- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FILED: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 6, 2013

Sept. 6, 2013

We filed BC comments on the EWG today (see below and attached). I did make one small edit per David Fares' request; seconded by Marilyn Cade. It's on page 6, giving our position on paying for access for data beyond what is free to the public: (new text in red) Cost recovery for an ARDS model should be split amongst the various groups that benefit from the centralized system. The Registries, for example, could pay a small fee per record as the centralized database is a backup for them. Entities accessing the data could pay a fee for retrieving Gated Access information,which could be done as an upfront cost paid at the time of certification/validation or per request. ICANN could also underwrite the validation/certification costs for Gated Access. The BC believes however, that for domain names use for commercial purposes, as defined and discussed above, basic data elements which identify the registrant should be available to Internet users and consumers without a fee. Additional data elements might require a fee, however these fees should be limited to recovery of actual costs. Thanks to Laura for initial draft and to all who contributed. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:46 PM To: "input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>" <input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG Attached are comments of ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. Laura Covington prepared the initial draft and several BC members contributed to the comment before it was properly approved by BC membership on 6-Sep-2013 -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 6, 2013

Sept. 6, 2013

I support the need for the fee to be cost recovery. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fares David <DFares(a)21cf.com> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:10:08 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Thanks Steve. I have no objections with the paragraph below. I would suggest that on page 6, if we accept that users should pay a fee for gated access that we should qualify that by saying the fee should be limited to cost recovery. In fact, I question whether gated access shouldn't be part of the cost of doing business for registrars. I would welcome thoughts from others. Thanks for all of your efforts in coordinating these comments. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:04 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Importance: High This is "Last Call" for members who would object to filing the attached comments by tomorrow's deadline. Since I circulated a draft on Monday, we have seen no objections. But we did see some excellent debate about this paragraph: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights. And the EWG's "Maximum Protected Registration" should only be available to registrants who demonstrate a need for privacy to protect at-risk free-speech uses. Google questioned the idea of per-se restricting donation-seeking domains from using privacy/proxy services. Looks to me like the majority of subsequent comments were in favor of retaining the per-se restriction above. But as a by-product of that discussion, several of you wanted to add a few more offenses to the list of things that privacy/proxy eligible domains would promise not to do. So I've revised that first sentence to read: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights, distribution of malware, phishing, or other fraud. Unless more than 5 members object, I will file these comments by 3pm EST on Friday 6-Sep. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:45 AM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs%20> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 5, 2013

Sept. 5, 2013

As noted on our last 2 member calls, ICANN recently decided it didn't need uniform contracts for its UDRP/URS providers. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13…>) Uniform contracts were a core issue for us on our comments regarding new URS providers. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/msg00007.html> to BC comment) Phil Corwin has drafted a letter raising BC concerns and questions for ICANN leadership about this decision. (below and attached). There is no public comment deadline on this decision, since ICANN didn't allow for public comment at all. So we will take the full 14-day review period as our charter requires. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) So before 17-Sep-2013, please REPLY ALL with comments regarding the attached text. If 10% of members object to the letter after Phil has replied to suggestions, we'll have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support. Once approved, our Chair Elisa Cooper would send this letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair, where it would show as Correspondence. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>) Thanks to Phil Corwin for taking the initiative, and for being ready to handle member questions and suggestions. Steve Vice chair for policy coordination From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:04 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Subject: Draft BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report Steve: I have finally completed a draft letter for BC member consideration. This follows up on my July 21st e-mail in which I closed as follows: In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC membership. The draft letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report – it just states the BC’s long-held position on the need for a standard and enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of questions about some of the statements in the Report. I certainly appreciate any feedback on the form and substance of the letter, as well as the proper way to proceed. Best regards, 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

1 0

Minutes, transcript, MP3 recording: BC Members call on Aug. 29th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript for the BC Members call which took place on Thursday, Aug. 29th, 2013 at 11 am EDT (3 pm UTC). The MP3 recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3 Please note these materials are also available on the BC Wiki's teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

BC members — On last Thursday's call, I did not press for a BC comment on ICANN's plan to postpone GNSO review. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm>) This comment period closes 6-Sep and we have several other pressing policy matters, so I encouraged BC members to comment individually. Right after the call, Aparna circulated a draft comment similar to what Google already filed. Bill Smith offered the Bylaws point, several others agreed, and we now have the below text circulating (including the Phil Corwin's edit to the second point.) The BC ExCom has authorized a 3-day review period for this comment, since the comment period closes 6-Sep. This is noted as an "extraordinary" departure from the 14 day review required in our present Charter, and is justified by the limited time remaining in the comment period. If more than 10% of members object to the comment below, our Charter (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) requires that we have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support, and requires a quorum of half of members. If you OBJECT to the text below, please REPLY ALL and indicate reason you are objecting. Please know that IF you suggest changes to the text, we have to ask members to re-review the changed text, which will likely take us past the 6-Sep deadline. --Steve Text for Approval: As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete “silo” constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006.

