- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Filed: BC supports Board Approval of PDP Recommendation to lock a domain name subject to UDRP
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 1, 2013

Sept. 1, 2013

As discussed on Thursday's BC member call, I have filed the BC comment advocating Board support for PDP recommendations for locking a domain name subject to a UDRP. There were no comments filed in the initial comment period (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-recommendat…>), so ICANN cancelled the "reply period" that was scheduled thru 13-Sep. Nonetheless, I filed so that our Board knows the BC position. Benedetta, would you please add this to the list of BC "Positions and Statements"? Description: Support for PDP Recommendations on locking a domain name subject to UDRP Date: Aug-2013 Thanks to Elisa for drafting the statement. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:18 PM To: "comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-02aug13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-locking-domain-name-recommendations-02aug13@icann.org>" Subject: Business Constituency supports Board Approval of PDP Recommendation to lock a domain name subject to UDRP The Business Constituency (BC) supports recommendations from this Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which have been approved by the GNSO Council. *Please note that the BC supports the development of these limited and narrowly focused best practices, but does NOT support a full UDRP review at this time.* The conclusions and recommendations to the ICANN Board, contained in Section 7 of the PDP Working Group Final Report, are welcomed by the BC. All parties in the chain of registration will benefit from a uniform approach to definitions and procedures surrounding the locking process. Locking of a Domain Name is an important issue for the business community, as the implementation of these best practices could decrease registrant flight, thereby allowing proper prosecution of infringing behavior using domain names. We applaud the PDP Working Group for implementing important changes to the Final Report based on community input to the Initial Report, particularly the ability to request additional time for response, in a way which does not impact the UDRP timelines. The BC urges the ICANN Board to accept these PDP recommendations. As stated in the Final Report, the expected impact of the proposed recommendations is largely positive. The BC agrees that the clarification and standardization of these procedures is necessary and beneficial, and the BC notes that the recommendations are sufficiently flexible to allow Registrars, Complainants and UDRP providers to adjust these best practices to suit their own internal policies. The BC also encourages the ICANN Board and Staff to engage in education and outreach to affected community members in order to quickly facilitate the adoption and comprehension of these best practices. These comments were drafted by Elisa Cooper and approved in accordance with the BC Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 31, 2013

