- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FW: Announcement / Global Internet Policy Observatory / Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth
by Phil Corwin May 13, 2013

May 13, 2013

FYI--Interesting and potentially very useful development. 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: Andrea.GLORIOSO(a)ec.europa.eu [mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu] Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:06 AM To: Andrea.GLORIOSO(a)ec.europa.eu Subject: Announcement / Global Internet Policy Observatory / Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth [ Apologies if you receive this message more than once ] Dear all, Please see below an announcement from the European Commission, for your information. Please share this among all your contacts, as appropriate. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-g… Commission plans guide through global Internet policy labyrinth News: 2013-05-13 02:00 The Commission today unveiled plans for the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO), an online platform to improve knowledge of and participation of all stakeholders across the world in debates and decisions on Internet policies. GIPO will be developed by the Commission and a core alliance of countries and Non Governmental Organisations involved in Internet governance. Brazil, the African Union, Switzerland, the Association for Progressive Communication, Diplo Foundation and the Internet Society have agreed to cooperate or have expressed their interest to be involved in the project. The Global Internet Policy Observatory will act as a clearinghouse for monitoring Internet policy, regulatory and technological developments across the world. It will: · automatically monitor Internet-related policy developments at the global level, making full use of "big data" technologies; · identify links between different fora and discussions, with the objective to overcome "policy silos"; · help contextualise information, for example by collecting existing academic information on a specific topic, highlighting the historical and current position of the main actors on a particular issue, identifying the interests of different actors in various policy fields; · identify policy trends, via quantitative and qualitative methods such as semantic and sentiment analysis; · provide easy-to-use briefings and reports by incorporating modern visualisation techniques; The objective of GIPO is to increase expertise and understanding among all actors, including countries, NGOs and interest groups which may have so far been marginalised in Internet debates and decisions. The Commission fears that the vast range of policy areas impacted by the Internet, combined with a highly complex institutional framework, may cause disengagement from these discussions, which must be truly inclusive in order to ensure a globally legitimate and sustainable governance framework for the Internet. GIPO will not replace existing mechanisms and fora where global Internet governance is discussed, such as the Internet Governance Forum. To the contrary, its objective is to be a tool-box for stakeholders and an instrument to strengthen existing Internet policy-making processes, making full use of modern technology. The European Commission is 100% committed to supporting the open internet. It hopes to safeguard the open nature of global internet governance, including a model which is more inclusive of the needs and priorities of all actors, including those from the developing world. (see SPEECH/13/167<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-167_en.htm>). In the coming months, the Commission will carry out a feasibility study into GIPO, and pending those results, the development of the online platform could commence in 2014. Best -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.Glorioso@ec.europa.eu> Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6308 - Release Date: 05/08/13

1 0

ICANN New gTLD UPdate Webinar of May 9th
by Phil Corwin May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

http://t.co/Sxibimt4E0 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

1 0

Worth A Read
by Phil Corwin May 12, 2013

May 12, 2013

http://domainincite.com/12988-new-gtlds-applicants-should-brace-for-gac-del… 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

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice
by Ron Andruff May 11, 2013

May 11, 2013

Thanks for the summary Steve. While the message heard by different listeners is often interpreted to fit their end, I would say that Heather captured very well the message I was trying to articulate in our Friday call, I.e. The GAC is our friend in court. Our job is to put some 'meat on the bones' in support of their openings to move the process forward. Any derogatory commentary will only alienate our ally. As requested, I'll get a draft of the language around regulated industries and possible safeguards to you for our BC response by the start of the week. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Excerpts from GAC Chair Heather Dryden on Beijing GAC Advice Some key quotes from GAC Chair's interview (link) GAC Consensus Advice (where no GAC member objected to the advice) was given only for .africa and .gcc. Rest of the Beijing advice was not "GAC Consensus" but it "must be given due consideration" Safeguard advice was about pre-existing obligations and applicable laws. It was not to impose new obligations. Raises valid implementation questions. GAC advice suggests no new global regulatory regime. It's consistent with ICANN's existing role. It's preferable to have Safeguards measure in order to allow these new TLDs to proceed, rather than discussions about objections form GAC or others. GAC believes there should be good reason to have an exclusive generic TLD. The community may want discussion about the Public Interest. Question: Did GAC give new rules at the 11th hour? GAC suggested categories like this previously but this advice was not taken. So GAC is using the mechanisms ICANN created. GAC's primary role is to advise on public policy aspects. We have acted. Question: What if ICANN Board ignores this GAC Advice? We'd question the value of governments participating in ICANN. Need to show that GAC is a useful mechanism. Otherwise why would governments support this model? Question: what is GAC priority for Durban? The 14 strings for Further Consideration (1.c) and implementation of GAC advice on Safeguards. -- Steve DelBianco From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:21 PM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: GAC Chair Heather Dryden on the Beijing Communiqué and New gTLD Advice | 10 May 2013 - YouTube BC members considering the GAC Communique should watch this. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

