- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires, Argentina
by Benedetta Rossi May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the ICANN Announcement for the Fellowshit Application Round for ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- 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-01may13-en.htm Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN 48 in Buenos Aires, Argentina 1 May 2013 How Do I Apply for the Fellowship Program The Fellowship Program has demonstrated success in its mission to build capacity in the ICANN multi-stakeholder environment through focused interactive engagement between newcomers to ICANN and community members at each of the ICANN meetings. The program seeks to identify members of the Internet community who either have not previously been able to participate in ICANN processes and constituent organizations, or those who require further exposure to the Internet community and its work but cannot travel and attend a meeting without financial support. This outreach program seeks participants from developing regions and countries of the world, in order to help create a broader base of knowledgeable constituents who will become the new voice of experience in their regions and beyond. Applications to become an ICANN Fellow are assessed for each meeting by an independent selection committee. Priority is given to applicants who: meet minimum program requirements; are current residents of developing and least developed nations; and are interested in participating in the ICANN multi-stakeholder process and its supporting organizations, advisory committees or stakeholder groups. An effort will be made to include participants from the African region as it is the site of this ICANN meeting. All confirmed fellowship participants must comply with the terms and conditions of the Fellowship program, as outlined at <http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships/terms-conditions> http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships/terms-conditions. As stated within these terms and conditions, ICANN is a California non-profit public benefit corporation and must therefore comply with all the laws and regulations of California and the United States. Fellows are responsible for obtaining all travel visas once accepted into the program. ICANN will purchase tickets for Fellows after all necessary documentation has been obtained and Fellows demonstrate that they have obtained all necessary travel visas. Once all of the requirements for travel are met, the Fellowship program arranges for and covers the costs for airfare and hotel, as well as providing a stipend to assist with some meeting and subsistence costs. The stipend is provided after each selected candidate successfully completes the requirements of the Fellowship program, Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes during and after the meeting. As always, registration for ICANN's meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. <http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships> Find out more » Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Proposed Modification of GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions
by Benedetta Rossi May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding the Public Comment: Proposed Modification of GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions. 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-02may13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02may13-en.htm Proposed Modification of GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 2 May 2013 Comment Close Date: 23 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 24 May 2013 Reply Close Date: 14 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02may13-en.htm> Public Comment Announcement <mailto:comments-gnso-op-procedures-02may13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-op-procedures-02may13/> View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Categories/Tags: * Policy Processes * Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council is proposing a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures to make the deadline for the submission of reports and motions more precise and uniform. Current Status: As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes. Next Steps: Following the closing of the public comment forum, the GNSO Council will review the comments received and revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate. Staff Contact: Julie Hedlund <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Propo sed%20Modification%20of%20GNSO%20Operating%20Procedures%20Concerning%20the%2 0Deadline%20for%20the%20Submission%20of%20Reports%20and%20Motions%20public%2 0comment%20period> Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity. The GNSO Council thus proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures to make the deadline for the submission of reports and motions more precise and uniform. The proposed modification to the existing language in section 3.3 of the Procedures is as follows, with additions in bold and deletions stricken: Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23:59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO Council is requesting community input on this proposed modification to the GNSO Operating Procedures. Section II: Background: The GNSO, its description, purpose(s), structures (e.g. Council, Stakeholder Groups), and governance mandate are covered in ICANN Bylaws, <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X> Article X, Sections 1-6. The Operating Procedures of the GNSO describes those supplementary elements of administration, governance, and other logistics/mechanics that are not already prescribed in the aforementioned ICANN Bylaws. Taken together, the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO Operating Procedures are intended to provide a complete set of rules, procedures, and practices for governing the operations of the GNSO. The ICANN Bylaws require that any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures are subject to a minimum 21 day public comment period ('The GNSO Operating Procedures shall be effective upon the expiration of a twenty-one (21) day public comment period, and shall be subject to Board oversight and review' - see article X, section 3, item 4, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X) Section III: Document and Resource Links: Current version of the GNSO Operating Procedures see <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf [PDF, 488 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: Not applicable _____ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to develop charter for GNSO Working Group on Policy & Implementation
by Benedetta Rossi May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement regarding a call for volunteers for a drafting team to develop charter for GNSO WG on Policy & Implementation. Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to develop charter for GNSO Working Group on Policy & Implementation In brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team that will be tasked to develop a charter for a Working Group to address issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy & implementation that affect the GNSO (see Staff Discussion Paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j an13-en.pdf> and session in Beijing <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> ). The Drafting Team is expected to submit the proposed Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. What This Team Will Do The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> taking into account the Staff Discussion Paper as well as the discussions that took place in Beijing. At a minimum, the GNSO Council expects that the subsequent Working Group would provide recommendations on the following: 1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy / implementation related discussions 2. Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO "Policy Guidance" 3. A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO Policy Recommendations and 4. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected to function and operate. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this DT will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Drafting Team will be archived publicly. Drafting Team members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. <http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> How to Join The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The DT will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Policy% 20%2526%20Implementation%20DT> GNSO secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. The paper identifies a number of questions that the community may want to consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. Following several discussions by the GNSO Council on this topic, the GNSO Council has now decided to form a drafting team to draft a Charter for a Working Group which will be tasked to provide concrete recommendations on how to address some of these issues from a GNSO perspective. -- 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

