- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FW: Policy Development at ICANN Webinar - hold the date - 20 May at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC
by Marilyn Cade April 19, 2010

April 19, 2010

Dear BC members Please see forwarded announcement for a Policy Webinar organized by ICANN staff. According to its description, it is intended to be 'for newcomers'. I hope that some of our members can attend, even though you are not newcomers. It would be helpful for us to be aware of any materials that ICANN develops that can be useful in our own Business outreach activities. I will forward the sign up details when they are available. Best Regards Marilyn CadeBC Chair Forwarded From: Marika Konings Please find below a ‘hold the date’ announcement for a webinar that ICANN policy staff will be organizing on policy development with the objective to engage new participants in ICANN, and especially GNSO policy development activities. We hope you will share this announcement with organizations / individuals that you think might or should be interested in getting more involved in ICANN. WEBINAR: Policy Development at ICANN How you can help ICANN Shape the Future of the Internet 20 May 2010 at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC Hold the date! On Thursday 20 May at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC, ICANN Policy Staff will host a webinar that introduces newcomers to the world of ICANN and policy development. The webinar will provide an overview of ICANN as an organization, who develops policy at ICANN (and how), and most importantly, how you can become involved and help ICANN to shape the future of the Internet. Further details on how to sign up will follow shortly, but for now, please hold the date. Please feel free to forward this announcement to individuals and/or organisations you think might be interested. About ICANN: To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world, so that there can be one global Internet. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers, primarily the domain name system (DNS), IP addresses, and port numbers. For further information, please visit http://www.icann.org.

1 0

DRAFT for new Membership Package/Review Comments from Members welcomed
by Marilyn Cade April 19, 2010

April 19, 2010

Dear BC members I have been working with a small group of members to update and refresh the Membership Package, to include new members reference statements, and some updates on what the current events /current policy issues. We had sort of fallen a bit behind in getting this updated and it was one of the items not refreshed after our new Charter so we are prioritizing its update. We also need to have it updated so that we can conclude membership recruitment that started in Nairobi with a few new member applicants. And of course, so that our existing membership has a document of reference to use for internal purposes when needed to support your continuation as a BC member. Thanks to our members who volunteered to provide initial comments and to the ExComm members. This is a final DRAFT Version -- which means that it is now ready for full Membership comments and edits. I welcome in line edits, if you don't mind, and would really like it if you would put your initials: followed by your edit. So, for example, say you were editing the Title: The ICANN GNSO Business Constituency 2010 [MSC: Shouldnt the title be the full title of the BC, e.g. Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) 2010?]Or you can of course use the inline editing mechanism, but put your initialls with your edits, so I can keep track of them. We will start invoicing members during April, and the fees will remain at the 2009 level. The document attached has the fee levels incorporated. The format is very poor, and I realize that, but it will be prettied up for the website. It is really intended for new members, but of course, it is what the world reads about us and our purpose and focus, so we need your input and thoughts. I would like to have edits by Friday, April 23. It is not a policy document, but does have to reflect members input and review. We will want to post it that next week, if we are in general agreement on content. I want to explain one edit I made. During meetings in Nairobi, there were discussions with some industry groups incorporated in non Western counties,who have a not for profit status, although they represent commercial members. They were uncomfortable with whether they were eligible to join the BC. In the US and in Europe, associations have a not for profit status, but have commercial members. The footnote is intended to just be a clarification, without change, for any such questions. Best Regards Marilyn CadeBC Chair

2 2

FW: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 18, 2010

April 18, 2010

Fyi that WHOIS studies will be considered at the next Council meeting this Thurs. Subject to any objections from Members, the Councilors intend to support full funding of the two proposed studies and also contingent funding for a third. Further info below. Please let us know any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:42 AM To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; Steve DelBianco; Zahid Jamil Subject: Re: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 I think this is the right approach. Although I would recommend $300K + 20% contingency, or $360,000 total. On 4/16/10 11:43 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote: Steve, what do you think? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:37 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Importance: High <<Motion for Whois Studies Funding for FY11.doc>> In our Council meeting on 1 April I encouraged Councilors and their respective SGs and Constituencies to develop and propose specfic recommendations for funding of Whois Studies in the FY11 budget but no such recommendations were submitted. Recognizing that the Draft ICANN Budget has to be posted not later than 17 May and our next Council meeting after the one on 21 April is not until 20 May, three days later, I decided that we should try to make a recommendation in our meeting on 21 April. To facilitate that possibility I asked Liz to draft the attached motion (also pasted below). Because of the lateness of the motion we would need to first approve an exception to the 8-day GNSO Operating Procedures Requirement for motions before we could act on this motion. Also note that the motion has a placeholder for the amount to be budgeted for Whois Studies. My personal opinion is that it would be good to fund at least two studies in FY11 and even better if we could fund three if they are ready to go, thereby avoiding very lengthy delays for at least two and maybe three studies. Based on the estimates provided for two of the studies, a minimum of $300,000 would be needed and it might be wise to add a 10% buffer on to that, making it $330,000. If we decided to budget for three studies, one of which we do not have any cost estimates for, we could bump the amount up to $500,000. In a year of limited financial resources, we cannot guarantee how much will ultimately be put into the budget but we can should in my opinion at least make a recommendation for consideration by the community and ultimately the ICANN Board. . Please discuss this motion with your SGs and Constituencies before our meeting on Wednesday so that we can act on it using whatever amount we decide at that time if possible. Discussion on the list is encouraged and, if anyone is willing to second it without the amount inserted, that is welcome as well. If anyone would rather see an amount inserted, we can insert one that can later be amended. Chuck Motion for WHOIS Studies Funding for FY11 Whereas: In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Before defining the details of studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted (http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/WHOIS-privacy/WHOIS-study-suggestion-report-25 feb08.pdf ). On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council formed a drafting team to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the feasibility of the various proposed WHOIS studies, with the goal of deciding which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost estimates. On 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council requested that Staff conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for those six WHOIS studies and following that assessment the Council would decide which studies should be conducted (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200903) On 23 March 2010, staff provided its analysis to the GNSO Council of costs and feasibility for the first two study areas, and will continue to work on the remaining areas Resolved, that the GNSO Council recommends that at least (insert US dollar amount) be included in the ICANN Budget for FY 2011. Resolved further, that the GNSO secretariat communicate this resolution to the ICANN Chief Financial Officer and the Board Finance Committee. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] DRAFT for new Membership Package/Review Comments from Members welcomed
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com April 18, 2010

