- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency point about Affirmation Reviews in the new draft Bylaws
by Steve DelBianco May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

Today the BC agreed to share these points about the draft new bylaws, regarding the SSR and WHOIS Affirmation Reviews. These 2 reviews are already late per the Affirmation requirements, and would also be “late" when we add the review requirement to the Bylaws. The BC is not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR and WHOIS review as soon as possible. -- Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (c) (v), regarding timing of the Security, Stability, and Resiliency (SSR) review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The SSR Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous SSR Review Team was convened." BC Comment: The previous SSR review was convened in 2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the SSR review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The SSR review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next SSR review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for SSR-2 review. We expect SSR-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of SSR-1, including the extent to which ICANN is prepared to meet future challenges and threats to the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS, consistent with ICANN's limited technical mission. — Draft Bylaws Section 4.6 (e) (v), regarding timing of the Whois/Directory Service review required under the Affirmation of Commitments, which is now to be brought into ICANN bylaws. Text from new Bylaws: "The Directory Service Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous Directory Service Review Team was convened.” BC Comment: The previous Whois review was convened in Oct-2010, so a 5-year interval would require the next review by Oct-2015. Some CCWG members are concerned that the above text creates a new problem since the Whois/Directory Service review would be at least 1 year late at the time the Bylaws are approved. Those concerned are suggesting revisions to the draft Bylaws to avoid a situation where ICANN is immediately failing to honor its new Bylaws. The Whois review is already later than is required under the Affirmation of Commitments, so ICANN is already failing to meet that obligation. We are not troubled by a new Bylaw that also requires ICANN to begin the next Whois/Directory Service review as soon as possible. We prefer that ICANN follow through on the Board-approved 2016 start date for Whois-2 review. We expect Whois-2 to assess ICANN’s implementation of Whois-1 and current Whois policy. We recognize that there are policy efforts underway to develop a next generation registration directory service. As repeatedly reinforced by ICANN’s Board, however, the effort to replace Whois complements, and runs in parallel with, ICANN’s obligation to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to Whois.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on geo-names in 2 dot-brand gTLDs (.TORAY and .PICTET)
by Steve DelBianco May 10, 2016

May 10, 2016

Today we filed comment in support of releasing geo-names in .TORAY and .PICTET TLDs See here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BC-comment-on-release-of…> and attached. Thanks again to Andy Abrams for drafting this comment.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on new gTLD Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse
by Steve DelBianco May 5, 2016

May 5, 2016

Today we filed our comment on new gTLD Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse. (attached and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BC-comment-on-Safeguards…>) This is regarding an ICANN staff draft report<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/dns-abuse/draft-safeguards-against-dn…> on the extent to which Safeguards for new gTLDs have addressed DNS abuse. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-safeguards-dns-abuse-2016-03…> to comment page). Comments close 13-May, but we want to post early so that other commenters might amplify our points (as discussed on last week’s BC call). Thanks again to drafters Angie Graves, Andy Abrams, and Denise Michel, and contributors Olga Yaguez and Chris Wilson.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on ICANN FY17 Op Plan & Budget and 5-Year Op Plan
by Steve DelBianco April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

Today we filed the attached comment on the ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year Operating Plan. Thanks to drafters Jimson Olufuye, Marilyn Cade, and Denise Michel

1 0

FILED: BC comment on recommendations of Geographic Regions Review WG
by Steve DelBianco April 24, 2016