2 1

For use in 10-May-2013 member call regarding BC comments on GAC Advice
by Steve DelBianco May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013

Here is an updated outline for Today's member discussion of BC comments on GAC Advice (below and attached). Under the red headings I summarized discussion from prior calls. Also attached are 8-May call minutes taken by Benedetta, our Secretariat. Public Comment page at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…. Initial comments due 14-May; Reply comments close 4-Jun. Full GAC Communique and Advice is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf Just the Safeguards in section IV 1.b and Annex 1 are being posted for public comment. But I think the BC could also post separate comments on other GAC advice, such as Singular-Plural contention sets, Whois, etc. BC commentary on GAC Advice, in general BC members discussed what we would say in introductory comments. Recognition that GAC has supported BC priorities on the new gTLD program. Also recognition that this GAC advice includes new requirements not in the Guidebook or Registry contract. Ron Andruff and Andrew Mack volunteered to draft a few paragraphs of introductory comments. 1. New gTLDs: a. GAC objections to specific applications (. africa . gcc . islam . halal) b. Safeguards for all new gTLDs (Annex 1) 1. Registry does Whois verification checks 2x per year 2. Registrant ToS should prohibit malware, botnets, phishing, piracy, TM/copyright infringement, fraud, deception, or anything contrary to applicable law. 3. Registry to periodically check domains in TLD for security threats (pharming, phishing, malware, botnets). Notify registrar and suspend domain if no immediate remedy. 4. Registry to maintain stats on inaccurate Whois , security threats found, and actions taken. 5. Registry needs mechanism to handling complaints about inaccurate Whois, security, etc. 6. Registry must ensure immediate consequences (incl suspension) for inaccurate Whois or domain use in breach of applicable law BC commentary on Safeguards for all TLDs: Elisa reminded BC members that we are required to take the perspective of business registrants and users/customers – even if we have other interests in new gTLDs. A majority of BC members on the1-May call generally support 1.b safeguards. (Ron, Anjali, David, Elisa, Sarah, Susan, Zahid) Subsequent discussion revealed nuances and concerns about some safeguards: Emmett O’Keefe believes GAC advice goes far beyond settled requirements in the final Guidebook. Andy Abrams prefers PDPs instead of ICANN implementing these safeguards based solely on GAC advice. Elisa noted that many of these items are already required of registrars per the proposed RAA. (need to identify these items) Susan Kawaguchi questioned how registries could do the security scans required in item 3. “Applicable law” could be extremely broad, covering laws of any nation whose registrants or users access the TLD. David Fares and Sarah Deutsch pointed out that broad application of law is usually beneficial for business users and registrants. John Berard questions how ICANNcould require these safeguards, since Guidebook and Contract are finalized. Steve pointed out that registry operators can add safeguards to their Public Interest Commitments (Specification 11), provided ICANN allows updates at this point. Phil Corwin responded that hundreds of unique PIC Specs would make compliance enforcement extremely difficult for ICANN. Phil Corwin opposes the “suspension” requirement in safeguards 3 and 6 unless there were due process protections for registrants. Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs: consumer protection, sensitive strings and regulated markets (non-exhaustive list of TLDs in annex 1, page 9) 1. Registrant ToS should require compliance with applicable laws, incl privacy, consumer protection, fair lending, organic farming, disclosures 2. Registry will require registrars to notify registrants of ToS at time of registration. 3. Registry will require registrants collecting sensitive health or financial data have reasonable security measures as defined by applicable laws and industry standards. 4. Registry to establish relationship with regulators or industry self-regulatory body, plus strategy to mitigate risks of fraud & illegal activities. 