Aug. 31, 2013

Bill, I didn't understand this, so just seek clarity. The concept that "supplier" is a broader category was part of this, I think, as ICANN steps up to overseeing agreements for URS, UDRP, etc. Isn't that what we want? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:50:27 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: <john(a)crediblecontext.com>; <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Wouldn't these current providers have "an interest"? If so, we would need to question their comments just as much as we have questioned others with "interests". Let's be consistent here and stop the talk of conflicts. On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Comments from mCADE llc: In general, I think this is important to address on this call. I would again want to hear from the three current providers who are members of the BC but I am of the view that two of those: Mahmoud and Gabi/Celia supported this. I don't think we ever heard back from Zahid. That is unfortunate, but perhaps as he will be on today's call, we can either ask about DNDRC's views, or ask for follow up, quickly, after today's call. In general, if we can get to concurrence on this, I would support a letter that asks for clarity and enforceable agreements. However, we do need to fully recognize and support that there are concerns from governments that providers be based in the region. And that a US and European approach to suppliers simply does not scale. Supplier is perhaps now a broader term at ICANN than in the past. In adding in criteria and accountability, we also ask ICANN [or demand] that ICANN manage such agreements, standards, etc. ICANN has to accept the responsibility of engagement, and enforcement. ---------------- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:26:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call From: john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> To: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> CC: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Phil, My view and recollection is as Phil describes. An underlying principle of any business is clarity and contracts for these vendors would help do that. I am in favor of sending this letter. John Berard Credible Context Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote: Fellow BC members: On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN's July 19th document "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report". In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC's longstanding position that UDRP providers should be subject to "a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities" . The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated: 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. Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. 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 realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be happy to answer any questions during the call. Thanks, and 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey 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&#4…> ). 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. ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate your clarification. Mine was not about Google, and I appreciate that you understood that after our exchange. However, as to user interests, that is the purpose of the BC. So, I will probably have to insist that is the view that the BC takes. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:56:18 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Cc: <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com>; <john(a)crediblecontext.com>; <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Marilyn, There has been considerable "discussion" in the BC regarding conflict of interest, particularly related to the new gTLD program. In particular, "applicants" have been singled out as being conflicted and consequently their views/comments are somehow less valid or inappropriate in our discussions. To give an example, yesterday you responded to what I considered a well-reasoned and -presented set of comments from Google as follows: I am interested in all BC members comments that are as 'users' , not applicants. The BC membership is quite clear that it cannot address applicant views, and of course, applicants are actively engaged in the contracted party "house". Given the context, I took this to mean that you objected to the comments or alternatively the source of the comments. In the first instance, I believe Google's comments are consistent with a "user perspective" and thus are relevant within the BC and deserve our full attention. In the second instance, all BC members, regardless of their applicant status, are entitled to participate in discussions. Moving to my comment, if the BC has members that are UDRP "providers" (and I took your comment to indicate that we have three such members), they would have an interest in any "enforcement mechanism" that might be developed by ICANN as it relates to their service provision. They would be conflicted. While I believe their views are relevant, perhaps essential for us to hear, I also believe it imperative that we treat all members equally. If we persist with assertions related to conflicts, we will find ourselves unable to discuss much of anything. We *all* have interests here and we all know how to appropriately engage at ICANN. I have asked before, and I will ask again, that we please refrain from raising the conflict tot interest issue, even indirectly. It is pejorative and does enhance our interaction but rather makes it difficult to discuss substance. I hope that clarifies my intent. Bill On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Bill, I didn't understand this, so just seek clarity. The concept that "supplier" is a broader category was part of this, I think, as ICANN steps up to overseeing agreements for URS, UDRP, etc. Isn't that what we want? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Smith Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com <mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> > Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:50:27 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > Cc: <john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> >; <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Wouldn't these current providers have "an interest"? If so, we would need to question their comments just as much as we have questioned others with "interests". Let's be consistent here and stop the talk of conflicts. On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> > wrote: Comments from mCADE llc: In general, I think this is important to address on this call. I would again want to hear from the three current providers who are members of the BC but I am of the view that two of those: Mahmoud and Gabi/Celia supported this. I don't think we ever heard back from Zahid. That is unfortunate, but perhaps as he will be on today's call, we can either ask about DNDRC's views, or ask for follow up, quickly, after today's call. In general, if we can get to concurrence on this, I would support a letter that asks for clarity and enforceable agreements. However, we do need to fully recognize and support that there are concerns from governments that providers be based in the region. And that a US and European approach to suppliers simply does not scale. Supplier is perhaps now a broader term at ICANN than in the past. In adding in criteria and accountability, we also ask ICANN [or demand] that ICANN manage such agreements, standards, etc. ICANN has to accept the responsibility of engagement, and enforcement. ---------------- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:26:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call From: john(a)crediblecontext.com <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> <mailto:john@crediblecontext.com> To: psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> CC: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Phil, My view and recollection is as Phil describes. An underlying principle of any business is clarity and contracts for these vendors would help do that. I am in favor of sending this letter. John Berard Credible Context Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> > wrote: Fellow BC members: On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN's July 19th document "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report". In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC's longstanding position that UDRP providers should be subject to "a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities" . The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated: 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. Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. 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 realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be happy to answer any questions during the call. Thanks, and 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@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> <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&#43;B…> ). 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. ---------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13

1 0

BC Comment on RPMs
by Andy Abrams Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

Dear All, Many thanks to Elisa, J. Scott, Marilyn and Steve for drafting a proposed comment (attached) to the recent revisions in the RPM requirements. I wanted to see if there was interest in further discussion on the first point made in the comment - the proposal on notice of sunrise period. Specifically, I would be in favor of a minimum 60-day combined sunrise/notice period as opposed to a minimum 30-day notice period and minimum 30-day sunrise period. I believe that allowing for greater flexibility in the notice/sunrise timing would encourage more registries to extend the sunrise period, thereby achieving in many cases the minimum 60-day sunrise originally requested by the BC and IPC during the Strawman discussions. A longer sunrise is beneficial to brand owners, as it gives us more time to plan, budget and correct any errors in the registration process. In addition, since many new gTLD registries may have "anchor-tenant" or other cross-promotional opportunities for brand owners, having extra time during sunrise could facilitate such negotiations. I understand that the primary argument for fixing a lengthy notice period is to perhaps give businesses more of a last-minute chance to enter the Clearinghouse prior to a particular registry's launch. However, I respectfully believe that this is a bit of an edge case, and we would be better served advocating for a longer sunrise period. There is one central Clearinghouse for all of the new gTLD registries, so there is no advantage to trying to strategically "time" the submissions, and last-minute national trademark applications would be ineligible for sunrise protection anyways, as it is required that all entries relate to trademark applications filed before ICANN announced the applications received (i.e., June 13, 2012). I acknowledge that further education may be necessary to ensure that brand owners submit their Clearinghouse entries in a timely fashion, so it may be useful to encourage ICANN to team up with various trademark organizations (such as INTA) to publicize that the Clearinghouse is now open. I do agree with the current draft's criticism of the ability to allocate names 30 days from the date of notice, no matter how much time is left in the official sunrise period. All requests for sunrise registration should be compiled at the end of sunrise, and then analyzed for competing, identical requests. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Andy -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel *Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