April 24, 2016

Today the BC filed comment on the final report recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review WG. (see link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Comment-on-Geo-Regions-R…> and below) Thanks to Andrew Mack for leading the draft, and to several BC members for contributing edits and suggestions. -- BC Comments on the Final Report Recommendations of the Geographic Regions Review Working Group 24-Apr-2016 The BC endorses the recommendations of the Geographical Regions report submitted on October 15, 2015. We strongly agree with the report’s reiteration that diversity — including geographical diversity — is essential to ICANN’s mission and to the success of the multistakeholder model, as is continued emphasis on making ICANN more open to a multilingual audience through translation. At the same time, we agree with the report that while ICANN’s geographical regions are distinct from those of many major international organizations, changing these regions or adding to the number of regions would be unlikely to enhance ICANN’s mission and could lead to additional cost and confusion. Lastly, while not directly a part of this report, the BC wants to call attention to the fact that, along with geographic diversity, there are many other kinds of diversity that must factor into the growth and functioning of a vibrant global internet community. Among them, gender diversity — as referenced in UN Sustainable Development Goal #5 — is an essential building block in the multistakeholder process and a key to reaching women around the world who make up half of the world’s population. As a practical suggestion, the BC urges that staff to investigate simple ways that all ICANN committees, meetings and work groups can collect data on participation by geographic region and gender, and and make this data available for the broader community. By knowing the amount of participation from women and different geographic regions in all ICANN activities, we can better pursue our goals of broader stakeholder engagement and diversity. This comment was drafted by Andrew Mack, with edits from several BC members. It was approved in accord with the BC charter.

1 0

TMCH Independent Review Questionnaire Now Available
by Chantelle Doerksen April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Dear all, Kindly see the note regarding the TMCH Independent Review Team below, and the request to complete the corresponding questionnaire at http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse/ . Many thanks. Kind regards, Chantelle _______ Dear SO/AC leaders, To follow up on our previous message sent prior to ICANN 55, we wanted to thank all those who reached out and met with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Independent Review Team to provide input on this study. We are continuing with outreach and stakeholder discussions, and as part of this work, Analysis Group has developed a questionnaire to assess the opinions of various groups that interact with either all or some of the TMCH services. Given that feedback from interested stakeholders is extremely valuable to this review, we would greatly appreciate your assistance in helping us promote the TMCH questionnaire. Therefore, it would be fantastic if you could share the following link (http://www.analysisgroup.com/icann-trademark-clearinghouse/) via one or more of your communication channels (website, blog, e-mail, bulletin board, newsletter etc.) and encourage your members to complete the questionnaire. As noted previously, ICANN is conducting an independent review of the TMCH, which was recommended by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in 2011 (see https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-comments-new-gtlds-26may1…) The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the TMCH in combination with the areas that the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) specified for review, which include: (1) handling of non-exact matches to trademarks, (2) extension of the Trademark Claims notifications, and (3) impacts of the Claims services on the commercial watch services market. This is intended as an informational study to support discussions on related Right Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) activities, such as the work of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) and the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) review of all RPMs in all gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP). Thank you again for taking the time to consider our request, and please let us know if you have any questions that we can help address. Best regards, Antonietta Mangiacotti Research Assistant Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers antonietta.mangiacotti(a)icann.org Office: 310.578.8903 Mobile: 310.795.8543

