- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) publishes proposal for comment
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 1, 2015

Aug. 1, 2015

BC members — the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) published its combined proposal yesterday. (see below). Now there’s a 40-day public comment period. ICG will hold webinars onThursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. To attend, email the ICG Secretariat < admin(a)icgsec.asia<mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> > and indicate which webinar you prefer. We’ll need volunteers to draft the BC comment. Our May comments<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC-on-CWG-2nd-Draft-Prop…> on the prior draft are a good start, since the final proposal is pretty close to the previous one. Hoping we can re-enlist volunteers from that comment, including Aparna Sridhar, Claudia Selli, Andrew Harris, Ellen Blackler, and Stephen Coates. Also, the CCWG-Accountability will release our second draft report early next week, so we’ll need volunteers for that comment, too. —Steve ICG Seeking Public Input on Key Internet Governance Proposal 31 July 2015 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) today released for public comment the proposal [IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop…> [PDF, 2.2 MB]] for the transition of the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions from the U. S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the global multistakeholder community. This presents a seminal opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal as a whole and how it meets the criteria established by NTIA. The ICG is encouraging the public to review the proposal and share their reactions and comments during the public comment period here<https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per…>. Following the opening of the 40-day public comment period, the ICG will host two briefing webinars<https://www.ianacg.org/icg-will-be-hosting-two-webinars-regarding-the-trans…> open to the public on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. The transition of IANA's stewardship represents an important Internet governance milestone. The proposal for how to carry out the transition is the result of a tremendous undertaking by the global multistakeholder community, including the operational communities with direct operation or service relationships with the IANA functions as well as global business, civil society, governments, and Internet users. These geographically diverse groups came together to work on this process shortly after NTIA announced its intent to transition its stewardship role in March 2014<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>1<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-31-en#foot1>. The proposal was developed through a transparent community-led process, open to and inclusive of all interested stakeholders. The proposal combines components related to the three categories of IANA functions – domain names, Internet numbering resources, and protocol parameters – each of which have already been thoroughly and publicly vetted. "The dedication that the Internet community has exhibited to the IANA stewardship transition is nothing short of remarkable," said Alissa Cooper, Chair of the ICG and member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community. "The public comment period presents an opportunity for the public to assess the transition proposal in its entirety and for the ICG to build a public record demonstrating how the proposal meets the expectations set out by the U.S. Government." "It has been a big undertaking to develop a proposal that meets the criteria set forth by the NTIA," said Patrik Fältström, Vice Chair of the ICG and Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). "I am confident that after receiving and analyzing the public comments, we will be poised to put this proposal forward to the U.S. Government for review and approval." "The ICG is looking forward to receiving broad input concerning key questions about the proposal," said Mohamed El Bashir ( محمد البشير ), Vice Chair of the ICG and member of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), "The public's input is absolutely crucial to this process." In parallel to the ICG, a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG-Accountability) was formed to facilitate the process of developing enhancements to ICANN's accountability in light of the transition away from the U.S. Government. The CCWG-Accountability proposal will be available for public comment on Monday, 3 August. The public should direct comments about the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal to the CCWG-Accountability and comments about the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to the ICG. Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect Room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg> on Thursday 6 August, 19:00-20:30 UTC and Friday 7 August, 11:00-12:30 UTC. If you are interested in attending a webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to the ICG Secretariat < admin(a)icgsec.asia<mailto:admin@icgsec.asia> > and indicate which webinar you would like to attend. Please note that the webinars will be conducted in English and will be live interpreted in the 5 UN languages plus Portuguese. They will also be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and Portuguese and posted.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on Draft Report: Review of the GNSO
by Steve DelBianco July 26, 2015

July 26, 2015

We filed our comment on the Draft Report for Review of the GNSO. (attached and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BC-comment-on-GNSO-Revie…>) Many thanks to drafters Laura Covington, J Scott Evans, and Marie Pattullo.

