- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 10, 2014

Dec. 10, 2014

Thought BC members would like to hear about breaking news on US Congressional actions. See Phil Corwin’s CircleID post (here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141210_breaking_us_government_funding_bill_…> and below). A reporter just asked me about this, and here’s the answer I gave (speaking personally): This policy rider is not an attempt to stop the transition, as far as I can tell. It seems designed to prod NTIA to do a short extension of its current IANA contract, since it allows NTIA to resume using funds to plan the transition after September 2015. I don’t think this should alarm global stakeholders or the ICANN working groups already planning the IANA transition. We have lots of work to do and aren’t depending on NTIA funds to help us. And given the aggressive timelines we saw on yesterday’s initial call for the Accountability project, we may need the extra time an IANA extension would allow. Phil Corwin in CircleID: Breaking: U.S. Government Funding Bill Delays IANA Transition On the evening of Tuesday, September 9th, Congressional leaders unveiled a 1,603 page, $1.01 trillion FY 2015 appropriations bill to fund the U.S. government through the end of September 2015. One provision of the omnibus bill would delay the IANA transition until after the September 30, 2015 expiration of the current contract between the NTIA and ICANN. Language in the bill<http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20141210/102799/BILLS-113rcp113-59pp…> states: SEC. 540. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration during fiscal year 2015 with respect to Internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall expire on September 30, 2015. That language, a modified version of the “Duffy Amendment” that was contained in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, would allow NTIA to start spending funds on a transition after exercising its first option to extend the contract. In addition, the explanatory report language of the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the omnibus spending bill, in which the above language is contained, states the following: Internet governance.-The agreement reiterates House and Senate language regarding the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) matters and modifies Senate language by directing NTIA to inform appropriate Congressional committees not less than 45 days in advance of any such proposed successor contract or any other decision related to changing NTIA's role with respect to ICANN or IANA activities. In addition, NTIA shall submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations within 45 days of enactment of this Act regarding any recourse that would be available to the United States if the decision is made to transition to a new contract and any subsequent decisions made following such transfer of Internet governance are deleterious to the United States. This language appears to require NTIA to inform Congress 45 days prior to extending the IANA contract or taking any other decision in regard to it; as well as to submit a report to Congress within 45 days after the spending bill’s enactment regarding whether the US would have any post-transition recourse if subsequent decisions were deleterious to the U.S. This final bill language has already been negotiated with and accepted by Senate Democratic and House Republican leaders and is likely to be enacted and sent to President Obama by the weekend. It is unlikely that the White House would veto the bill and risk a government shutdown over this IANA language (although other provisions could become sticking points between the Administration and Congress). Rumors were already circulating in Washington that NTIA was prepared to extend the current IANA contract by at least six months in recognition of the fact that it may be impossible for the ICANN community to design and stress test enhanced accountability measures by the end of the current contract term, much less have them in place by then. So the bill may have little effect on the actual timetable for the transition. It remains to be seen what reaction to its enactment comes from ICANN, the ICANN community, and other nations.

1 0

ICANN's 2015 Nominating Committee now taking applications
by Stephane Van Gelder Dec. 9, 2014

Dec. 9, 2014

Colleagues, FYI. http://post.milathan.com/2014/12/icanns-2015-nominating-committee-now-takin… Stéphane Van Gelder Milathan LTD "Internet Intelligence - Strategic Advice" ---------------- Discover The Milathan Post on http://post.milathan.com

1 0

IANA Transition: Draft proposal and webinar for Naming Related Functions
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 2, 2014

