your feedback NLT than 14 August. It is important to note that the WT has made a very conscious effort to not let the focus of their work be the website only. As a community that is technology-focused and full of technicians, it would be very, very easy to fall into a comfort zone of discussing the intricacies of site design, or ICANN process in the context of site design. A better site is not a panacea for better communications. Their work is meant to talk about improvement of communications from and into the GNSO - there will be several components to this, not just the site. The site is but one means for making those improvements. Thanks for your cooperation. Chuck

1 0

Comment period for Carlton reports on Competition/Pricing ends on Monday (July 20)
by George Kirikos July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Hi folks, The comment period for the final version of the Carlton reports on competition and pricing ends on Monday: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jun09-en.htm My understand is most folks found the reports wanting, to be diplomatic. Only a handful of comments have been submitted so far to the final version of the report, as compared to the preliminary report comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/competition-pricing-prelim/ so one might want to take a few minutes to send in a comment, to have the views of your organization on the record. Have a great weekend. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0