5. Registry will require registrants to have single point of contact for complaints and mitigation BC commentary on safeguards forCategory 1 TLDs: Item 3 raised concerns from most members on the call since it might be interpreted to require registries to police registrants as to their data security practices. Steve DelBianco suggested that BC recommend registries be required to indicate #3 as part of the Terms of Service for registrants -- but not to require registries to police registrant practices. Ron Andruff agreed, so BC will encourage ICANN to make #3 part of the ToS requirement in #1 and #2. Jim Baskin and Susan Kawaguchi said safeguards 3 and 4 would be placing too much new responsibility on registries to monitor conduct of registrants. Items 1 and 3 raise same comment on “applicable laws” as noted on safeguards for all TLDs (above). --remaining items to be discussed on May 8 and May 10 Additional Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs in financial, gambling, professional services, environmental, health and fitness, corporate identifiers, and charity: 6. Registry must verify and validate registrant authorization, charter, license or other credentials 7. if in doubt about credentials, Registry should consult with national supervisory authority 8. Registry must do periodic checks on registrant validity and compliance with above requirements. Proposed BC comment: q Registry should be responsible for safeguards 6,7,8 only where the registry commits to restricted registration, whether in their application, Public Interest Commitment (spec 11), or in TLD’s advertised registration policies. q Any government may request a registry add restrictive registration to their PICspec. q ICANN needs an approval process for registries needing to amend their PIC Specs at any time. Safeguards for Category 2 gTLDs: restricted registration policies 1. Strings in Category 1 may restrict registration, appropriate to risks. Be transparent and give equal access to registrars and registrants. 2. Generic gTLDs may have “exclusive” registry access if it serves a public interest goal. Non-exhaustive list of generic terms where applicant has proposed exclusive access: .antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, .carinsurance,.cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, .financialaid, .flowers, .food, .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail,.makeup, .map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon,.search, .shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, .tunes, .video, .watches, .weather, .yachts Proposed BC comment: q Agree with 1 above. q For 2, the Registry Code of Conduct was written with this in mind, since TLD operators must obtain an exemption to the code of conduct to register their own names (and avoid use of all registrars). Now ICANN should clarify the process and criteria for a TLD to meet the “public interest” test for the exemption. q Process to include public comment? q Criteria: The BC has previously proposed a public interest definition: ICANN serves the global public interest by maintaining the integrity and availability of registrations and resolutions. c. For further GAC consideration (.amazon .patagonia .date .spa .yun .thai .zulu .wine .vin ) d. Ability for applicants to change applied-for string in order to address GACconcerns -- no prior BC position. Concerns with changing strings? e. Opinion of impacted community should be duly taken into account -- consistent with BC support for community priority for new gTLDs (2010) f. Reconsider contention sets for singular and plural versions of the same string. --consistent with BC consensus discussions before and in Beijing. Proposed BC Comment: clarify the rule and re-do the independent panel review. g. Initial protection for intergovernmental organization names and acronyms atsecond level --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; --BC should support “Strawman” TMCH warning notices for IGOs -- at least until GAC review of RPMs one year after 75th gTLD is launched. 2. finalize RAA and require it for registrars selling domains in new gTLDs. --consistent with BC position (Jan-2012) 3. GAC’s 2007 Whois Principles should be “duly taken into account” by Directory Services Expert Working Group. (Susan K) 4. Amend registry agreement to require permanent protection of Olympics and Red Cross --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; 5. more information on Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specifications: 1. can 3rd party or governments raise concern about PIC compliance? 2. can applicants later amend their PICs? 3. will ICANN make registry operators aware of their PICs? 4. requirements to maximize public visibility of PICs? 5. how to amend where a registry made no PICs? (but should have) 6. Are PICs enforceable? --BC said ICANN should enforce PICs 7. Will ICANN follow sanctions recommended by PIC DRP? 8. Measures to remediate serious damage from past registration policies?