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Outline for discussion of RAA comments today
by Elisa Cooper May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Thanks Stephane – this wasn’t discussed on the call, so thank you for contributing. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephvg@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 1:26 AM To: Elisa Cooper Cc: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Outline for discussion of RAA comments today Elisa, Both excellent points. Your point 2 brings to mind a similar need for registrants, who would certainly gain from having a better understanding of the RAA. I'm sure Icann can help in this regard as well. Sorry if this was already covered in the call. Best, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone4 Le 2 mai 2013 à 22:11, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>> a écrit : Steve, Once again, great job in leading the discussion covering the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Two additional overarching points I think we should also consider adding to our RAA comments are as follows: 1) With so many new registrar obligations, we are hopeful that ICANN Compliance is properly staffed to enforce the new agreement. 2) We would encourage ICANN to proactively educate all registrars of the new requirements, so that they all understand the new obligations and can comply with the new agreement. Thanks again. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH 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: Thursday, May 02, 2013 8:26 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Outline for discussion of RAA comments today Here's an outline for today's member discussion of BC comments on the RAA. (11am eastern US time) Public Comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>. The proposed final RAA is here<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-22apr13…>. Initial comments due 13-May Outline: 1. Privacy/Proxy Specification (link<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…>) There is no Service level specified for timing and methods to relay communications and reveal data to complainant. 2. Whois Maintain bulk access to Whois (port 43) "Willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable whois information" as basis to suspend a registration (3.7.7.2) If Registrant data isn't validated in 15 days, should registrations be suspended during manual validation? Should same accuracy requirement apply to Account Holder data as well? 3. Enforcement of Registrant Rights (link<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…>), in particular: "You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence." Do we need additional clarity in order to enforce Registrar obligations? Proposed RAA says: RAA 3.7.10 Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants’ Rights and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law. Note: during the Beijing meeting, ICANN attorney Samantha Eisner told the BC that Public comment would be particularly valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Fwd: ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN’s Bylaws
by Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Colleagues, FYI. An interesting read. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN’s Bylaws > > ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has filed a Request for Reconsideration with ICANN’s Board of Directors regarding the staff’s decision to expand the scope of the trademark claims service beyond that provided by community consensus policy and in contradiction to ICANN Bylaws. > > Specifically at issue is ICANN staff’s unilateral decision to adopt the “trademark +50” proposal for new domains, which would provide trademark holders who have previously won a UDRP or court decision with rights to 50 additional derivations of their trademark in ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). Under staff’s plan, large trademark holders that register in the clearinghouse will be provided thousands of derivations of their trademarks since each separate country’s registration of the same trademark provides the brand owner with an additional 50 entries in the TMCH.[1] Entries in the TMCH trigger infringement warning notices to domain name registrants which can lead to increased liability for registrants, discourage lawful registrations, and chill speech on the Internet. > > ICANN’s bottom-up community-developed process for creating policy had approved of a TMCH model that allowed “exact matches” of trademarks only to be placed in the TMCH. In 2007, ICANN’s GNSO Policy Council, including representatives from the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies, approved the GNSO recommendations that created special protections for trademark rights by a supermajority vote.[2] As part of the multi-year consensus process, both the subsequent Special Trademarks Implementation (STI) Team and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) considered the issue of providing rights to exact matches or additional derivations, and both community-developed teams specifically opted for exact matches only to be placed into the TMCH. ICANN’s CEO testified before U.S. Congress in 2012 that expanding the scope of the TMCH further would be inappropriate since it would create new rights that do not exist in law and ICANN should not be creating unprecedented rights.[3] > > Many months after the final TMCH model of exact matches only was published in ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook and new domain businesses relied on it when filing their applications, ICANN’s Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies lobbied ICANN’s new CEO to make drastic changes to the community-developed policy and grant additional trademark rights in the TMCH. > > After the October 2012 Toronto ICANN Meeting, a “strawman solution” was proposed by ICANN’s new CEO which included a number of IPC/BC’s substantive policy proposals to give trademark holders additional privileges in the domain name system, including changing the exact matches only standard approved of by the community. > > Yet ICANN’s CEO recognized that expanding the scope of the trademark claims service was a policy matter requiring GNSO Council guidance, as he stated on his blog[4] in December 2012; and the CEO did write to the GNSO Council to request guidance on this policy proposal. Under ICANN’s Bylaws, staff may not change GNSO-approved policy, except under a strict process that involves consulting with the GNSO and a 2/3 vote of the Board of Directors. > > NCSG filed comments on the proposed policy changes and warned against re-opening previously closed consensus agreements and circumventing ICANN’s stated bottom-up policy development process.