- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Ominous update on the IANA transition
by Steve DelBianco May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

On today’s BC call, several of us talked about Milton Mueller’s post regarding resistance from ICANN legal when it came time to implement the numbers and protocol transition plans. (post is here<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…>, Milton’s email is below) Bill Woodcock just posted a reply to Milton’s post, clarifying his role in the meetings with ICANN. (link<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…>). Bill concludes with a confirmation of the troubling trend that Milton reported: Those particulars aside, the rest of your description of the situation seems accurate to me. The IAB minutes that you cite are particularly worthy of note: that ICANN is _refusing to renew_ the MOU under which they provide Protocol Registry services to the IETF, because it contains a termination clause, I find very disturbing. I have to admit that if I were in the IETF’s shoes, I might very well just take ICANN at their word and go on my merry way, if they say they don’t want to renew the agreement. Let’s assume we will encounter the same resistance when it comes time to ‘negotiate’ implementation of CWG and CCWG proposals. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:27 PM Subject: Ominous update on the IANA transition To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu> Dear NCSG: It’s now official: ICANN doesn’t even want to let the IETF have a choice of its IANA functions operator. Those of you who read my blog post on ICANN’s interactions with the numbers community<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-functions-…> will already know that ICANN is refusing to accept the consensus of the numbers community by recognizing its contractual right to terminate its IANA functions operator agreement with ICANN. In that blog, I referred to second-hand reports that IETF was encountering similar problems with ICANN. Those reports are now public; the chairs of the IETF, IAB and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee have sent a letter to their community<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01680.html> noting that ICANN is refusing to renew their supplemental service level agreement because it includes new provisions designed to facilitate change in IANA functions operators should IETF become dissatisfied with ICANN. These are truly shocking moves, because in effect ICANN’s legal staff is telling both the numbers and the protocols communities that they will not accept the proposals for the IANA transition that they have developed as part of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) process. In both cases, the proposals were consensus proposals within the affected communities, and were approved by the ICG as complete and conformant to the NTIA criteria. Thus, ICANN is in effect usurping the entire process, setting itself (rather than ICG and NTIA) as the arbiter of what is an acceptable transition proposal. The key point of conflict here seems to be the issue of whether ICANN will have a permanent monopoly on the provision of IANA functions, or whether each of the affected communities – names, numbers and protocols – will have the right to choose the operator of their global registries. Separability is explicitly recognized by the Cross community working group on Names as a principle to guide the transition, and was also listed as a requirement by the CRISP team. And the IETF has had an agreement with ICANN giving them separability since 2000 (RFC 2860<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860>). Yet despite the wishes of the community, ICANN seems to insist on a monopoly and seems to be exploiting the transition process to get one. Of course, a severable contract for the IANA functions is the most effective and important form of accountability. If the users of IANA are locked in to a single provider, it is more difficult to keep the IANA responsive, efficient and accountable. Given the implications of these actions for the accountability CCWG, I hope someone on that list will forward this message to their list, if someone has not noted this event already. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 1

FILED: BC comment on Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanisms Review
by Steve DelBianco May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015

Today we filed a comment on ICANN’s Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanisms Review. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BC-comment-on-RPM-review…>) Thanks to drafting team of Andrew Harris, Andy Abrams, Kat McGowan, Phil Corwin, and J. Scott Evans.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on ICANN Draft FY16 Op Plan and Budget
by Steve DelBianco April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Today we filed BC comments on the Draft ICANN FY16 Operating Plan and Budget. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BC-comment-on-Draft-ICAN…>) Thanks to Jimson, J. Scott, Angie Graves, Chris Chaplow, and Susan Kawaguchi.

1 0

FILED: comment on Expert WG draft final report on Internationalized Registration Data
by Steve DelBianco April 23, 2015

April 23, 2015

The BC filed a comment on Expert WG draft final report on Internationalized Registration Data. (link?<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BC-comment-on-draft-fina…>?) Thanks to Elisa Cooper and Tim Chen for drafting.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on Potential Change to Registrar Liability Insurance Requirement
by Steve DelBianco March 13, 2015

March 13, 2015

Today we filed comment on the Potential Change to the Registrar Liability Insurance Requirement. See attached, or at the BC website<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BC-Comment-on-liability-…>, or the public forum list<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-raa-insurance-15jan15/>. Many thanks to Alex Deacon for his initial draft and to Elisa for edits. (I further edited and formatted before submitting) — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Update on CCWG-Accountability
by Steve DelBianco March 7, 2015

March 7, 2015

As your CSG Rep on the CCWG-Accountability<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+A…>, here’s an update: CCWG has 3 work parties: Community Empowerment, Reviews, and Stress Tests. On community empowerment<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerm…>, we’re looking at giving the ‘community’ (AC/SO/SG reps) power to veto board budgets, veto board decisions, and veto bylaws changes. And we drafted bylaws language<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150304/bc45c956/Draft1-AoCA…> to move the 4 reviews required in the Affirmation of Commitments<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30…> into ICANN Bylaws. The community would get the role of appointing review team members, of course. We also drafted changes to ICANN bylaws so the board only has to give 'due deference' to GAC advice when it gives 'Consensus advice’. GAC is thinking that one over… On review/redress<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress>, we’re looking to give the ‘community’ (AC/SO/SG reps) standing and access to Reconsideration and Independent Reviews. Also looking at changes to bylaws/articles that would restrict ICANN to its technical mission. And we’ve taken 25 Stress Tests<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Wor…> and applied them to what the CWG and CCWG are presently considering (attached). We can’t apply stress tests definitively until we have a defined mechanism/structure to test, but we’ve done our best with the proposed mechanisms at this point. Please note that several stress tests apply to work of the CWG (#1, 2, 21, 19, 20, 25) Both the CWG-Transition and CCWG-Accountability are having a face-to-face meeting in Istanbul March 22-24. Questions and suggestions welcome. Best, Steve — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 27, 2015