1 0

FILED: BC comments on .CAT and .PRO registry agreements
by Steve DelBianco July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Yesterday the BC filed comments on the .PRO and .CAT registry agreement renewals. See attached, and on our BC website here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BC-comment-on-.PRO-renew…> and here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BC-comment-on-.CAT-renew…>. As discussed in Buenos Aires and on our list, we simply reiterated the concerns we expressed with .TRAVEL renewal. Thanks to Phil Corwin for prodding us to action on these contract renewals. —Steve

2 1

Business Constituency (BC) comment on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation WG Initial Report
by Steve DelBianco July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report. This comment was drafted by Ellen Blackler and several other members of the BC. It was approved in accordance with the BC charter. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FILED: comment on 2013 RAA Whois Accuracy Program Specification Review
by Steve DelBianco July 4, 2015

July 4, 2015

Tonight we filed commen<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/BC-comment-on-2013-RAA-W…>t on the 2013 RAA Whois Accuracy Program Specification Review. A big thanks to Susan Kawaguchi and Tim Chen for drafting. I reformatted to distinguish between staff/registrar comments and our BC comments. —Steve

1 0

ICANN53 Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué
by Steve DelBianco June 25, 2015

June 25, 2015

GAC Communique is here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-06-24-en>. Highlights below: Country and Territory Names at the Second Level The GAC is continuing to develop a database of country requirements for notification of requests for release of country/territory names at the second level in new gTLDs (reserved according to the application rules for new gTLDs), with options for governments to state that they do not object to release and abstain from notifications for such requests. This should be finalised by the end of July 2015 and published on the GAC website. CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal GAC states support for its submission to the ICG, without prejudice to comments made publicly by individual delegations. GAC notes provisions of paragraph 106 of the CWG Final Proposal which states that the CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision. Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Acountability (CCWG- Accountability) GAC is continuing to clarify issues of concern to GAC members with regard to the evolving proposals of the CCWG-Accountability. These will be conveyed to the CCWG face-to-face meeting to be held on 17-18 July 2015. gTLD Safeguards GAC appreciates the efforts of the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to respond to GAC’s Safeguard advice. However, despite guidance provided by GAC, contracts with the new gTLD Applicants have continued without the GAC recommended provisions requiring verification of credentials for domains in highly regulated sectors. Nonetheless, the GAC notes that an increasing number of Registries and Applicants for strings related to highly regulated sectors have, consistent with GAC advice, voluntarily committed to undertaking the verification and validation of credentials. These Applicants and Registries demonstrate that satisfactory solutions can be achieved based on the GAC advice. GAC recommends that the NGPC create a list of commended public interest commitment (PIC) examples related to verification and validation of credentials for domains in highly regulated sectors to serve as a model. These public interest commitments could demonstrate a best practice for other gTLD registry operators. For example the PIC for .bank appears to have taken steps to provide confidence to consumers that they can rely on the bona fide of the Registrants listed. Relevant stakeholders should be identified and encouraged to devise a set of PICs that work well for the protection of public interests in each of the new gTLDs related to highly regulated sectors. The GAC additionally recommends: that the ICANN community creates a harmonised methodology to assess the number of abusive domain names within the assessment of the new gTLD program. It would be useful to develop a straightforward scorecard on all elements of GAC Safeguard advice since the Beijing 2013 GAC Communiqué to clarify what elements of GAC advice have been implemented, what remains, and what has not been accepted for Implementation. In any instances of complete or partial rejection of the Advice, the GAC urges the NGPC to clarify the milestones intended to be followed in order to seek a potentially “mutually acceptable solution” as mandated by ICANN’s Bylaws. Community Priority Evaluation GAC continues to review the community application process for new gTLDs, noting that it does not appear to have met applicant expectations.

1 0

Public Forum topics for Buenos Aires
by Steve DelBianco June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Just published here<https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-public-forum> and below. Agenda Details: Welcome & Explanation of Rules of the Public Forum * Time – 15-minutes (1400-1415) * Presenter: Steve Crocker * Welcome Comments * Explanation of participation rules Subject: New gTLD Program * Time – 1 Hour (1515-1615) * Board Facilitator – Cherine Chalaby Subject: Stewardship Transition / Accountability * Time – 1 Hour (1415-1515) * Board Facilitator – Suzanne Woolf Break * Time – 10 minutes (1615-1625) Presentation About ICANN54 (Dublin) * Time - 10-minutes (1625-1635) Any subjects of Community Interest * Time – 55-Minutes (1635-1730) * Board Facilitator – Gonzalo Navarro