[5] In addition to the flawed process for adopting this policy, NCSG also detailed substantive concerns with staff’s proposal to expand trademark rights beyond anything that exists in trademark law. It came as no surprise that only members of the IPC and BC supported the strawman proposals in ICANN’s comment period.[6] > > In the GNSO Council’s February 29, 2013 response to the CEO regarding the proposal to expand the scope of trademark claims, the GNSO Chair wrote, “the majority of the council feels that proposal is best addressed as a policy concern, where the interest of all stakeholders can be considered.”[7] Thus the GNSO Council also determined this specific proposal to be a policy matter, requiring consultation from the entire community before such a change could be made to existing GNSO Council approved policy. > > Yet with only an email sent on 20 March 2013, ICANN staff announced in an attached memorandum that it would expand the scope of the trademark claims service to give trademark holders rights to 50 additional derivations of their trademark, in contradiction to GNSO developed policy of exact matches only and the subsequent requested GNSO Council guidance on the matter.[8] > > Staff’s only explanation for such a drastic shift in the creation of new rights: “this proposal appears to be a reasonable add on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service”. Thus with a single line of evasive text, years of hard-fought community consensus policy was brushed under the rug and the new era of policy development via ICANN staff edict was solidified. > > On 19 April 2013 NCSG filed this Request for Reconsideration of the staff decision because ICANN did not follow its stated process for changing GNSO-approved policy. If ICANN wants to deviate from Supermajority GNSO-approved policy, it must follow the process outlined in the organization’s Bylaws, Annex A Section 9.[9] As an organization that holds itself out as a champion of the bottom-up policy development process, ICANN is obligated to comply with community-developed policies, unless the Board of Directors can muster the necessary 2/3rd vote to over-turn the community decision. That mandatory process was not followed by ICANN’s staff or Board in over-turning the community-approved policy in favor of staff’s policy to expand the scope of TMCH. > > ICANN’s Board Governance Committee has thirty days in which to make to a recommendation to ICANN’s Board of Directors regarding the NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration or report to the Board on why no final recommendation is available and provide a timeframe for making a final recommendation on the matter. ICANN’s entire Board should consider the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee at its next regularly-scheduled Board meeting. > > Under Article IV Section 2 of ICANN’s Bylaws, the Request for Reconsideration process is a mechanism intended to reinforce ICANN’s accountability to the community for operating in a manner consistent with its Bylaws.[10] Because the staff’s unilateral decision to change GNSO-approved policy was not consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws and contradicted ICANN stated policy, NCSG filed the Request to correct the error and bring ICANN into compliance with its Bylaws and stated policies. > > NCSG requests that the Board reinstate the community-developed policy of giving trademark holders rights to include exact matches of their trademark only in the TMCH, which was the policy stated in ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook when ICANN accepted applications for new domains. > > NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration:http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsidera… > Attachments to NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-att… > ICANN Website on Requests for Reconsideration: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration > [1] http://domainincite.com/12451-loophole-gives-trademark-owners-unlimited-cle… > > [2] http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm > > [3] http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Amnesia > > [4] http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me… > > [5] http://ipjustice.org/wp/2013/01/14/statement-of-icanns-non-commercial-stake… > > [6] http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00096.html See also: > > Comments of Registrar Stakeholder Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00027.html > > Comments from New TLD Applicant Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00014.html > > Comments of Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00029.html > > Comments of the Internet Service Provider Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00011.html > > Comments of Public Interest Registry: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00024.html > > [7] http://gnso.icann.org/bitcache/d8eaf7ce8d121b69d340d1d14223520fd7d478b3?vid… > > [8] http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio… > > [9] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA > > GNSO Policy Development Process > > Section 9. Board Approval Processes. a. Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > b. In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. > > c. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement. > > d. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the policy in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN. > > [10] http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV > >

1 0

Outline for discussion of RAA comments today
by Steve DelBianco May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

Here's an outline for today's member discussion of BC comments on the RAA. (11am eastern US time) Public Comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>. The proposed final RAA is here<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-22apr13…>. Initial comments due 13-May Outline: 1. Privacy/Proxy Specification (link<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…>) There is no Service level specified for timing and methods to relay communications and reveal data to complainant. 2. Whois Maintain bulk access to Whois (port 43) "Willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable whois information" as basis to suspend a registration (3.7.7.2) If Registrant data isn't validated in 15 days, should registrations be suspended during manual validation? Should same accuracy requirement apply to Account Holder data as well? 3. Enforcement of Registrant Rights (link<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…>), in particular: "You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence." Do we need additional clarity in order to enforce Registrar obligations? Proposed RAA says: RAA 3.7.10 Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants’ Rights and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law. Note: during the Beijing meeting, ICANN attorney Samantha Eisner told the BC that Public comment would be particularly valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

4 3

Has ICANN Already Taken the GAC’s Advice on “Closed Generic” gTLDs?
by Phil Corwin May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

BC members – I have just published a guest post entitled “Has ICANN Already Taken the GAC’s Advice on “Closed Generic” gTLDs?’. You may find it of interest… http://www.thedomains.com/2013/05/02/guest-post-has-icann-already-taken-the… 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] Outline for discussion of RAA comments today
by Marilyn Cade May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

Apologies to miss call today, and yesterday. Will read transcripts of course, and try to provide relevant comments. Pre existing commitmebts precluded availabilty. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:26:16 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Outline for discussion of RAA comments today Here's an outline for today's member discussion of BC comments on the RAA. (11am eastern US time) Public Comment page is here <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> . The proposed final RAA is here <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-22apr13… > . Initial comments due 13-May Outline: 1. Privacy/Proxy Specification (link <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…> ) There is no Service level specified for timing and methods to relay communications and reveal data to complainant. 2. Whois Maintain bulk access to Whois (port 43) "Willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable whois information" as basis to suspend a registration (3.7.7.2) If Registrant data isn't validated in 15 days, should registrations be suspended during manual validation? Should same accuracy requirement apply to Account Holder data as well? 3. Enforcement of Registrant Rights (link <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights…> ), in particular: "You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence." Do we need additional clarity in order to enforce Registrar obligations? Proposed RAA says: RAA 3.7.10 Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or provide a link to the Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law. Note: during the Beijing meeting, ICANN attorney Samantha Eisner told the BC that Public comment would be particularly valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

New member, introducing myself
by Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting May 1, 2013