Dec. 2, 2014

The IANA Transition CWG published their draft proposal for the Naming-related IANA functions for public comment. (link)<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en> Comments close on 22-Dec. For BC comments, we’ll look to the BC members closely following this CWG: Aparna Sridhar, Phil Corwin, Tim Smith, and Angie Graves. Also, the Coordination Working Group (CWG) is hosing webinars this week to brief on their proposal and collect feedback: to brief the community on the contents on this draft transition proposal and encourage community feedback, the CWG will be organizing three identical webinars at different times to facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on: * 3 December from 7:00 – 8:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) * 4 December from 12:30 – 14:00 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) * 4 December from 16:00 – 17:30 UTC (time zone converter here<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+We…>) ________________________________ Webinar Details & How to Attend The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwgiana/>. If you are interested in attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please send an email to grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> and indicate which day / time you would like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the CWG Wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/SIEHAw>. ________________________________ The Draft Transition Proposal The CWG structured its draft transition proposal based on the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals. These are: 1 Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 2A Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements – Policy Sources 2B Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements – Oversight and Accountability 3 Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements 4 Transition Implications 5 NTIA Requirements 6 Community Process Sections 1, 2A and 2B describe the current situation. Section 3, which is the heart of the transition proposal, is still a work in progress as not all details have been ironed out as of the publication of this consultation. Although lacking some details, the information provided in this section should be sufficiently detailed to allow the communities to comment on all key components. In summary, section 3 proposes the creation of 4 new entities to replace the current NTIAarrangements. These are: 1. Contract Co. – This primary function of this entity (likely a non-profit corporation) is to be signatory to the contract with the IANA Functions Operator. This entity should be lightweight and have little or no staff. 2. Multistakeholder Review Team (MRT) – The MRT would be a multi-stakeholder body with formally selected representatives from all of the relevant communities (exact composition TBD). The operation of the MRT would be based on the concept of maximum public transparency. The responsibilities of the MRT will include: * Developing the detailed contract terms for the agreement between Contract Co. and theIANA Functions Operator, based on the key contract terms proposed as part of this proposal and set forth as Annex 3 * Making key decisions for Contract Co. (e.g., whether or not to enter into a rebidding (RFP) process for the operation of the IANA Naming Functions) * Conducting the IANA Functions Operator Budget Review * Addressing any escalation issues raised by the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) including the possibility of engaging in enforcement * Performing certain elements of administration (including periodic performance reviews) currently set forth in the IANA Functions Contract and currently being carried out by theNTIA * Managing a re-contracting or rebidding (RFP) process for the operation of the IANAFunctions, both as an enforcement option and as part of a regular rebidding procedure The CWG is in the process of discussing whether there is an additional enforcement role for the MRT related to policy implementation by the IANA Functions Operator; specifically, whether the MRT should be able to commence a proceeding before the Independent Appeals Panel. 3. Customer Standing Committee (CSC) – While the exact composition is still to be determined, the CSC would primarily be made up of a number of representatives of registry operators, including ccTLD and gTLD registries. Input from the CSC would feed into and inform the work of the MRT. It is possible that the CSC would also include additional individuals with relevant expertise and/or liaisons (or representatives) from other SO/ACs. The CSC would: * Work with the MRT to establish Service Levels and Performance Indicators for the performance of the IANA Naming Functions * Receive reports from the IANA Functions Operator including regular performance reports. * Review these reports against established service levels and escalate any significant issues to the MRT 4. Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) – The CWG recommends that all IANA actions which affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database be subject to an independent and binding appeals panel. The Appeals Mechanism should also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies are applied. This need not be a permanent body, but rather could be handled the same way as commercial disputes are often resolved, through the use of a binding arbitration process using an independent arbitration organization (e.g., ICDR, ICC, AAA) or a standing list of qualified people under rules promulgated by such an organization. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are currently in development and are directly dependent on the final choices that will be made for section 3. For further details, you are encouraged the review the draft transition proposal in its entirety, availablehere<https://community.icann.org/x/SoEHAw>. ________________________________ Further information For further information about the CWG's work, please see https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg. For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition, please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

1 0

1NET discuss and CCWG IG : Participation in the upcoming IGF Open Consultation and planning for IGF2015
by Marilyn Cade Nov. 22, 2014