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 4, 2013

Sept. 4, 2013

I will support whatever the Membership supports. I do note again for members that this may mean that the Review is going on while other Strategy Plan development activities are underway, including the work of the five mysterious panels, or whatever their correct name is. The Review is not directly tied to restructure, which is a point made by several Board members. And, while this need npt be stated in the Comment (eg, I am not asking for a language change), the review of the Council will be different from the Review of the sub structures of the GNSO. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:56:07 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review BC members - On last Thursday's call, I did not press for a BC comment on ICANN's plan to postpone GNSO review. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm> ) This comment period closes 6-Sep and we have several other pressing policy matters, so I encouraged BC members to comment individually. Right after the call, Aparna circulated a draft comment similar to what Google already filed. Bill Smith offered the Bylaws point, several others agreed, and we now have the below text circulating (including the Phil Corwin's edit to the second point.) The BC ExCom has authorized a 3-day review period for this comment, since the comment period closes 6-Sep. This is noted as an "extraordinary" departure from the 14 day review required in our present Charter, and is justified by the limited time remaining in the comment period. If more than 10% of members object to the comment below, our Charter (link <http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm> ) requires that we have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support, and requires a quorum of half of members. If you OBJECT to the text below, please REPLY ALL and indicate reason you are objecting. Please know that IF you suggest changes to the text, we have to ask members to re-review the changed text, which will likely take us past the 6-Sep deadline. --Steve Text for Approval: 0 0 1 267 1486 NetChoice 27 8 1745 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete "silo" constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Marilyn Cade Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

I do have concerns about anonomity in funds solicitation sites. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:02:27 To: <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <abrams(a)google.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Yes, but that's not entirely Andy's point, Bill. Andy first suggested we allow privacy protections for a website that solicited donations. Do BC members believe that donation-soliciting sites should be eligible for privacy/proxy services? As Andy notes, donors are often fooled by sites that pretend to be a reputable group helping with an emergency. The Red Cross/Red Crescent has talked about this at ICANN before. Should we really be recommending that ICANN allow privacy/proxy services for any site that solicits donations, as opposed to payments for services/goods/ads? Please read (and react) to the text proposed for this section (page 2, re-attached for your convenience), because the discussion thread sometimes tells only half the story. From: <Smith>, Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 5:19 PM To: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) I'm all for expanding the clause to include non-IP abuse. On Sep 3, 2013, at 1:08 PM, "Andy Abrams" <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > wrote: Hi Steve, We really appreciate your work on this document and your efforts to capture the discussions from last week. Our only minor follow-up comment relates to the use of the term "donations" in the first sentence of "Eligibility for Protected Registration." Per our previous comment, I think there are some issues with including "donations" as a per se reason to disqualify one from taking advantage of privacy/proxy services, given the frequent connection between donations and political or other free speech. With that said, I recognize that there is value in preventing a specific abuse relating to donations, namely, charity scams that solicit money. Perhaps we can reach a compromise by removing the term from the sentence, but by broadening the second clause in the sentence to include other abuses beyond IP infringement, including phishing, malware, financial scams, etc. We'd love to hear others' views on this point. Best, Andy and Aparna On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > wrote: As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 <tel:%2B1.202.420.7482> -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

3 3

FW: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Baskin, James F (Jim) Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

Resend of Sarah Deutsch's comments on the BC Name Collision draft From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:37 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Steve, Thanks for the thorough list of issues. Unfortunately, I have an 11:30 call on Thursday and may only be able to join you for the first 30 minutes. I'd like to be added to your team working on the domain name collision issue. We have been looking into the issue internally and it's fair to say that we have a growing list of questions and concerns about collisions and their potential negative consequences on businesses that are not currently mitigated by ICANN's proposal. I've edited the attached comments and hope we can at least ask ICANN for more time to study this issue more fully. We have asked ICANN to extend the comment period to allow for further study, but hope the BC can do so as well. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday. I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+August…>). Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 6-Sep). Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug) Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment) While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able. 2. Postponement of GNSO review (reply comments close 6-Sep) 3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep). No comments have yet been filed on this. Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration. (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call. 4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) 7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/dns-risk-mgmt/draft-final-19aug13-en.p…>). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts. Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf%20>. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions. ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: "NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string." As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link<http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/>) There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now? This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard ("so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.") So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