Feb. 27, 2015

Today we filed our comment on WHOIS Accuracy Pilot Study Report. See attached or here.<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BC-comment-on-Whois-Accu…> Thanks to Angie Graves for the original draft. Thanks to J Scott Evans, Susan Kawaguchi, and Ellen Blackler for their edits. — Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Updates Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 21, 2015

Feb. 21, 2015

This is relevant to discussion on yesterday’s BC Member call, regarding streamlined approvals for geo names in dot-brand TLDs. In particular, note that 2-char release requests will identify whether the TLD is a dot-brand. (see red text below) [ICANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-20-en ________________________________ ICANN Updates Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels 20 February 2015 Today, ICANN is announcing updates to the "Authorization Process for the Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels" to take into account additional direction from the ICANN Board. On 12 February 2015, the Board took action<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-02-12-en#2.a> to accept advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on this subject issued in the GAC's 11 February 2015 Communiqué – Singapore<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb15-e…> [PDF, 113 KB], and directed the President and CEO, or his designee, to proceed immediately to implement the following changes to the process: * Implement improvements to the process to alert relevant governments when requests are initiated. Comments from relevant governments will be fully considered. * For new requests, the comment period will be for 60 days. * For requests with pending or completed comment periods, extend or re-open the comment period so that each request will undergo 60 days of comment period in total. The updates to the process are effective as of 23 February 2015. The webpage where users can review requests has also been updated with several enhancements to improve navigability and allow users to find information more easily. New features include the following: * Requests can now be sorted by reference number, TLD, registry name and date posted. * The list of all requests for letter/letter two-character ASCII labels is now available for download as a .csv file. * A column has been added to identify whether a TLD has been granted a .BRAND specification. * The "View Comments" page has been updated to show all comments made in a calendar year, rather than showing comments on a month-by-month basis. Please refer to the Authorization Process for Release of Two-Character ASCII Labels<https://www.icann.org/resources/two-character-labels> webpage for additional details.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 18, 2015

Feb. 18, 2015

Thanks to drafting by Laura Covington, we filed a comment today on this registry agreement amendment. See below or at the BC website (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BC-Comment-on-RSEP-for-D…>). From: Steve DelBianco Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 12:13 PM To: "comments-ctn-release-tlds-06jan15(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-ctn-release-tlds-06jan15@icann.org>" Subject: Business Constituency comment on Release of Country and Territory Names in .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH The Business Constituency (“BC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on proposed amendments to the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and FLSMIDTH registry agreements, per the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (“RSEP”) by these five registries on 5 Dec 2014 and posted for public comment on 6 Jan 2015 at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ctn-release-tlds-2015-01-06-en In their RSEP requests, Registry Operators Deutsche Vermögensberatung Aktiengesellschaft DVAG, TUI AG, SPIEGEL-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG, Allfinanz Deutsche Vermögensberatung Aktiengesellschaft and FLSmidth A/S seek the release of all country and territory names, as defined in Section 4 of Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, at all levels of the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ and .FLSMIDTH TLDs, respectively. The BC fully supports these requests. Geographic domains in Dot-BRAND TLDs are an important business user issue (note that geographic names include spelled-out names as well as 2-character country codes). Dot-BRAND TLDs need to be able to use geographic names at the second level in order to safely market and sell their services to businesses, consumers, and users in multiple languages in different locations around the world. We firmly believe that the release of country and territory names for Dot-BRAND TLDs will enhance security and trust in online commerce by permitting businesses to exercise more control over the security and stability of their customized websites. The use of geographic names at the second level will also help reduce abuse by reinforcing to consumers that official, legitimate communications come from the country-specific domain of a Dot-BRAND top level domain. Finally, releasing these names will facilitate online commerce in developing nations by encouraging registries to create customized and localized content (in non-English languages) for consumers in such regions. For all these reasons, the BC fully supports these requests and urges ICANN to amend the registry agreements for the .DVAG, .TUI, .SPEIGEL, .ALLFINANZ, and .FLSMIDTH TLDs accordingly. -- This comment was drafted by Laura Covington and was approved in accord with our charter. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

ICC BASIS reply to NMI
by WEISE Constance Feb. 14, 2015

Feb. 14, 2015

Dear all, For your information, please find attached an ICC BASIS letter<http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Basis/Internet-governance/2015/ICC-BAS…> that was submitted to the NETmundial Organising Partners on 6 February 2015. Best regards, Constance Weise on behalf of ICC BASIS Constance Weise Policy Manager Digital Economy / BASIS International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 33-43 Avenue President Wilson, 75016 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 49 53 33 89 | constance.weise(a)iccwbo.org<mailto:constance.weise@iccwbo.org> Digital Economy: http://www.iccwbo.org/about-icc/policy-commissions/digital-economy/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iccwbo.org/about-icc/…> BASIS: http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.iccwbo.org/basis/&k=Z…>

3 2