Nov. 22, 2014

Dear colleagues, As both an IGF MAG member and a member of the ICANN CCWG-IG, I wanted to note the upcoming IGF Open Consultation and remind colleagues to plan to attend in person, if you are in Geneva, Switzerland, and if not, to join us via remote participation. December 1-3, 2015, hosted at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The IGF Website is www.intgovforum.org. As most on this list are veterans, feel free to skip the information provided below, which is intended as an overview for any newcomers. As an overview, this is the kick off session, which opens with taking stock of 2014, lessons learned and launches the planning process for IGF2015. The first day allows us to glean any tips and improvements that deserve to be shared more broadly, or even incorporated into future host country expectations, or into MAG expectations. For instance, during last year's initial session, MAG members agreed by consensus to limit the role of the MAG members in submitting and designing workshops, as they are the evaluators of the workshops proposed, and to limit the number of speaking roles for MAG members, so that they can focus on recruitment of speakers, coaching, and supporting roles. Those are examples of 'lessons learned' from past taking stock discussions. Once we conclude discussing program issues and feedback about the program the MAG designed and approved for 2014, as well as organizational issues, we move into planning for 2015, including brainstorming themes, sub themes, discussion of program design, workshops, other sessions, etc. The information about the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting [which is also open to all interested participants] on the site will help you to prepare for the consultation, if you are new to this process. Many on this list are very experienced, and may also have suggestions to share on these two lists. If this is your first engagement with the IGF planning process: Some essentially useful background documents include the following, all of which are on the website: -Chair's Report -Individual contributions [18 were received] and the Secretariat Summary document -Agenda -Initial Participant List -List of 2015 MAG [this is the MAG just announced by the UN Secretary General]. [Note, the usual term of MAG members is 3 years, with a rotation of approximately 1/3 of the MAG each year] This meeting includes outgoing MAG members and incoming MAG members. You may see a number of names you recognize from 1NET discuss or CCWG-IG, but you will also find that there are a lot of new names and new faces in the MAG. The MAG 2015 had a very high number of rotations and incoming members, with a significant expansion in the number of female members appointed, and a growth in the number of participants from developing countries and emerging economies, from all stakeholder groups. The three days will be fast paced, and highly interactive. Fortunately, the IGF Secretariat provides not only remote access but also transcripts for the sessions, which are posted very rapidly. So, if you cannot join a particular session due to time constraints [or time zone constraints], you can quickly scan the transcript and 'catch up'. The Remote Moderators will also provide a mechanism for you to make comments during the meetings. Needless to say, there are a lot of activities of relevance and implication for the IGF 2015 planning process, including NETmundial itself, held in April, 2014; the UNESCO meeting in early March; the Cyber Event, to be hosted by the Netherlands in April, as well as NETmundial, and the WuZhen Summit are all undoubtedly of interest to consider for their contribution to Internet policy and governance discussions. The CSTD Intercessional which takes place November 26-28; UNGA considerations of the ICT4D Resolution, the recently concluded ITU Plenipot [just concluded in Busan]. And of recent interest, the WuZhen Summit, just ending in WuZhen, China. It is important to remember that Internet Governance, and the purpose of the IGF is far beyond addressing ICANN, which is only one example of IG at work; nevertheless, the discussions about ICANN's role, and activities are of ongoing interest and relevance, and will be part of the discussions at the IGF planning sessions; such as the work underway on the IANA transition; the development of Accountability mechanisms at ICANN. Other discussions about the "NETMundial Initiative" and the related WEF activities planned for January, and how these activities support and enhance and strengthen the IGF should also be expected to be discussed. As we begin the process of planning the IGF2015, hosted in Brazil, views and perspectives about such activities and events are part of the ecosystem landscape that can contribute to help to inform the program development, while recognizing that the purpose of the IGF is still guided by the Tunis Agenda, which led to its creation by the UN Secretary General. And that we have a lot of work to do at the IGF. Finally, there will be an update on the financial status of the IGF Trust Fund, and an update from the newly launched IGF Support Association [IGFSA], which was catalyzed by ISOC in 2014, launched during the IGF2014, in Istanbul, and is launching fund raising to support strengthening and supporting the IGF Secretariat and critical activities, described on the IGFSA website, at IGFSA,org. Others on these lists engaged in the Executive Committee include Avri Doria, Cheryl Miller, Raul Echeberria, Tarek Kamel, Edmon Chung, plus others. The Secretary to the IGFSA is Markus Kummer, a name well known to all of us! As we are only a week away -- IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting - Dec 1-3, I hope to see [or hear] many of those on these lists and look forward to your active contributions in the planning process for IGF2015. I welcome hearing from any colleagues regarding your perspectives, or suggestions. Marilyn Cade Note, this is written on my ipad, so apologies for formatting, and spelling errors. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)1net.org http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Policy calendar for 20-Nov-2014 BC member call
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 20-Nov-2014 Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process Recently filed: We supported<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-RSEP-for-2…> Neustar registry proposal to release country & territory names at second level in .Neustar gTLD. We disagreed<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-comment-on-BWG-NomCom…> with board WG report on Nominating Committee We disagreed<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BC-Comment-on-GAC-propos…> with a GAC Sub-group on Geographic Names in new gTLDs. Current ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/public-comment-2012-02-25-en>. Selected open comment opportunities below: 1. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D PDP recommendations for Board approval (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-d-recommendations-2014-10-20-en>) Reply comments close 1-Dec. The BC commented on initial PDP report in Apr-2014 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BC-Comment-IRTP-D.pdf>). Drafters were Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, Elisa Cooper. Should the BC file a comment before the Board votes on the final recommendations? 2. Amendment to Registry Agreement for .NGO / .ONG for bundling of 2nd-level domains (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ngo-ong-amendment-2014-11-06-en>) Initial comment by 26-Nov; reply comments close 6-Dec 3. Launch program for .MADRID (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/madrid-alp-application-2014-11-11-en>) Initial comment by 2-Dec; reply comments close 24-Dec 4. ICANN draft 5-year Operating Plan (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014…>) Initial comment by 12-Dec 5. New gTLD Auction rules for Indirect Contention (link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auctions-indirect-contention…>) Initial comment by 14-Dec Note: BC members are encouraged to file their own comments. The BC selects topics based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Gabi Szlak and Susan Kawaguchi are our Councilors. Report on 13-Nov GNSO Council meeting resolutions<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201411>. Next GNSO Council meeting is 11-Dec-2014 , at 15:00 UTC (10:00 Eastern time) --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison. CSG representation on the IANA Coordination Group (link<https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/coordination-group>). Look forward to report from Aparna Sridhar, Tim Smith, and Angie Graves, who are monitoring for the BC. On 25-Nov ICANN is hosting an update call on: 1. formation of Accountability CWG 2. Update on IANA Stewardship following F2F meeting in Frankfurt 3. Coordination of both activities within the CSG --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)