May 1, 2013

Hello BC members, As the firm I represent is now officially a BC member, and as I am its voting representative, I wanted to thank this group for welcoming me and introduce my firm and myself. STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING (SVGC) was set up to leverage my experience as a professional journalist, a seasoned member of the domain industry and an entrepreneur. SVGC is a UK-based company operating in both England and France. It has clients in the UK, France, the US, Asia and the Arab countries. It provides consultancy in a number of areas, including: setting up companies in France, managing Internet-based projects, developing clients' online presence and strategy (including domain name related strategies and social media related strategies), lobbying, working and interacting with governments and governmental authorities, interfacing with registries and registrars, drafting targeted media content, understanding Internet governance, conducting business reviews. I am the company's founder and chairman. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science. I studied at university in England. I am fully bilingual and bicultural in English and French. My first career was in journalism, where I worked as a print and TV journalist for more than 10 years. I then cofounded a corporate registrar in France called INDOM, which I built up to become France's market leader and then sold to UK-based Group NBT (now NetNames) in 2010. I stayed with NetNames until December 2012. I left NetNames to set up SVGC. I have good experience of the world of Internet governance. I served as an elected Board member for the French registry AFNIC from 2004 to 2010. I was nominated by European registry EURid to serve on its Requirements Panel and its Code of Conduct Council. INDOM has been a member of the Registrar Stakeholder Group since 2007 and I have been a member of that group's Executive Committee since 2008, when I was elected treasurer. In 2009 I was elected GNSO Council rep and nominated to be the CPH's Vice Chair in 2010. I was elected Chair of the GNSO Council in 2011 and again in 2012. I currently sit on the NomCom as the RrSG's rep there. I have already informed the RrSG Excom that I am now a BC member and that once my current NomCom term ends in Q3 this year, I will no longer seek to represent the RrSG in any position. I am delighted to be a member of the BC and look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in the months to come, either in person or via this list. I will be attending the INTA meeting in Dallas next week, so if any BC members are around, it would be a pleasure to meet you. Thanks for reading and sorry for this long first email to the BC list ;) Best, 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/

5 5

Re: [bc-gnso] New member, introducing myself
by Marilyn Cade May 1, 2013

May 1, 2013

Joining Chris in welcome to Stephane, It is always helpful for new members to introduce themselves! I think there may be other new members/and would be great to hear from you as well. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andalucia.com> Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:12:31 To: <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] New member, introducing myself Welcome on board Stephane! I am sure you will make a valuable contribution to the work of the BC. Best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting Enviado el: miércoles, 01 de mayo de 2013 13:11 Para: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] New member, introducing myself Hello BC members, As the firm I represent is now officially a BC member, and as I am its voting representative, I wanted to thank this group for welcoming me and introduce my firm and myself. STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING (SVGC) was set up to leverage my experience as a professional journalist, a seasoned member of the domain industry and an entrepreneur. SVGC is a UK-based company operating in both England and France. It has clients in the UK, France, the US, Asia and the Arab countries. It provides consultancy in a number of areas, including: * setting up companies in France, * managing Internet-based projects, * developing clients' online presence and strategy (including domain name related strategies and social media related strategies), * lobbying, * working and interacting with governments and governmental authorities, * interfacing with registries and registrars, * drafting targeted media content, * understanding Internet governance, * conducting business reviews. I am the company's founder and chairman. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science. I studied at university in England. I am fully bilingual and bicultural in English and French. My first career was in journalism, where I worked as a print and TV journalist for more than 10 years. I then cofounded a corporate registrar in France called INDOM, which I built up to become France's market leader and then sold to UK-based Group NBT (now NetNames) in 2010. I stayed with NetNames until December 2012. I left NetNames to set up SVGC. I have good experience of the world of Internet governance. I served as an elected Board member for the French registry AFNIC from 2004 to 2010. I was nominated by European registry EURid to serve on its Requirements Panel and its Code of Conduct Council. INDOM has been a member of the Registrar Stakeholder Group since 2007 and I have been a member of that group's Executive Committee since 2008, when I was elected treasurer. In 2009 I was elected GNSO Council rep and nominated to be the CPH's Vice Chair in 2010. I was elected Chair of the GNSO Council in 2011 and again in 2012. I currently sit on the NomCom as the RrSG's rep there. I have already informed the RrSG Excom that I am now a BC member and that once my current NomCom term ends in Q3 this year, I will no longer seek to represent the RrSG in any position. I am delighted to be a member of the BC and look forward to meeting as many of you as possible in the months to come, either in person or via this list. I will be attending the INTA meeting in Dallas next week, so if any BC members are around, it would be a pleasure to meet you. Thanks for reading and sorry for this long first email to the BC list ;) Best, 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 <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>

2 1