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice - Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST
by Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013

Hi all, My messages aren't getting to the list at the moment. Hopefully that is now fixed. Resending my earlier message (see below) just to test. Stéphane Le 10 mai 2013 à 11:20, Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <stephvg(a)gmail.com> a écrit : > Thanks Martin. > > The GAC has a big responsibility in the multi-stakeholder process and by presenting advice that appears half-assed at best it makes it look like it doesn’t take that responsibility seriously. > > I made the point the other day about the fact that GAC advice is not consistent with the ICANN model if it is an attempt to redefine, at the last minute, policy that was established through community BU development a long time ago. > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING > > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.StephaneVanGelder.com > ---------------- > Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant > LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ > > Le 10 mai 2013 à 09:28, martinsutton(a)hsbc.com a écrit : > >> All, >> >> This is an interesting article which illustrates the difficulties about who/how are strings determined to be in a particular category according to the GAC advice - http://domainincite.com/12944-this-is-how-stupid-the-gacs-new-gtlds-advice-…. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For the last few weeks I’ve been attempting to write a sensible analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee’s advice on new gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm. >> I failed, so you’ll have to read this instead. >> >> I’m sorry, but the GAC’s Beijing communique (pdf) just has too much stupid in it to take seriously. >> >> As a quick reminder, the bulk of the GAC’s advice was taken up by a list of hundreds of applied-for strings, in 12 categories, that “are likely to invoke a level of implied trust from consumers”. >> >> The GAC said that any string on the list should be subject to more stringent regulation than others, turning their registries into data security regulators and creating an obligation to partner with “relevant regulatory, or industry self-regulatory, bodies”. >> >> The GAC, having advised the creation of these unexpected obligations, decided that it wasn’t its responsibility to figure out whether any of them would be feasible to implement. >> >> That’s apparently up to ICANN to figure out. >> >> But that’s not the most infuriating part of the advice. The most infuriating part is the list of strings it provided, which by the GAC’s own admission was unhelpfully “non-exhaustive”. >> >> When one performs a cursory analysis of the list, and compares it to the strings that did not make it, the dumb just accumulates. >> >> My spies tell me that the GAC worked into the early hours on a few occasions during the Beijing meeting in order to put this advice together, and some might say it’s unfair to expect its members to have read and formed consensus opinions on all 1,930 original new gTLD applications. >> >> But the GAC wasn’t expected to read them all, nor did it. Its job was originally conceived of as commenting on the strings alone, and that appears to be what it ultimately did limit itself to. >> >> I think it’s fair to try to get some insight into the GAC’s collective thought process by looking at the “Category 1″ strings that it did put on the list and those that it did not. >> >> Not because I think there’s a coherent thought process at work here, but because I think there isn’t. >> >> Remember, the GAC had nine months to come up with its list. This article was written in an afternoon. >> >> Here’s my list of bizarre inconsistencies, failed reality checks and pure dumb I found in the Beijing communique. >> >> It’s non-exhaustive. >> >> Destroy all pirates! >> >> The GAC is clearly a bit worried that people might use new gTLDs to offer pirated and counterfeited goods (like they do in existing TLDs), so it has placed a few dozen content-related strings on its list. >> >> The intellectual property list is one of the longest of the 12 categories in the Beijing communique. >> >> But it could be longer. >> >> I wonder why, for example, the GAC doesn’t consider .stream a threat to copyright? Streaming sites are frequent targets of takedown notices. >> >> Why does .hiphop get a mention but not .country, a gTLD specifically designed for country music lovers? >> >> Why are .photography, .photo, .photos, .pictures and .pics not on the list? Image theft is pandemic online, enabled by default in browsers (no P2P required) and utterly trivial to execute. >> >> And if .tours is considered a problem, why not .events, or .tickets? >> >> We’re talking about sectors with abuse potential here, and ticketing is considered worthy of legislation in many places. Here in England you can get a £5,000 fine for reselling a ticket to a football match. >> >> Why is .tours even on the intellectual property list? It could just as easily refer to organized vacations or guide services provided by museums. Or the French city of the same name, for that matter. >> >> Why aren’t our friends in Tours getting the same GAC love as Spa and Date — towns in Belgium and Japan — which have caused the delay of advice on .spa and .date respectively? >> >> And why are .free, .gratis and .discount considered intellectual property problems? >> >> How is the .free registry supposed to follow the GAC’s demand that it partner with “relevant regulatory, or industry self‐regulatory, bodies” for free stuff? Does “.free” even have an “implied level of trust”? >> >> Is the GAC’s goal to kill off the bid by the back door? >> >> Goodbye .free, you couldn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t be piracy in your TLD so your application is forfeit? A potentially cool TLD, sacrificed on the altar of Big Copyright? >> >> Don’t even get me started on .art… >> >> Won’t somebody think of the children?! >> >> The GAC did not say why the “children” category exists, but I assume it’s about ensuring that the content in TLDs such as .kids and .school is suitable for “kids” (pick your own definition, the