2 1

A follow-up letter from US Senators, regarding China and the transition
by Steve DelBianco April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Crocker, demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet. [cid:5DBD77ED-0FD3-465C-9DA7-927C9AF455EC] UNITED STATES SENATE Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 4, 2016 ICANN Is Stonewalling the U.S. Congress Senators send follow-up letter after failing to get answers about ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) today sent a follow-up letter to Dr. Stephen Crocker, chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), demanding a response to a series of unanswered questions that remain from previous congressional oversight letters concerning ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and the planned transition away from U.S. government oversight of the Internet. “On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2603> requesting information to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter,” the senators wrote. “After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2603>. “This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter<http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2588> addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House.” The senators continued: “To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016.” Read the latest Cruz-Lankford-Lee letter here<http://cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160404_ICANNCruzLankfordLe…> and below: April 4, 2016 Dr. Stephen D. Crocker Chairman of the Board of Directors Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 30 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Dear Dr. Crocker, On March 3, 2016, we sent you a letter requesting information to gain a better understanding of the potential implications of ICANN’s relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) transition. Since then, ICANN has submitted to the U.S. government an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal that seeks to end U.S. government oversight of the IANA functions. Given this recent development and congressional concerns over ICANN’s transparency, accountability, and relationship with the Chinese government, it is imperative that we receive a response to our letter. After sending our initial request 32 days ago, your staff indicated that you would be unable to respond before March 18. Two weeks has passed since your own self-extended deadline, and ICANN has not only failed to provide a response, but has been unable or unwilling to provide an exact date for when we can expect a complete response to our March 3 letter. This series of events comes on the heels of ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé’s failure to respond to all of the questions in our February 4, 2016 letter addressed to him. We would note that not only did Mr. Chehadé fail to respond to our questions in full, but he disparaged the oversight request during a February 5 question-and-answer session in Los Angeles, California with members of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Non-Contracted Party House. During the session, Mr. Chehadé stated: And you know that this letter is not driven by anyone really worried about the transition. This is someone really worried about politics. So let's not bring politics into the transition…. Let's resist bringing the politics of our lovely capital into this process…. I think everyone knows this is political, even those in his own party….We will answer all these questions… And we will respond to the questions fully, to the Senators' full satisfaction. To our dismay, ICANN has failed to respond in full to questions posed in two oversight letters. We are therefore resending our questions and ask that you and Mr. Chehadé provide a response to all unanswered questions (provided below) from our February 4 and March 3 letters as soon as possible, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2016. Four weeks ago, on March 3, 2016, we asked you to provide the following information: 1. Please state when you first learned that ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé had agreed to co-chair a high-level advisory committee for the Chinese government’s state-sponsored World Internet Conference. a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did you agree with Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? b. Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve of Fadi Chehadé’s decision to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? c. Did any member of ICANN’s Board of Directors ask Fadi Chehadé to step down from his position as CEO and President of ICANN? d. Please provide the meeting minutes, attendance records, and all other documents associated with ICANN’s Board of Directors’ meeting(s) with Fadi Chehadé in which his commitment to co-chair a high level advisory committee for the World Internet Conference was discussed. 2. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: It has been reported that ICANN’s Board of Directors took no action against Fadi Chehadé because “[t]he view eventually prevailed that no reactive action should be taken lest China lose face.” Did ICANN refrain from taking action against Fadi Chehadé due to concern that China may lose face? 3. Fadi Chehadé has been called on to recuse himself from all discussions and negotiations pertaining to the IANA transition given a confirmed personal conflict of interest with the Chinese government. Has ICANN taken any action to ensure that Fadi Chehadé will recuse himself from the IANA transition? If no, please describe the reason for ICANN’s inaction. 4. During ICANN’s 46th public meeting in Beijing, Fadi Chehadé stated, “China is going to be a central part of where the Internet community, as we know it, is heading. And, therefore, in my clear discussions with the local responsible ministers, that from ICANN’s standpoint, engagement with China is not an option. It is not an option. If we do not engage with China at every level of our community, we, frankly, lose a part of our global legitimacy. We must and we will. And that’s why we’re here today.” Do you agree with the statement that ICANN will lose part of its global legitimacy if it does not engage with China at every level of the community? 5. When ICANN announced it was opening its first global engagement office in Beijing, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) stated that it would “invest necessary human and material resources in the construction of the center and actively carry out its functions including the coordination, communication, as well as operation in order to provide effective, long-term and stable services for ICANN to serve China’s Internet industry.” Please provide yes-or-no answers to the following questions: a. Did CNNIC invest human and material resources in the construction of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? b. Is CNNIC actively carrying out the functions, coordination, communication, or operation of ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? c. Do any individuals associated with CNNIC or the Chinese government have a formal or informal role in ICANN’s global engagement office in Beijing? 6. ICANN currently lists the address for each hub office and engagement office on its website except for the engagement office in Beijing.[1] Please provide the address of ICANN’s engagement office in Beijing. 7. When Lu Wei, Minister of the Cyberspace Administration of China and Incumbent Vice Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, assumed the role of the Chairperson of CNNIC in December 2014, did ICANN take any action to ensure that its global engagement office in Beijing was not being used to carry out censorship for the Chinese government? 8. Do you agree with the Business Constituency’s concern that the term “Chinese registrant” in XYZ’s RSEP is too broad and could be interpreted to allow the extraterritorial application of Chinese censorship law to include residents of Hong Kong? 9. Do you agree that approval of XYZ’s RSEP will place XYZ in a position of having to comply with government-sponsored censorship of domain names for political purposes, which will undermine a stable Internet ecosystem? 10. A member of the Non-Connected Party House’s (NCPH) Commercial Stakeholder Group recently stated, “The ICANN board wants to engage more with China and India following the IANA transition, which somewhat explains the board’s decision not to take action against Chehadé.” a. Please describe ICANN’s plans for engagement with China following a potential IANA transition. b. Did ICANN’s post IANA transition plans with China play any role in the decision not to take action against Fadi Chehadé? Sixty days ago, on February 4, 2016, we asked Fadi Chehadé to provide the following information: 1. On December 23, 2015, in an ICANN blog post, you announced that you would be serving as the co-chair of a newly formed advisory committee to the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen. In that blog post, you noted that “the first meeting of the committee will take place in Summer 2016.” However, a World Internet Conference press release on December 21, 2015, announcing the advisory committee stated that “[t]he advisory committee held its first meeting on the sidelines of the second WIC in Wuzhen of east China's Zhejiang Province.” a. Please provide a yes-or-no answer to the following question: Did the advisory committee meet in Wuzhen during the second World Internet Conference? If yes, did you participate? b. What was discussed during the meeting? Specifically, did the advisory committee discuss the IANA transition or the role of the United States Government? c. Do you believe that advisory committee participants share the United States’ view of a free and open Internet? 2. Did ICANN’s Board of Directors approve your attendance and participation at the World Internet Conference? 3. When did you first notify ICANN’s Board of Directors that you had agreed to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee for the World Internet Conference? 4. Have you notified the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) or any official within the United States Government regarding your commitment to serve as a co-chair of the advisory committee? If yes, please list who you notified and the date of the notification. a. Have you notified NTIA of any personal conflicts of interest? If yes, please describe the conflicts discussed and if such conflicts will be addressed. 5. Given the Chinese government’s history of censorship and suppression of free speech, is it appropriate to participate in the World Internet Conference while serving as the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN? 6. Do you believe that your attendance and participation in the World Internet Conference makes ICANN complicit in the Chinese censorship regime? Thank you for your cooperation and attention in this matter. Please contact Sean McLean (Senator Cruz), Sarah Seitz (Senator Lankford), and Christy Knese (Senator Lee) of our staffs if there are any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, Ted Cruz United States Senator James Lankford United States Senator Michael S. Lee United States Senator cc: Mr. Fadi Chehadé, Former Chief Executive Officer, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The Honorable Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce ### ________________________________ [1]Contact. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, n.d. Web. <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact-2012-02-06-en>.