April 18, 2010

Marilyn, I do not really have line item edit to suggest. The content of the document is fine. I do however suggest restructuring the document a bit. The first page should follow form of more an executive summary of the BC similar to what we would see in the corporate world. Beginning the document with FAQ of sorts is kind of cart before the horse. I recommend the following: 1. Convert section 1, (first 3 questions); Mission Statement; & How members Contribute section in to the beginning of the document as a BC Summary. I would also add 1 or two statements about how we fit within the CSG/GNSO/ICANN structure. 2. 2nd section becomes the BC member comments about the BC 3. Consolidate remaining questions in to a FAQ and apply to the end of the document. 4. Prior to the the FAQ is the consolidated section on how and where to apply and including the fee structure. Just my two cents.... Thanks, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891

1 0

POSTED: Business Constituency comments on Registry Benchmarking Study
by Steve DelBianco April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

BC comments on Registry Benchmarking Study are now posted to ICANN website. See http://forum.icann.org/lists/benchmarking-15feb10/msg00002.html and also shown below. Thanks again to Berry Cobb for leading on this. ------------- Attached are consensus comments of the Commercial & Business Users Constituency (BC), regarding the Registry Benchmarking Study. The BC believes that a study of benchmark Registry operations will help to define scope of for new TLD contracts. We support this approach and believe it will help ICANN to promote stability, security, and competition within the new gTLDs. This baseline may also be valuable to prospective applicants wanting to know more about operating their own TLD zone. In the attached document, the BC indicates suggestions and questions for several operational categories defined in the KPMG study. The BC looks forward to future reporting built upon this initial framework and a defined structure that evolves with the market expansion. We are also eager to understand how the results of this study will be reflected in DAGv4 and how it may influence the application and selection process. Our rapporteur for these comments was Berry Cobb.

2 2

ANNOUNCEMENT: BC call regarding VeriSign's proposed Registry Service: Tuesday, 4/20 11 a.m. EST
by Marilyn Cade April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