1 1

Council voted to approve Charter for CCWG today
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

When Council considered the motion to approve the draft CCWG charter, Gabi raised the representation concern, saying: We agree with parity when it comes to consensus calls/voting. We object to disenfranchising chartered constituencies in the GNSO, which is the effect of limiting to 5 representatives from the GNSO. There are 7 chartered GNSO groups (Registries, Registrars, BC, IPC, ISPC, NCUC, NPOC). So 2 chartered organizations would not get a representative on the CCWG if it is limited to 5 reps. Heather Forrest of IPC supported us. Avri Doria (NCSG) disagreed with us, saying the extra reps would lead to chaos on CCWG. Avri suggested the CSG chose not to have a SG structure, so it’s up to us to get our house in order. James Bladel disagreed with us. Tony Holmes supported Gabi’s concern and said we needed to address this issue since it will come up again. Drafting team chair Thomas Rickert clarified that the charter permits each CONSTITUENCY to participate in every discussion and email list, even if the CSG gets only one vote during consensus calls Gabi also raised our concern about timing: BC members believe that the goal, as drafted, overstates the need to meet the so-called deadline of September 2015. It is more important that we get the right accountability enhancements, and that they are supported by the community. Thomas replied that the charter encourages CCWG to meet the Sep-2015 goal but is not prescriptive. The quality of the work is the decisive factor. The CCWG will determine its own outcome on the question of timing. Council approved the Charter and also approved Thomas Rickert as GNSO co-chair for this CCWG.

4 3

FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on Board WG report on Nominating Committee
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Tonight we filed the attached comment on the Board Working Group report on the ICANN Nominating Committee. Thanks to drafters who led our effort: J. Scott Evans, Ron Andruff, and Aparna Sridhar. Plus an executive summary by Stephane Van Gelder. And lots of input from other BC members with direct experience in NomCom matters. This was an impressive team effort.

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on GAC draft document for geographic names
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 10, 2014

Nov. 10, 2014

The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) submits the attached comment on the GAC Sub-group draft document for protection of Geographic Names (link<https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee>) We hope the attached explanations are sufficient to understand BC objections to the GAC draft document. The BC thanks the GAC for inviting public comments, and we stand ready to engage further with GAC members on this matter. Respectfully, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency comment on Neustar's proposal for country and territory names
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 9, 2014

Nov. 9, 2014

We filed these comments tonight. Thanks to Andy Abrams, Martin Sutton, and David Fares for leading the draft.

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency supports proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 20, 2014

Oct. 20, 2014

The BC filed this comment today. Thanks again to Ron Andruff for chairing the SCI. And thanks to J Scott Evans for drafting this comment. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Sunday, October 19, 2014 at 9:14 PM To: "policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>" <policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency supports proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures The Business Constituency ("BC") submits these comments to the Proposed Changes Operating Procedures developed by the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation ("SCI") posted for public comment on September 17, 2014. The BC wishes to thank the members of the SCI for this thoughtful proposal. The BC fully supports the recommendations of the SCI for two amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures and the one amendment to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines described in Section I. The BC appreciates the opportunity to provide our comments on these recommendations. This comment was approved in accord with our charter. - Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0