3 2

CORRECTION: BC comments on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Steve DelBianco April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

(With correction and sincere apologies to Waudo Siganga, since I failed to recall that he is on the CCT review team) Dear Jonathan and members of the CCT Review Team, This is a follow-up to BC member Denise Michel’s discussion with your group while in Marrakech. The BC prepared detailed comments on ICANN<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>’<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>s proposed <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> and we believe our comments could be helpful to your review. (BC comments here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-gTLD-Marke…> and attached) In our comments we propose factors that provide objective conclusions as to trust, robustness, and stability, and encourage you to view the proposed KPIs with scrutiny against this standard. The BC is represented on the CCT team by Waudo Siganga. And the entire BC is available for comment and analysis on your work. Sincerely, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

BC comments on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Steve DelBianco March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Dear Jonathan and members of the CCT Review Team, This is a follow-up to BC member Denise Michel’s discussion with your group while in Marrakech. The BC prepared detailed comments on ICANN<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>’<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en>s proposed <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> gTLD Marketplace Health Index Proposal<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gtld-marketplace-health-2015-11-17-en> and we believe our comments could be helpful to your review. (BC comments here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC-comment-on-gTLD-Marke…> and attached) In our comments we propose factors that provide objective conclusions as to trust, robustness, and stability, and encourage you to view the proposed KPIs with scrutiny against this standard. BC members aren’t represented on your review team, but we are always available for comment and analysis on your work. Sincerely, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

RE: Marie:[bc-gnso] Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs
by Phil Corwin March 29, 2016

