- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

by Marilyn Cade Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010

Marilyn S. Cade 202 360 1196 or 202 251 6787 mscade(a)att.net or marilynscade(a)hotmail.com

1 0

test message -- please ignore
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] homeland-security-goes-domain-capture-spree
by Chris Chaplow Dec. 4, 2010

Dec. 4, 2010

Best explanation I have seen http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/ Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

FW: ICANN releases Phase II economic study
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

New gTLD Economic Study Phase II Report is Released 3 December 2010 Following on from the previously published Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/economic-analysis-of-new-gtlds-16 jun10-en.pdf> [334 KB] (June 2010), Phase II of this independent economic analysis has now been completed. See Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies (Phase II Report) <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/phase-two-economic-considerations -03dec10-en.pdf>[PDF, 782 KB]. In this Phase II Report, Greg Rosston from Stanford University and Michael Katz from the University of California Berkeley, with the cooperation of Compass Lexecon and its Theresa Sullivan, provide an analysis including a taxonomy of gTLD types, potential benefits of new gTLDs, potential costs of new gTLDs, results from empirical research on the domain names associated with top international brands, and a high-level summary of the empirical findings of their overall analysis All other economic studies performed in preparation for the New gtLD Program can be found onhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm under the heading, "TLD Demand and Economic Analysis

4 4

ETNO input on draft ATRT recommendations
by Kladouras Konstantinos Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

Dear BC colleagues, For your information, please find attached the ETNO response to the public consultation on the draft proposed recommendations of the Review Team on Accountability and Transparency. Best regards, Konstantin Konstantin KLADOURAS Chairman ETNO IGV-WG OTE S.A. Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE Tel: +30 210 611 8319 Mob: +30 697 33 44 006 e-mail: kkladouras(a)ote.gr<mailto:kkladouras@ote.gr>

2 1

Documents updated on website
by Chris Chaplow Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

Dear Members, Please note the latest edition (30th Dec) of Steve DelBiancos policy calendar (Steve emailed this to the list a few days ago) has been added to the home page of our website. www.bizconst.org In the quick links on the right hand side of every page I have added the BC factsheet. Principally for Outreach it is a 2 page cut down version of our brochure. There is a version in English and one in Spanish for Cartagena. I have some printed copies with me. The BC application form has also been added to the quick links for ease of download. Best regards, Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

Your ballot for Proposed BC Comment on ICANN's Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook (voting ends 6-Dec-2010)
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

The BC is now polling members to determine support for proposed comments on ICANN's Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook (published 12-Nov-2010) Attached are two documents: *** Proposed BC comments. Filename: "BC on Final App Guidebook [Draft 5].pdf" *** A blank ballot form. Filename: "BC Ballot Form 2-Dec-2010.doc" Use this doc to indicate support or non-support for these proposed comments. Voting instructions for BC members: Attached is your ballot form. Please complete your ballot and save the doc to your local computer. Then attach your saved ballot to an email and send to bcvotes(a)hotmail.com<mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> Please include the words "Guidebook Comments" in the subject line of your ballot email. When the voting closes at 16:00 EDT on Monday 6-Dec-2010, we will tally the ballots and publish results. Thanks to all who contributed to these draft comments.

1 0

ICANN waves the caution flag at ICANN on new gTLDs
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 3, 2010