Dear BC colleagues After some discussion within the ExComm, I forwarded the following letter to ICANN staff to ask that they study the impact of VeriSign's proposed registry service in .net upon security and stability, rather than just approving it automatically. Please refer to Steve DelBianco's earlier email to the list explaining the proposed service. It was our view that BC members had sufficient questions that more examination is needed. In order to give BC members a chance to learn more about the proposed service and to ask questions of VeriSign, Steve DelBianco, our V.Chair, Policy Coordination, has undertaken organizing of a conference call with Pat Kane, VeriSign. The proposed time for the call is Tuesday, April 20, 11 a.m. EST. The call is solely purposed for discussing this service and will include a short overview of the proposed program by Pat Kane; followed by moderated Q and A. All Members are encouraged to participate. BRIDGE NUMBER WILL BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS WHO RSVP. To ensure that we have sufficient attendance at that call, I would ask that you rsvp [ off list] to marilynscade(a)hotmail.com. Apologies to our Asian members -- I realize this is quite late in the evening for you. In the meantime, mark your calendars for the ICANN June meeting in Brussels -- workshops of relevance to BC begin on the Saturday and Sunday; Full meeting June 20-25. Marilyn CadeBC Chair From: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com To: patrick.jones(a)icann.org; excomm(a)bizconst.org CC: pkane(a)verisign.com Subject: Request regarding VeriSign's proposed registry service Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:56:35 -0400 April 13, 2010 Dear ICANN staff As Chair of the Business Constituency, I am writing regarding VeriSign’s RSEP proposal for its proposed new registry service, “Domain Exchange Service" in the .net TLD. On behalf of the BC executive leadership [ExComm], I request that ICANN Staff make the preliminary determination that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with regards to security and stability and/or competition. The BC leadership’s concerns are that, although not intended, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial “domain tasting” activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy. In order to determine the implications of such risks, more time and analysis is needed to ensure such service does not pose significant consequences affecting the stability of the domain name system. As we understand the proposed service submitted by VeriSign, the Domain Name Exchange will permit domain name applicants to “repurpose” or exchange a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. For the price of a single domain name, applicants will be permitted to register at least 12 domain names a year. As an example of the potential volume of the service offering, if an applicant spent a mere $800 to register 100 domain names, this service would permit the applicant to register 1200 different domain names for that initial investment, over the course of a year. On its face, the increased churn of domain names and ability to monetize names for a short period of time appears to raise red flags for increased domain name abuse. The situation regarding harmful and abusive registrations of domain names associated with brands continues to be a significant burden in both costs to trademark holders and to users in terms of fraud and in other abusive uses of such names. As we all remember, after extensive policy debate and work by the ICANN community, ICANN specifically restricted the ability of registrars to register domain names for five days or less under the AGP to deter abusive practices, such as cyber squatting. Despite the closing of this loophole, business owners still face thousands of instances of new infringements today because cyber squatters are willing to pay a relatively low yearly registration fee for the high quality names, including trademarks that drive traffic. Although VeriSign is permitting applicants to register domain names for 30 days rather than 5 days or less and is not offering refunds, (different from the AGP), the proposed service reasonably raises concerns that permitting applicants to register a dozen domain names for the price of a single domain name will invite speculators to game the system and use it for domain name abuse. Certainly, our concern is whether the new service would facilitate abuse. However, in this case, it is also reasonable to ask staff to explore whether VeriSign's new service might be used so excessively that it would cause the same kinds of stability problems. We do understand that VeriSign’s proposal would make changes by modifying the registry record – not by an ‘add/delete’. Nonetheless, further exploration is needed to determine levels of use that could generate stability concerns, whether the use was for tasting or for some new form of domain recycling. We appreciate that VeriSign has described steps that it has taken up front to make their service more "transparent" but many of our members do not believe that the steps they have taken thus far are sufficient. None of the proposed remedies VeriSign lists thus far actually prevent the registration of trademarks or prevent domain name abuse at the front end of the service but appear instead to place the entire burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs on businesses and brand holders to deal with potential abuses. The BC has an extensive list of concerns and questions about the service and its proposed remedies that it would be glad to provide to ICANN separately as it begins its analysis of the proposed service. While the service as currently proposed applies only to .net, we may anticipate that if the current proposal is approved, VeriSign will next seek to extend the service to .com, where the potential for abuse and churn in the domain name system are even more pronounced. Given all these concerns, we urge ICANN to provide sufficient time to study this proposal, its affect on the stability of the domain name system, potential to contribute to abuse, and its potential ramifications for all affected stakeholders and to post the proposal for further public comment. On behalf of the BC Executive Committee Marilyn Cade, BC Chair CC: BC ExComm BC List Pat Kane, VeriSign

2 2

Draft Comments on ICANN's Study of the Accuracy of the WHOIS Registrant Contact Information
by Susan Kawaguchi April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

Hello All, Attached please find draft comments on the WHOIS Accuracy Study. Comments are due on April 15th. Please send me your comments, revisions or concerns prior to the 15th. Thanks Steve for your help. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents."

5 5

Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign
by Steve DelBianco April 12, 2010

April 12, 2010

BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign¹s proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here¹s how VeriSign describes the service: > Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business > models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain > Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name > registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today > when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for > example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to > recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the > secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another > registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new > domain. > The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to > provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to > manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer > needed. > For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with ³free domains included² ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that¹s where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of ³domain tasting² that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. ³Domain tasting² is a loaded term in ICANN circles. ³Tasting² is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by ³parking² a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there¹s nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here¹s what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That¹s cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to ³taste² and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They¹re also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that¹s easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let¹s begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: > > ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation > Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" > whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because > it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. > There¹s no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can > always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at > http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html > > If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or > Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel > and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to > comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the > proposed service effect on Security or Stability. > > ICANN¹s Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to > comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. ³In the event the > ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a > reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, > Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service.² > > So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if > the panel raises S&S concerns).

8 10

BC Draft Position on New TLD Registry Agreement Amendments DAG v3
by Ron Andruff April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010

Dear Fellow Members, Please find the draft BC position on new TLD Registry Agreement Amendments attached. This draft position is open for discussion/amendment through April 1st, 2010. Thanks to Jon Nevitt for carrying the ball on this one! Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

9 15

Prior CBUC Position Statement on VI
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010

Hi all, In our last constituency call, I recall someone (maybe Philip?) mentioning that the BC had submitted a formal position statement on Vertical Integration in prior years. 1. Is this true, or am I hallucinating? 2. If true, can someone provide the link to it? I cannot find it on the BC web site nor ICANN's site. Please advise. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891

2 1