GAC doesn’t have one). >> >> It goes without saying that any TLD that is obliged to follow child-friendly rules will be saddled with a commercial death sentence, as the US government already knows full well. >> >> The GAC didn’t include .family on the list for some reason, but it did inexplicably include .game and .games. >> >> In the last game I played, my character stabbed a guy in the neck with a broken bottle, stole his clothes and threw his body off a cliff. Gaming is a predominantly adult pastime nowadays. >> >> Suggesting that .games sites need to be child-friendly is just as stupid as saying .movie or .book sites need to be child-friendly. >> >> I’m sure GAC chair Heather Dryden is far too sensible and grown-up to play games, but I’d be surprised if not a single member of the committee owns an Xbox. One of them should have pointed this nonsense out. >> >> If the GAC is not saying this — if it’s merely saying the .games registry should work cooperatively with the gaming industry — then why is .games in the “Children” category? >> >> The GAC Diet >> >> Another couple dozen strings are listed under the “health and fitness” category, ranging from the not-unreasonable, such as .doctor, to the terrifically broad, such as .diet and .care. >> >> Really? .care? >> >> Donuts, the .care applicant, has to partner with some kind of medical register in order to sell a TLD that could just as easily be used for customer support by a company that sells shoes? >> >> And .diet? If the GAC is concerned about internet users getting dodgy dieting advice from a disreputable .diet registrant, why not also issue advice against .eat and .food? >> >> If .fitness is a problem, why isn’t .yoga? >> >> Why isn’t the GAC bothered by .tattoo and .ink? Where I live, you need to be a licensed professional in order to stick people with an inky needle. >> >> For that matter, why aren’t .beauty and .salon a problem? Pretty much every beauty salon I’ve walked past in the last couple of years wants to inject toxins into my face for a fee. >> >> If we’re already saying games are for kids, that free equals fake, and that tours can be pirated, it doesn’t seem like too unreasonable a leap to to regulate .beauty too. >> >> You feed beefburgers to swans >> >> There’s a provision in the Beijing communique saying that every string on the GAC’s list must force its registrants “to comply with all applicable laws, including those that relate to… organic farming.” >> >> So why the hell doesn’t .farm appear on the list?!? >> >> Really, it doesn’t. I’ve triple-checked. It’s not there. According to the GAC’s advice, a .bingo registrant has to abide by organic farming laws but a .farm registrant does not. >> >> Some professions are more equal than others >> >> For all of the “Category 1″ strings the GAC has advised against, the headline argument is this: >> >> Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws. >> >> But there are plenty of strings that are “linked to regulated or professional sectors” that don’t merit a mention in the communique. >> >> Alcohol, for example. The sale of booze is regulated pretty much everywhere — in some places it’s illegal — but .pub and .bar don’t make it to the GAC’s advice. Neither does .vodka. >> >> If the GAC wants .weather to have strict controls — with no abuse scenario I can think of — why not a couple of TLDs that could, potentially, be used to sell alcohol over the internet? >> >> What of construction? There may have been advice against .engineer, but .construction, .building, .contractors and .build got a pass. Why? Governments everywhere regulate the building industry tightly. >> >> Here in the UK, if you want a plumber to come over and tinker with your heating you’d better hope they’re on the Gas Safe Register, but .plumber doesn’t show up in the Beijing communique. >> >> Why not? An abusive .dentist registrant could mess up my teeth, but he’ll need an expensive surgery to do it in. An abusive .plumber, on the other hand, can come over and blow up my house with no such outlay. >> >> Taxis are regulated in most big cities, but .taxi and .limo escaped GAC advice. Hell, even porn is strictly controlled in many countries, but .porn got a pass. >> >> I could go on. >> >> Anyway… >> >> You might think I’m being petty, but remember: the GAC got the list of applied-for strings last June the same as everybody else. It had plenty of time to get its advice list right. >> >> The GAC has a big responsibility in the multi-stakeholder process and by presenting advice that appears half-assed at best it makes it look like it doesn’t take that responsibility seriously. >> >> I know it does, but it doesn’t appear that way. >> >> Martin C SUTTON >> Group Risk >> Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ >> Group Security & Fraud Risk >> 8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom >> ________________________________________________________________ >> >> Phone +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074 >> Mobile +44 (0) 7774556680 >> Email martinsutton(a)hsbc.com >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to! >> >> >> >> >> From: "Benedetta Rossi" <bc-secretariat(a)icann.org> >> To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> >> Date: 09/05/2013 19:03 >> Subject: [bc-gnso] Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice - Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST >> Sent by: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org >> >> >> >> >> Dear BC Members, >> >> Please find attached the minutes & transcript from yesterday’s BC Members call on GAC Advice – Part 2 which took place at 11 am EST. >> >> These materials are also available on the BC Wiki: 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 >> www.bizconst.org >> >> [attachment "Minutes BC Members call MAY 08 2013.pdf" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "BC MAY 08 2013.pdf" deleted by Martin C SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] >> >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> HSBC Holdings plc >> Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom >> Registered in England number 617987 >> ************************************************************ >> ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. >