1 0

drafting a BC comment on review of the GNSO
by Steve DelBianco June 23, 2015

June 23, 2015

Thanks to Laura, Susan, Marie, and J Scott for volunteering to draft BC comments on the GNSO review report. (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-review-draft-2015-06-01-en>) comments are due 20-Jul so we have lots of time for this one. The draft report (link<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-draft-29may15-en.pd…>) is long, but start with the exec summary and 36 recommendations on pages 5-15. The consultants (Westlake) aren’t recommending any structural changes in GNSO or Council. They’re mostly about process, support, transparency, training, etc. bizconst.org We commented on the timing of this review: BC Comment on Potential Postponement of GNSO Review<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Business-Constituency-Co…> September 2013 For some of Westlake’s recommendations, we can find prior BC positions among our comments on ATRT recommendations: ATRT-2 Final Report & Recommendations<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-Comments-ATRT2-Final.…> March 2014 BC Comments to Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT-2)<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BC-Comment-on-ATRT-2-que…> June 2013 During the last GNSO review, here are the comments from the BC: Cross Constituency statement to Board - GNSO Reform<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Statement-04-09_to_Board…> April 2009 Note to Board from Cross Constituency<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Statement-03-2009_to_Boa…> March 2009 Reply to Board on GNSO reform issues 2<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Position-09-2008_reform_…> September 2008 Reply to Board on GNSO reform issues<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Position_reform_9-20081.…> September 2008 Open letter to Board from users' community<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Statement_06_2008_open_l…> June 2008 BC statement on GNSO Reform to open session<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Statement_06_2008_Paris_…> June 2008 GNSO Reform<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Statement_02_2008_-GNSO_…> February 2008 Reply to revised Board proposals GNSO reform<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Position-BGC-GNSO-review…> November 2007 Reply to Board proposals GNSO reform<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BC-position-BGC-GNSO-rev…> July 2007 Initial comments on GNSO review<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Position-12-2006_GNSO-Re…> December 2006

1 0

FILED: BC comment on Proposed .TRAVEL Registry Agreement.
by Steve DelBianco June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

Today we filed our comment<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BC-comment-on-Registry-A…> on the Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement. Thanks to Phil Corwin, Andy Abrams, Andrew Mack, and Jim Baskin.

2 1

Status / statement from the CCWG-Accountability after Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires
by Steve DelBianco June 21, 2015

June 21, 2015

An update from your CSG rep on the WG for ICANN Accountability: We met all day Friday here in Buenos Aires and had a roller-coaster ride of a meeting. We started at a low point ( confrontation with ICANN Board and legal team, and the prospect of losing consensus around enforceable community powers). But we ended on a high, after some innovations that can be enforceable while still preserving the current AC/SO structure and avoiding the need to create any new entities or structures. Below is our official communique, and I’ll be glad to provide details when we meet this week. —Steve Statement from the CCWG-Accountability after Face-to-Face Meeting in Buenos Aires, 20 June 2015 Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Meet in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 19 June 2015. The CCWG-Accountability face-to-face in Buenos Aires was attended in-person by 49 members and participants, as well as by a number of participants and observers that joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. 1 Advisors also participated. The group discussed the summaries it had earlier prepared of the comments received from the community during the first public comment period on its initial draft report<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20…> and can report the following: Broad support was received for the overall accountability architecture proposed, based on on 4 building blocks, i.e. an empowered community, the Board, the Bylaws and the Independent Review Process. Most comments considered the proposals would be improvements to ICANN's current accountability mechanisms. Several commenters recommended the CCWG-Accountability take a more detailed look at the accountability of the community itself (the SOs and ACs) and also to ensure that ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders, including those outside ICANN. While most commenters expressed support for the recommendations, some expressed concerns primarily regarding implementation details, legal implications, complexity, and underlying costs and risks associated with the proposals. While encouraged by the support received on the overall approach, the group acknowledges the concerns expressed and will give due consideration to suggestions and concerns as it develops a revised proposal in preparation for the upcoming second public comment period. With regards to the community empowerment mechanism, the CCWG-Accountability has considered various models, and has acknowledged the commonality of views with regards to expectations of such models, including the need to set up mutual accountability, and enhancements to openness and diversity. In particular, a number of commenters have raised concerns with the reference model. In that model, SOs and ACs would be required to set up separate legal entities, such as formally registering unincorporated associations, as their legal vehicle to exercise community powers. Feedback suggested that the community sees this model as too complex. The CCWG-Accountability has analyzed these comments carefully and will now focus its work on a refined model. This fresh approach, provisionally called the Empowered SO/AC model, gives the community comparable authority while not adding legal entities separate from the SOs and Acs. The CCWG-Accountability also considered public comments related to the dependencies with the CWG-Stewardship's final proposal. As the CWG-Stewardship's proposal is under consideration by Chartering Organizations, the CCWG-Accountability notes that each of the items that the CWG-Stewardship has identified as critical to its proposal received overall support from the community. None of the comments suggested that CWG-Stewardship requirements could or should not be met. The CCWG-Accountability will share these outcomes and considerations with the various groups and communities during ICANN53. The group looks forward to continuing the fruitful exchanges that inform further deliberations towards a second round of public comment, which is expected to be published by the end of July.

1 1