Dec. 3, 2010

Read all about it at http://www.Circleid.com Or at http://blog.netchoice.org Or see below. US Government waves the caution flag at ICANN<http://blog.netchoice.org/2010/12/us-government-waves-the-caution-flag-at-i…> This month, ICANN is driving hard to get two of its horses to the finish line. The first is barely a year old – it’s the first formal review of ICANN’s accountability and transparency. The second horse is going on 4 years old: ICANN’s plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains (TLDs) for the Internet. Just as these horses have entered the home stretch, one of the racecourse officials is vigorously waving the yellow caution flag. And ICANN would do well to pull back on the reins. Earlier today, US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) head Lawrence Strickling sent a letter<http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf> to ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush, regarding the proposed ‘final’ Guidebook for new TLDs. The NTIA letter suggests that in its race for new TLDs, ICANN is trampling its obligations to assess costs and benefits and to explain its unilateral decision to eliminate restrictions on cross ownership among registries and registrars. ICANN agreed to these obligations just a year ago, when it signed an Affirmation of Commitments<http://icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm> with NTIA. In the Affirmation, ICANN committed to do ‘fact-based policy development’, and to ‘provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken’. NTIA doesn’t think ICANN is meeting its commitment, and most of us in the online business community agree. The concerns raised by NTIA are plainly stated, and are similar to comments coming in from many other government and Internet stakeholders. But there’s a risk that this plain message could be obscured by concerns about the US Government re-asserting its legacy of oversight over ICANN, which it created over 10 years ago as a way to internationalize Internet management. NTIA stepped back from formal oversight of ICANN when it signed the Affirmation of Commitments in October 2009. I was among those who applauded<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090930_icanns_september_surprise> the Affirmation agreement as a way to transition ICANN from US oversight to independence, while providing explicit accountability to public and private sector stakeholders. So it’s a little bit surprising for the US Government to assert itself so strongly just a year after ICANN’s transition from US oversight. After all, the Affirmation created new mechanisms for global stakeholders to conduct reviews of ICANN’s execution for things like accountability and maintaining security of the DNS. But as a signer of the Affirmation, NTIA is doing what any contract partner must do: if you think your counterpart is heading down a path that will lead to failure and broken obligations, you need to say so -- in no uncertain terms and as early as possible, so that course corrections can be taken before things go too far off course. That’s pretty much what NTIA is doing now by waving the caution flag at ICANN. The Agency’s letter cites the same principles and obligations that guided the Accountability Review just completed, as well as the next Accountability Review sometime after 2012. These principles and obligations, however, need to apply every day, not just at review time every 3 years. Like it or not, the Affirmation of Commitments is now the only mechanism we have when it comes to holding ICANN accountable to its role and responsibilities to the global public interest. But it’s not just the job of US Government to point out how ICANN is straying from its obligations. All of us in the Internet community need to hold ICANN accountable, in online comments and on-site in Cartagena next week. It’s not just good policy that’s at stake here; a botched new TLD plan could endanger ICANN’s very existence. ICANN is riding for a fall if it disregards concerns of global governments and businesses. Because there’s another horse in this race: the United Nations and its 185-year old bureaucracy, the ITU. The ITU is riding a much older and slower horse, as I described in a post<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101130_a_tale_of_two_governance_models> this week. If ICANN stumbles, you can bet the ITU will ride into the lead. And we will see a very different kind of accountability if the United Nations takes charge of the internet: each government gets one vote, with no votes for civil society or private sector folks who built the internet and create nearly all the content and commerce. Many of us in the private sector, along with a handful of governments, have been defending the ICANN model from growing encroachment by the United Nations and the ITU. ICANN needs to show some appreciation for its precarious situation. ICANN can start by easing-up on the reins and explaining how and why it’s making unilateral decisions. And ICANN should deliver the economic study of costs and benefits before it tries to force a final plan for launching TLDs. Think of it as putting the horse back in front of the cart where he belongs. --Steve DelBianco

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Members' archive of ExComm email list
by Michael Palage Dec. 2, 2010

Dec. 2, 2010

Open and transparent - I would vote for it. Mike just wondering why it took you sooo long to come up with this idea. Would have been an even better idea a couple of years ago when you first started on the excom. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:54 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote: > I have proposed to the ExComm that we make an archive of our email > list available for Members, to promote professionalism in the ExComm > and transparency to our membership. I anticipate the costs of that > implementation to be next to nil. There has been no expressions of > disagreement amongst the ExComm. Our Chair suggested this was > relevant to discussion of the BC Charter, but I do not think it > requires a Charter amendment or any further discussion other than on > this List. > > > > Are Members in favor of this? Is there any opposition, and if so why? > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > Mike Rodenbaugh > > RODENBAUGH LAW > > tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 > > http://rodenbaugh.com > > >

2 1

Draft BC comment on Applicant guidebook - for member review and approval by 3-Dec
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 27, 2010

Nov. 27, 2010

Attached is the draft BC comment on ICANN’s proposed final guidebook for new gTLDs. The genesis of this draft was our member call on 18-Nov. ( audio at http://drop.io/gnso_private/asset/gnso-bc-20101118-en-mp3 ; a transcript of the call was distributed earlier) . Several BC members volunteered as Rapporteurs. We worked thru 2 rounds of edits to get a draft to present to BC membership. For edits that I felt lacked consensus, I included dissenting remarks and questions in the body of the document [ in brackets and in blue ]. We are allowing 10 days to review and approve these comments. That would allow us to finalize by 3-Dec, before meetings begin in Cartagena. That is less than the 14-days called for in our Charter, but I will ask the BC executive committee for an abbreviated review under the circumstances. Please review and comment on the draft and on the inserted dissents and questions. Thanks again to the rapporteurs named below for their efforts thus far. Ron Andruff John Berard Marilyn Cade Chris Chaplow Berry Cobb Phil Corwin Fred Felman Jon Nevett Mikey O'Connor Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard --Steve For your reference, here are previous BC positions and statements on Guidebook topic: Comments on draft TLD guidebook January 2009 http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position_01_2009_draft_guideboo <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position_01_2009_draft_guideboo> k_TLDs.doc Registry Registrar separation August 2009 http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regis <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regis> trar.doc Staff Proposals for RPM for new gTLDs November 2009 http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-11-2009_Staff_Proposal <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-11-2009_Staff_Proposal> s_Rights_Protection_Mechanism_New_gTLDs.pdf BC Comment on VI WG Initial Report August 2010 http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01399.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01399.html> BC comment on the gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook V3 July 2010 http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01352.html <http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg01352.html> -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1