2 1

Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice - Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST
by Benedetta Rossi May 10, 2013

May 10, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes & transcript from yesterday's BC Members call on GAC Advice - Part 2 which took place at 11 am EST. These materials are also available on the BC Wiki: 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

3 2

BC Wiki has been Updated
by Benedetta Rossi May 9, 2013

May 9, 2013

Dear BC Members, I just wanted to let you know that the BC conference call page on the Wiki has been updated, and you can now view the minutes, transcripts, presentations & MP3 recording for the last two BC members calls here: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ The missing information for the moment is yesterday's BC call on GAC Advice Part 2. I have not yet received the transcript, and have therefore not yet drafted minutes for it. The other calls all have the materials on the Wiki. 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

I: [bc-gnso] For use in 8-May-2013 member call regarding BC comments on GAC Advice
by Benedetta Rossi May 8, 2013

May 8, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an email sent by Stephane Van Gelder which was unfortunately caught in an internal mailing list bounce and therefore did not get published on the list. -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat <x-msg://10694/bc-secretariat@icann.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home <x-msg://10694/www.bizconst.org> www.bizconst.org Le 7 mai 2013 à 11:58, Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <stephvg(a)gmail.com> a écrit : Thanks Steve, and apologies in advance as I will not be able to attend the call as I will be flying back from the Dallas INTA meeting at that time. I have one comment on the process questions that the GAC Advice brings into focus. Without going into the detail of each point, this advice can be seen as rewriting the new gTLD program's basic rulebook at a very late stage in the game. In fact, I would argue that the GAC's Beijing Communiqué reads almost like a reboot of the GNSO recommendations and the implementation work done since then. At the very least, this ought to be problematic from a timing point of view. BC members just like everyone else in the community participated in the bottom-up process that led to the GNSO recommendations and then the implementation of the program based on those recommendations. They did not include many of the new rules the GAC is asking for in its Beijing advice. Is this fair to applicants and the community? Is this a predictable process? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 6 mai 2013 à 17:01, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> a écrit : Here is an updated outline for Wednesday's member discussion of BC comments on GAC Advice (below and attached). Under the red headings I summarized discussion from last week on the first half of the outline. Also attached are 1-May call minutes taken by Benedetta, our Secretariat. 3rd attachment is transcript from that call. Public Comment page at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…. Initial comments due 14-May; Reply comments close 4-Jun. Full GAC Communique and Advice is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf Just the Safeguards in section IV 1.b and Annex 1 are being posted for public comment. But I think the BC could also post separate comments on other GAC advice, such as Singular-Plural contention sets, Whois, etc. BC commentary on GAC Advice, in general BC members discussed what we would say in introductory comments. Recognition that GAC has supported BC priorities on the new gTLD program. Also recognition that this GAC advice includes new requirements not in the Guidebook or Registry contract. Ron Andruff and Andrew Mack volunteered to draft a few paragraphs of introductory comments. 1. New gTLDs: a. GAC objections to specific applications (. africa . gcc . islam . halal) b. Safeguards for all new gTLDs (Annex 1) 1. Registry does Whois verification checks 2x per year 2. Registrant ToS should prohibit malware, botnets, phishing, piracy, TM/copyright infringement, fraud, deception, or anything contrary to applicable law. 3. Registry to periodically check domains in TLD for security threats (pharming, phishing, malware, botnets). Notify registrar and suspend domain if no immediate remedy. 4. Registry to maintain stats on inaccurate Whois , security threats found, and actions taken. 5. Registry needs mechanism to handling complaints about inaccurate Whois, security, etc. 6. Registry must ensure immediate consequences (incl suspension) for inaccurate Whois or domain use in breach of applicable law BC commentary on Safeguards for all TLDs: Elisa reminded BC members that we are required to take the perspective of business registrants and users/customers – even if we have other interests in new gTLDs. A majority of BC members on the 1-May call generally support 1.b safeguards. (Ron, Anjali, David, Elisa, Sarah, Susan, Zahid) Subsequent discussion revealed nuances and concerns about some safeguards: Emmett O’Keefe believes GAC advice goes far beyond settled requirements in the final Guidebook. Andy Abrams prefers PDPs instead of ICANN implementing these safeguards based solely on GAC advice. Elisa noted that many of these items are already required of registrars per the proposed RAA. (need to identify these items) Susan Kawaguchi questioned how registriescould do the security scans required in item 3. “Applicable law” could be extremely broad, covering laws of any nation whose registrants or users access the TLD. David Fares and Sarah Deutsch pointed out that broad application of law is usually beneficial for business users and registrants. John Berard questions how ICANN could require these safeguards, since Guidebook and Contract are finalized. Steve pointed out that registry operators can add safeguards to their Public Interest Commitments (Specification 11),provided ICANN allows updates at this point. Phil Corwin responded that hundreds of unique PIC Specs would make compliance enforcement extremely difficult for ICANN. Phil Corwin opposes the “suspension” requirement in safeguards 3 and 6 unless there were due process protections for registrants. Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs: consumer protection, sensitive strings and regulated markets (non-exhaustive list of TLDs in annex 1, page 9) 1. Registrant ToS should require compliance with applicable laws, incl privacy, consumer protection, fair lending, organic farming, disclosures 2. Registry will require registrars to notify registrants of ToS at time of registration. 3. Registry will require registrants collecting sensitive health or financial data have reasonable security measures as defined by applicable laws and industry standards. 4. Registry to establish relationship with regulators or industry self-regulatory body, plus strategy to mitigate risks of fraud & illegal activities. 5. Registry will require registrants to have single point of contact for complaints and mitigation BC commentary on safeguards forCategory 1 TLDs: Item 3 raised concerns from most members on the call since it might be interpreted to require registries to police registrants as to their data security practices. Steve DelBianco suggested that BC recommend registries be required to indicate #3 as part of the Terms of Service for registrants -- but not to require registries to police registrant practices. Ron Andruff agreed, so BC will encourage ICANN to make #3 part of the ToS requirement in #1 and #2. Jim Baskin and Susan Kawaguchi said safeguards 3 and 4 would be placing too much new responsibility on registries to monitor conduct of registrants. Items 1 and 3 raise same comment on “applicable laws” as noted on safeguards for all TLDs (above). --remaining items to be discussed on May 8 Additional Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs in financial, gambling, professional services, environmental, health and fitness, corporate identifiers, and charity: 6. Registry must verify and validate registrant authorization, charter, license or other credentials 7. if in doubt about credentials, Registry should consult with national supervisory authority 8. Registry must do periodic checks on registrant validity and compliance with above requirements. Safeguards for Category 2 gTLDs: restricted registration policies 1. Strings in Category 1 may restrict registration, appropriate to risks. Be transparent and give equal access to registrars and registrants. 2. Generic gTLDs may have “exclusive” registry access if it serves a public interest goal. Non-exhaustive list of generic terms where applicant has proposed exclusive access: .antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, .carinsurance,.cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, .financialaid, .flowers, .food, .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail,.makeup, .map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon,.search, .shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, .tunes, .video, .watches, .weather, .yachts c. For further GAC consideration (.amazon .patagonia .date .spa .yun .thai .zulu .wine .vin ) d. Ability for applicants to change applied-for string in order to address GACconcerns -- no prior BC position. Concerns with changing strings? e. Opinion of impacted community should be duly taken into account -- consistent with BC support for community priority for new gTLDs (2010) f. Reconsider contention sets for singular and plural versions of the same string. --consistent with BC consensus discussions before and in Beijing g. Initial protection for intergovernmental organization names and acronyms atsecond level --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; --BC should support “Strawman” TMCH warning notices for IGOs -- at least until GAC review of RPMs one year after 75th gTLD is launched. 2. finalize RAA and require it for registrars selling domains in new gTLDs. --consistent with BC position (Jan-2012) 3. GAC’s 2007 Whois Principles should be “duly taken into account” by Directory Services Expert Working Group. (Susan K) 4. Amend registry agreement to require permanent protection of Olympics and Red Cross --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; 5. more information on Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specifications: 1. can 3rd party or governments raise concern about PIC compliance? 2. can applicants later amend their PICs? 3. will ICANN make registry operators aware of their PICs? 4. requirements to maximize public visibility of PICs? 5. how to amend where a registry made no PICs? (but should have) 6. Are PICs enforceable? --BC said ICANN should enforce PICs 7. Will ICANN follow sanctions recommended by PIC DRP? 8. Measures to remediate serious damage from past registration policies? <Notes for BC comments on Beijing GAC Advice.docx><Minutes BC Members call MAY 1 2013[1].pdf><BC May 1 2013.pdf>