3 2

ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the announcement regarding the 2013 Nominating Committee Selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN. Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02sep13-en.htm ICANN 2013 Nominating Committee Announces Selections 2 September 2013 The 2013 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections for nine leadership positions within ICANN, listed below for each ICANN body, in alphabetical order by family name: ICANN Board of Directors <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#cherine-chalaby> Cherine Chalaby, Africa Bruno Lanvin <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#bruno-lanvin> , Europe Erika Mann <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#erika-mann> , Europe ALAC <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#rafid-fatani> Rafid Fatani, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#beran-doneh-gille n> Beran Doneh Gillen, Africa <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#leon-sanchez> Leon Sanchez, Latin America/Caribbean Islands GNSO Council <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#daniel-reed> Daniel Reed (Non-Contracted Party House) <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#thomas-rickert> Thomas Rickert (Contracted Party House) ccNSO Council <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/nomcom/bios-02sep13-en.htm#celia-lerman> Celia Lerman Latin America/Caribbean Islands Those selected will take up their positions after the end of ICANN's Annual General Meeting, which will take place during the ICANN Public meeting scheduled for November 17-21, 2013, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The NomCom is charged with recruiting and selecting a portion of ICANN's leadership. The NomCom is mandated to ensure that overall ICANN's leadership is diverse in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective. The basic criteria is that selectees are people of integrity, objectivity and sound judgment, can support decision-making within groups, can work effectively in English, have an understanding of ICANN's mission and operation, are committed to its success, experienced in world affairs, contribute to cultural, professional and geographic expertise, and can work long and hard as volunteers in the global public trust. Balancing Confidentiality with Transparency Discussing the 2013 Nominating Committee results, Yrjö Länsipuro, the Chair of the 2013 NomCom, shared the following: I am very happy to report that the 2013 NomCom reached a unanimous decision about the entire slate of selectees at our meeting in Durban, South Africa, immediately after the 47th ICANN meeting in that city. There were 110 candidates, a record number reached only once before (2003). This number reflects a growing interest for ICANN leadership positions, and also the strong outreach efforts by the 2013 NomCom. I want to thank all candidates and encourage those whom we could not select this time, to keep up their interest in ICANN. The 2013 NomCom was committed to striking a new balance between the imperative for confidentiality and protecting the privacy of the candidates, with the need to ensure that the NomCom processes are up to ICANN standards of openness and transparency. Accordingly, while maintaining strict confidentiality of candidate specific information, we held NomCom meetings in Beijing and Durban that were open to all community members, both in person and online. We also issued monthly progress report cards of our work to all constituencies and stakeholder groups represented on the committee. Last but not least, I want to thank all NomCom members, and ICANN staff supporting the NomCom, for their commitment to a year of very hard work and carrying it through with persistence, in a cooperative, constructive and collegial spirit. Regional Breakdown As noted above, the 2013 NomCom received 110 Statements of Interest from candidates all over the world (27 female and 83 male), during its open nomination period from 7 November 2012 to 15 May 2013. The regional breakdown of this year's candidates is: * 12 from Africa * 29 from Asia/Australia/Pacific * 33 from Europe * 18 from Latin America/Caribbean * 18 from North America For more information about the NomCom, please visit <http://nomcom.icann.org/> http://nomcom.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited
by Benedetta Rossi Sept. 2, 2013

Sept. 2, 2013

Dear BC members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the prohibition of new gTLD Dotless Domains. Kind regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30aug13-en.htm > > New gTLD Dotless Domain Names Prohibited > > 30 August 2013 > > At its meeting on 13 August 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted a resolution affirming that "dotless domain names" are prohibited. Dotless domain names are those that consist of a single label (e.g., http://example, or mail@example). Dotless names would require the inclusion of, for example, an A, AAAA, or MX, record in the apex of a TLD zone in the DNS (i.e., the record relates to the TLD-string itself). > > In addition to public comments on dotless domain names, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks associated with dotless domain names highlighted in the following papers: > > On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases. > On 10 July 2013 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a statement on dotless domain names, recommending against the use of dotless domain names for TLDs. > On 29 July 2013 Carve Systems delivered a report on dotless domain names, which was commissioned by ICANN. Consistent with the SSAC report, Carve's report on dotless domain names [PDF, 1.02 MB] identifies security and stability issues. > When adopting its resolution, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks identified in these papers, as well as the impracticality of mitigating these risks. Based on the NGPC resolution, ICANN does not plan to pursue any additional studies on the subject. > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > >

1 0