March 29, 2016

Marie: As Interim Chair of the WG and GNSO Liaison I have been informed by ICANN staff that the initial call/Adobe chat for the group will be the second or third week of April. While there is no absolute deadline for signing up, doing so now ensures that you'll be there at the start. It is already up to 98 members and 39 observers (see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950 )so the management of a group that large, dealing with the multitude of issues it faces, will be a challenge. I am presuming that it will have several co-chairs who will collectively sort out a path forward for its important work. Hope that helps. Very best, Philip 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:05 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil-IG'; 'Chantelle Doerksen'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Sorry to ask daft questions but: by when must we sign up to be official members of the group? And Zahid - would you be a star and check my draft SOI (when I can get into it) to make sure it's in the correct form? (I'm remote working on a rather temperamental connection - again, apologies). M From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: mardi 29 mars 2016 14:51 To: 'Zahid Jamil-IG'; 'Chantelle Doerksen'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: 'Glen de Saint Géry' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Apologies all, I have been away from the office. I too will sign up - hopefully today if my wifi permits! I am also hoping to persuade some of my expert members to do likewise given the vital importance of this work to right holders. Kind regards Marie From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil-IG Sent: lundi 21 mars 2016 23:11 To: Chantelle Doerksen; bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs As a former member of the IRT expert group and the STI as a GNSO councilor, each related the development of the RPMs would be happy to volunteer. Best regards, Zahid Jamil zahid(a)jamilandjamil.com<mailto:zahid@jamilandjamil.com> Barrister-at-law Cell:+923008238230<tel:+923008238230> Jamil & Jamil Fax: +92 213 5655026<tel:+92%20213%205655026> Barristers-at-law Tel: +92213 5680760<tel:+92213%205680760>/5685276/5655025 Suites 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe, Merewether Road, Karachi. Suite No 12, First Floor, Rehman Arcade, Aabpara Market, Islamabad. Jamil & Jamil FZE LLE, Level 14,Tower 1, Emaar Boulevard, PO Box 334155, Dubai. Jamil & Jamil USA, Suite 301, 1050, 17th Street N.W. Washington D.C. Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:43 PM -0700, "Chantelle Doerksen" <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org<mailto:chantelle.doerksen@icann.org>> wrote: Dear BC Members, Volunteers needed. Please see below. Kind regards, Chantelle _______ https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-21-en Call for Volunteers: New GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers for a new Working Group that will conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs). The GNSO Council approved the PDP Working Group's Charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB] on 9 March 2016<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016>. What This Team Will Do 1. Conduct the PDP in two phases This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases as defined in the approved charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/whois-ng-gtld-rds-charter-07oct15-en.pdf> [PDF, 524 KB]: Phase One will focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program (i.e. the Trademark Clearinghouse and associated notification and sunrise mechanisms, the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures), and Phase Two will focus on a review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). At a minimum, in each Phase of this PDP, the Working Group will be expected to first assess the effectiveness of the relevant RPM(s), for which it should seek the input of experienced online dispute resolution providers and other subject matter experts, as appropriate. The Working Group is also expected to look at the interplay between and complementary roles of each RPM in seeking to more fully understand their overall functioning and effectiveness. Ultimately, the goal is for the Working Group to consider the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. In public comments to the UDRP Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB], the RPM Staff Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.5 MB], and the Preliminary Issue Report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> for this PDP, various community groups and participants had identified a number of issues that they considered appropriate for review in a PDP. As such, the Working Group is expected to consider these community suggestions, which have been listed in the Working Group Charter, with further modifications, additions and deletions to be determined by consensus of the Working Group. 2. Coordinate its work with other parallel efforts The Working Group will monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or otherwise provide useful input to this PDP. These other efforts include the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team, the Trademark Clearinghouse Independent Review and the GNSO's PDP Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. In this regard, the GNSO Council directed that a GNSO community liaison be appointed by the two GNSO PDP Working Groups. Further, as the manager of the policy development process, the GNSO Council is to be kept informed about the various coordination efforts so that in case of conflict between these groups, the Council may take the appropriate action to align the different work processes. At the conclusion of Phase One of its work, the Working Group is expected to assess the need for modification to its Charter and, if appropriate, submit a request to the GNSO Council accordingly for the subsequent phase(s) of its work. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this PDP Working Group will be recorded and transcribed, and the recordings and transcriptions will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Working Group will be archived publicly. The group will collaborate using a public workspace for draft materials and all final work products and milestones will be documented on the WG's wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…>. The PDP WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> [PDF, 350 KB] as well as the GNSO PDP Manual<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 300 KB]. How to participate There are two ways to volunteer: * Individual Members - anyone interested can volunteer to join the PDP Working Group as a member, regardless of whether they are members of the ICANN community. Members are expected to actively contribute to mailing list conversations as well as meetings - it is anticipated that the Working Group will at a minimum meet on a weekly basis via teleconference. Members are expected to provide essential input to the process. Members will be required to provide a Statement of Interest (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). * Mailing list observers - for those who are merely interested in monitoring the Working Group's deliberations, it is possible to sign up as a mailing list "observer" which offers read-only access to the mailing list. Mailing list observers will not be permitted to post, will not receive invitations to the meetings of the Working Group and will not have to complete a Statement of Interest. At any point in time, a mailing list observer can join the WG as a member simply by informing the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org?subject=Call%20for%20volunteers>. In addition, there will be opportunities to provide input through public consultations and public comment processes that the PDP Working Group is expected to organize. How to Join If you are interested in joining the Working Group either as an individual participant or mailing list observer, please fill in the sign up form<http://goo.gl/forms/sMAaNujZdB> or send the Word document<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58729953/Review%20of%20all…> [DOCX, 72 KB], filled in, to the GNSO Secretariat<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org?subject=Call%20for%20volunteers>. All members and observers will be listed on the PDP Working Group's wiki page. Next steps The GNSO Council directed that this call for volunteers be circulated as widely as possible in order to ensure broad representation and participation in the Working Group. it is anticipated that the Working Group will convene online for the first time in early April 2016. Following that, regular online meetings will be scheduled in accordance with the Working Group's work plan, which it is expected to develop as one of its first tasks. Further information and preparation For those interested in volunteering for this effort, you are strongly encouraged to review the following materials prior to the first meeting of the PDP WG: * The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf> [PDF, 1 MB] * The approved charter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB] * Materials available at the Working Group's online wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…> Background The question of who legally has rights to, or is the legitimate holder of, a domain name can be open to dispute. In relation to domain name disputes concerning the registration and use of legally protected trademarks, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en> is the longest standing alternative dispute resolution procedure. As a result of the New gTLD Program, several new rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) were developed to mitigate potential risks and costs to trademark rights holders that could arise in the expansion of the gTLD namespace, which included certain safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names: the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/urs-2014-01-09-en>; the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse> and the associated availability through the TMCH of Sunrise periods and the Trademark Claims notification service; and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tm-pddrp-2013-10-31-en>. Prior to the launch of the New gTLD Program, on 3 October 2011 ICANN staff had published a Final Issue Report on the current state of the UDRP. The recommended course of action in that UDRP Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB] was not to initiate a PDP at the time, but to hold off launching any such PDP until after the new URS had been in operation for at least eighteen (18) months. In addition, the September 2015 revised RPM Staff Paper<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.5 MB] had explicitly noted that some of the concerns identified by the community for consideration as part of a review of the RPMs might be appropriate topics for policy development work. The UDRP has not been subject to comprehensive review. There has also not been a full review of all the RPMs developed to date by ICANN, to consider whether or not they are collectively achieving the objectives for which they were created. In preparation for this PDP, a new Preliminary Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.4 MB] was published for public comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> on 9 October 2015. A Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.2 MB] was subsequently published on 7 October 2015, including links to all public comments received, along with a draft charter for the PDP WG<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-26feb16-en.pdf> [PDF, 510 KB]. The final charter was approved by the GNSO Council on 9 March 2016<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+9+March+2016>, enabling the formation of a GNSO working group of community volunteers to conduct this PDP. More information can be found on the activities webpage for GNSO PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/rpm> and the Working Group's online wiki workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Prote…>, which includes the charter, community input provided during the public comment period, and an extensive library of foundational materials to inform the Working Group's deliberations. As this will be a complex multi-phase PDP, anyone interested in helping to shape the review of all RPMs in all gTLDs are encouraged to volunteer for this Working Group ________________________________ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> !DSPAM:56fa7a8516281413810615! ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4540/11804 - Release Date: 03/12/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

3 4