1 0

For use in today's member call regarding BC comments on GAC Advice
by Steve DelBianco May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013

Here is an outline for today's member discussion of BC comments on GAC Advice (below and attached) Public Comment page at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…. Initial comments due 14-May; Reply comments close 4-Jun. Full GAC Communique and Advice is at http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf Just the Safeguards in section IV 1.b and Annex 1 are being posted for public comment. But let's discuss the BC also commenting on other GAC advice, such as Singular-Plural contention sets, Whois, etc. 1. New gTLDs: a. GAC objections to specific applications (. africa . gcc . islam . halal) b. Safeguards for new gTLDs (Annex 1) 1. Registry does Whois verification checks 2x per year 2. Registrant ToS should prohibit malware, botnets, phishing, piracy, TM/copyright infringement, fraud, deception, or anything contrary to applicable law. 3. Registry to periodically check domains in TLD for security threats (pharming, phishing, malware, botnets). Notify registrar and suspend domain if no immediate remedy. 4. Registry to maintain stats on inaccurate Whois , security threats found, and actions taken. 5. Registry needs mechanism to handling complaints about inaccurate Whois, security, etc. 6. Registry must ensure immediate consequences (incl suspension) for inaccurate Whois or domain use in breach of applicable law Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs: consumer protection, sensitive strings and regulated markets (non-exhaustive list of TLDs in annex 1, page 9) 1. Registrant ToS should require compliance with applicable laws, incl privacy, consumer protection, fair lending, organic farming, disclosures 2. Registry will require registrars to notify registrants of ToS at time of registration. 3. Registry will require registrants collecting sensitive health or financial data have reasonable security measures as defined by applicable laws and industry standards. 4. Registry to establish relationship with regulators or industry self-regulatory body, plus strategy to mitigate risks of fraud & illegal activities. 5. Registry will require registrars to have single point of contact for complaints and mitigation Additional Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs in financial, gambling, professional services, environmental, health and fitness, corporate identifiers, and charity: 6. Registry must verify and validate registrant authorization, charter, license or other credentials 7. if in doubt about credentials, Registry should consult with national supervisory authority 8. Registry must do periodic checks on registrant validity and compliance with above requirements. Safeguards for Category 2 gTLDs: restricted registration policies 1. Strings in Category 1 may restrict registration, appropriate to risks. Be transparent and give equal access to registrars and registrants. 2. Generic gTLDs may have “exclusive” registry access if it serves a public interest goal. Non-exhaustive list of generic terms where applicant has proposed exclusive access: .antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, .carinsurance,.cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, .financialaid, .flowers, .food, .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail,.makeup, .map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon,.search, .shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, .tunes, .video, .watches, .weather, .yachts c. For further GAC consideration (.amazon .patagonia .date .spa .yun .thai .zulu .wine .vin ) d. Ability for applicants to change applied-for string in order to address GACconcerns -- no prior BC position. Concerns with changing strings? e. Opinion of impacted community should be duly taken into account -- consistent with BC support for community priority for new gTLDs (2010) f. Reconsider contention sets for singular and plural versions of the same string. --consistent with BC consensus discussions before and in Beijing g. Initial protection for intergovernmental organization names and acronyms atsecond level --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; --BC should support “Strawman” TMCH warning notices for IGOs -- at least until GAC review of RPMs one year after 75th gTLD is launched. 2. finalize RAA and require it for registrars selling domains in new gTLDs. --consistent with BC position (Jan-2012) 3. GAC’s 2007 Whois Principles should be “duly taken into account” by Directory Services Expert Working Group. (Susan K) 4. Amend registry agreement to require permanent protection of Olympics and Red Cross --no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC; 5. more information on Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specifications: 1. can 3rd party or governments raise concern about PIC compliance? 2. can applicants later amend their PICs? 3. will ICANN make registry operators aware of their PICs? 4. requirements to maximize public visibility of PICs? 5. how to amend where a registry made no PICs? (but should have) 6. Are PICs enforceable? --BC said ICANN should enforce PICs 7. Will ICANN follow sanctions recommended by PIC DRP? 8. Measures to remediate serious damage from past registration policies?

1 1