2 2

Re: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

Andy, thanks for this. I think we originally considered 90 days. I would need to defer to others who are heavy users of the TMCH on the impact of your suggestion, but it makes sense to me. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:58:00 To: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs Dear All, Many thanks to Elisa, J. Scott, Marilyn and Steve for drafting a proposed comment (attached) to the recent revisions in the RPM requirements. I wanted to see if there was interest in further discussion on the first point made in the comment - the proposal on notice of sunrise period. Specifically, I would be in favor of a minimum 60-day combined sunrise/notice period as opposed to a minimum 30-day notice period and minimum 30-day sunrise period. I believe that allowing for greater flexibility in the notice/sunrise timing would encourage more registries to extend the sunrise period, thereby achieving in many cases the minimum 60-day sunrise originally requested by the BC and IPC during the Strawman discussions. A longer sunrise is beneficial to brand owners, as it gives us more time to plan, budget and correct any errors in the registration process. In addition, since many new gTLD registries may have "anchor-tenant" or other cross-promotional opportunities for brand owners, having extra time during sunrise could facilitate such negotiations. I understand that the primary argument for fixing a lengthy notice period is to perhaps give businesses more of a last-minute chance to enter the Clearinghouse prior to a particular registry's launch. However, I respectfully believe that this is a bit of an edge case, and we would be better served advocating for a longer sunrise period. There is one central Clearinghouse for all of the new gTLD registries, so there is no advantage to trying to strategically "time" the submissions, and last-minute national trademark applications would be ineligible for sunrise protection anyways, as it is required that all entries relate to trademark applications filed before ICANN announced the applications received (i.e., June 13, 2012). I acknowledge that further education may be necessary to ensure that brand owners submit their Clearinghouse entries in a timely fashion, so it may be useful to encourage ICANN to team up with various trademark organizations (such as INTA) to publicize that the Clearinghouse is now open. I do agree with the current draft's criticism of the ability to allocate names 30 days from the date of notice, no matter how much time is left in the official sunrise period. All requests for sunrise registration should be compiled at the end of sunrise, and then analyzed for competing, identical requests. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Andy-- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

1 0

Webinar: Digital Engagement Project - Sep. 4th, 2013 @ 14:00 UTC
by Benedetta Rossi Aug. 30, 2013

Aug. 30, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the details for ICANN's Digital Engagement Project Webinar taking place on Wednesday, Sep. 4th, 2013 at 14:00 UTC. 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29aug13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29aug13-en.htm Webinar: Digital Engagement Project 29 August 2013 Webinar Details Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2013 Time: 14:00 - 15:00 UTC Adobe Connect: <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ocs/> http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ocs/ Adigo phone information: . US Access Number: 213 233 3193 . US Toll Free Access Number: 800 550 6865 Conference ID: 40-60-14-86 International Adigo phone numbers: <http://adigo.com/icann/> http://adigo.com/icann/ ICANN is engaged in a strategic development and incubation process for new digital engagement tools and services that will result in a reconceptualization of <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN.org. The goal of the strategy is to drive community engagement across a continuum of potential involvement ranging from the general interest, public-facing communication that happens on <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN.org, to deeper engagement experiences that enable new and existing community members to discuss and educate themselves on a wide variety of governance topics, to experiences in which community members learn more about working group activity. Please join us for a webinar on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 14:00 - 15:00 UTC during which we will update the community on the project background and status. The meeting will be occur in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation. Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions. During the course of the webinar, questions can be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
by John Berard Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

Phil, My view and recollection is as Phil describes. An underlying principle of any business is clarity and contracts for these vendors would help do that. I am in favor of sending this letter. John Berard Credible Context Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > > >Fellow BC members: > > > >On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN’s July 19th document “UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process – Status Report”. In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC’s longstanding position that UDRP providers should be subject to “a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities” . > > > >The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated: > > > >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. > > > >Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. 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 realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be happy to answer any questions during the call. > > > >Thanks, and 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 > > > >Twitter: @VlawDC > > > >"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey > > > >From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco >Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM >To: bc-gnso(a)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). > > > >Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: > > > >ICANN Public Comment page is here. 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). 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. > > > >--- > >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) > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13 >

4 3

postponement of GNSO review
by Aparna Sridhar Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

All, I'd be happy to draft a quick comment encouraging the GNSO to push forward with review if that seems to be the consensus of the group. (It seems like there is some support but I can't tell from e-mails if anyone holds a contrary view.) I imagine it would be very short. Cheers, Aparna Sridhar Policy Counsel Google Inc. 1101 New York Avenue N.W. Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 tel: 202.346.1261 e-mail: aparnasridhar(a)google.com

2 1

Monthly Status Report - Aug. 29th 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Aug. 29, 2013

Aug. 29, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the monthly Status Reports submitted by the Executive Committee, Nominating Committee and myself - BC Secretariat on June 28th, 2013. Elisa Cooper - BC Chair . Hosted bi-weekly BC member call . Drafted comments on Thick Whois Initial Report which were submitted . Contributed to comments on Expert Working Group report which are still in process . Working to complete initial comments on RPM Requirements, Locking of a Domain Subject to UDRP and Mitigating Namespace Collisions . Updates to Charter based on Durban meeting under development Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair Finance & Operations: . Preparation for and take part Excom call (29th July) to review NomCom Elections . ICANN Budget Finance update for BC member call (8th August) . Review of ongoing BC budget with Secretariat. . IRTP-D WG weekly calls. . Review ICANNlabs and ICANNRoundtable newsletters and websites. Marilyn Cade, CSG Representative: . Calls with other CSG principals re debrief from Durban and planning for BA . Review of budget fast track, and pending funding which affects all three constituencies . Planning for CSG activities in BA - initial identification of priorities . Participation in BC call . Review of Name Collision Report and Dotless domain report to assess impact on BC . Submission on Charter changes . Participation in ICANN calls re outreach /participation Ron Andruff & Waudo Siganga, Nominating Committee: The 2013 Nom Com, which included Ron Andruff (large business) and Waudo Sigunga (small business) was tasked with filling 3 Board of Director seats; 3 ALAC Councillor seats (representing Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands, and Latin America/Caribbean regions); 2 GNSO Council seats and 2 ccNSO Council seats. At ICANN Durban 47, the work was arduous, but collegial, and selections were made in a congenial and collaborative manner that brought about a unanimous decision for all of the 2013 Nom Com ICANN Board appointees. The appointees are now undergoing the due diligence process by the ICANN legal and will be announced on or about late September 2013. All of those that were not selected have since received letters from the Nom Com Chair, Yrjo Lansipuro, thanking them for submitting themselves to the process. Pursuant to the recent BC 2014 Nom Com elections, Sarah Deutsch (large business) and Stephane Van Gelder (small business) will assume the responsibilities for 2014 selections. Benedetta Rossi, BC Secretariat: . Ran BC elections for Nominating Committee . Liaised with ICANN staff as Returning and Verifying Officers for the election . Tested new tool for elections . Made the Excomm mailing list archived and accessible to members via passwords . Attended and facilitated BC member calls & CSG Executive Committee calls . Drafted minutes for BC member calls . Drafted minutes and reports from all BC meetings in Durban . Updated BC website with positions . Updated BC Wiki (conference call information, recordings, minutes, presentations, transcripts) . Responded to member queries . Liaised with Credentials Committee regarding two new applications. . Continued BC invoicing round for 2013 to close the round for 2013 and followed up with outstanding members . Submitted payments from BC bank account 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

Can any one confirm it?
by MARIO MAAWAD MARCOS Aug. 28, 2013

Aug. 28, 2013

International business issues: ‘Largest ever' DDoS attack against China highlights indirect threat to business from operations targeting domain registries ------------ Sent from my Blackberry ¿Necesita imprimir este mensaje? Protejamos el medio ambiente • Li cal imprimir aquest missatge? Protegim el medi ambient • Precisa imprimir esta mensaxe? Protexamos o ambiente • Beharrezkoa da mezu hau inprimatzea? Babestu dezagun ingurumena • Do you need to print this message? Let's protect the environment Advertencia legal: la información de este mensaje de correo electrónico es confidencial y se dirige exclusivamente al destinatario previsto. Si usted ha recibido el mensaje por error, por favor, notifíquelo al remitente y bórrelo sin copiarlo, grabarlo ni distribuirlo. Advertiment legal: la informació d’aquest missatge de correu electrònic és confidencial i s’adreça exclusivament al destinatari previst. Si ha rebut el missatge per error, sisplau, notifiqui-ho al remitent i esborri’l sense copiar-lo, enregistrar-lo ni distribuir-lo. Advertencia legal: a información desta mensaxe de correo electrónico é confidencial e diríxese exclusivamente ó destinatario previsto. Se vostede recibiu a mensaxe por erro, por favor, notifíquello ó remitente e bórrea sen copiala, gravala nin distribuíla. Lege-ohartarazpena: mezu elektroniko honetako informazioa konfidentziala da, eta aurreikusitako hartzaileak jaso behar du. Mezu hau hutsegiteren baten ondorioz jaso baduzu, arren, jakinaraz iezaiozu bidaltzaileari, eta ezabatu mezua, hura kopiatu, grabatu edo banatu gabe. Legal warning: the information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and is for the exclusive attention of the planned recipient. If you have received the message by error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying, recording or distributing it.

1 0