- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ICANN - Announcement re staff appointments/shifts- of relevance
by Marilyn Cade June 8, 2013

June 8, 2013

ICANN to shift around top-level execs http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57588190-93/icann-to-shift-around-top-leve… Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

Regrets on today's call
by Phil Corwin June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

I regret that an irreconcilable conflict will make it impossible for me to participate in this morning's BC call. Best regards to all. 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

2 1

policy docs for today's BC Member call
by Steve DelBianco June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

Here's background for policy topics on today's call. Recently submitted public comments from the BC: Comments on GAC Safeguard Advice for new gTLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advi…> BC Comments FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20FY2014%20I…> BC Comments on Proposed Final 2013 RAA<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> Draft BC comments on final Registry Agreement (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>) Elisa Cooper's latest draft is attached This draft is based on BC's previous comments in Mar-2013 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20new%20gTLD…>) Should we request community input on contract changes arising from new registry services? This comment period closes 11-Jun Draft BC comments to Accountability & Transparency Review Team Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm>. The document with questions we want to address is here<http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.p…>. This comment period closes 9-Jun During the 22-May call we suggested 4 areas where the BC should comment: 1. GAC's role in ICANN 2. Who and how to define "public interest" for ICANN purposes 3. Policy vs Implementation (see BC Comment on Policy vs Implementatio<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Policy%20v…>n, Mar-2013) 4. Problems/questions with Volunteer selection process Volunteers included Stephane Van Gelder, Zahid Jamil, and Marilyn Cade. Below are draft comments received so far. Steve DelBianco draft for 2) Who and how to define "public interest" for ICANN purposes. The ATRT is to assess whether ICANN is accountable to the global "public interest" as required by the Affirmation of Commitments. When signing the Affirmation in 2009, Lawrence Strickling, Administrator of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration said, "this framework puts the public interest front and center and it establishes processes for stakeholders around the world to review ICANN's performance." But until the ICANN community comes together on what 'public interest' means, we are flying blind in our efforts to meet this key imperative. Leaving the term 'public interest' undefined leaves the floor open to conflicting and competing interpretations that serve the particular interests of ICANN stakeholders. The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for iCANN. The definition should be derived through a process open to Internet stakeholders. ICANN management have already taken steps in this direction, launching a project under the CEO's "Affirmation of Purpose" objective. Sally Costerton was assigned the goal to "Co-create clear, shared definition of the public interest." It is not clear how management would involve the community to "co-create" the definition, so the ATRT should recommend a process and guidelines to define public interest for ICANN purposes. Stephane Van Gelder's draft for 3) Policy vs Implementation: The policy versus implementation debate can only be settled by having a clear definition of each, and by having clear guidelines as to when the question should be asked and what kind of answer we are looking for. So far, the debate has clearly at times been used to obfuscate the real issue and simply attempt to get the outcome wanted by specific individuals or groups. This is a short term view that does not do justice to the multistakeholder model. The BC is part of the GNSO. As such, it supports the model of having an SO in charge of defining policy for generic Top Level Domains, with groups such as our constituency able to actively participate. This work of developing policy, which is then managed by the GNSO Council, is crucial to ICANN's function as technical coordinator for the Internet's naming and addressing system. It is crucial to develop policy, but also to implement policy. If we as a community do not know where one stops and the other begins, we run the risk of mismanaging the policy development process and of not seeing policies implemented in the way they were designed to be by the people who took the time to develop them. The BC therefore suggests that clear guidelines be set-up on what constitutes policy implementation. This is the important step, as there are already extensive rules and procedures on policy development at GNSO level. [Addition by Steve DelBianco] In accord with Affirmation paragraph 9.1, the ATRT poses questions about whether ICANN decisions are supported by the Internet community, and about the effectiveness of the Policy Development Process. (questions 12-16). The ATRT seeks specific examples for each of these questions, and the BC suggests that Strawman implementation solutions are a useful example to consider. The BC proposed that implementation decisions imposing material new obligations should be considered policy. Using the BC’s recommended distinction of whether “material new obligations” would be created, here’s how we saw the Strawman solutions breaking down between policy and implementation: (include text of our Mar-2013 comments) Stephane Van Gelder's draft for 4) Problems/questions with Volunteer selection process The ATRT is a good example of effective volunteer selection by the respective groups that make up the ICANN Community. However, the BC is concerned at what appears to be a developing trend for top-down decisions on who can participate in volunteer groups. Taking the ATRT as an example, the selection process could be tweaked so that it is fully carried out at AC or SO level and does not require final selection by the Chairman of the Board or the Chairman of the GAC. There are reasons rooted within the original AOC text for this to be the case as far as the ATRT goes, and the BC understands that. However, there are many other volunteer groups where the AOC has no bearing on the way volunteers are chosen, and yet there remains a top down approach with either the Board or ICANN Staff presiding over selections. This tends to lead to situations of under-representation by some groups, and the BC has suffered from this in the past. We would suggest that as much as possible be done to keep the volunteer group selection process as open and inclusive of all ICANN community groups as possible.

1 0

Call for Expressions of Interest for 2014 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect
by Benedetta Rossi June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05jun13-en.htm Call for Expressions of Interest for 2014 Nominating Committee Chair and Chair-Elect 5 June 2013 ICANN is immediately seeking expressions of interest for leadership roles in the 2014 Nominating Committee (NomCom) - that of the 2014 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect. In October 2012 the ICANN Board resolved that "the Board adopts the recommendation of the BGC and hereby appoints Yrjö Juhani Länsipuro as the 2013 NomCom Chair and Cheryl Langdon-Orr as the 2013 NomCom Chair-Elect." (See <https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm# 2.a> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-03oct12-en.htm#2. a) In accordance with the Bylaws, "[i]t is anticipated that upon the conclusion of the term of the Chair-Elect, the Chair-Elect will be appointed by the Board to the position of Chair." See Article VII, section 3.4. Accordingly, while it anticipated that the 2013 NomCom Chair Elect will succeed to the role of 2014 NomCom Chair, the incumbent NomCom leaders, in discussion with the Board Governance Committee (BGC), agree that in support of continuous improvement in its accountability and transparency, the NomCom will be initiating a new practice this year to evaluate performance of the NomCom leadership. Specifically, the NomCom will be undertaking 360 degree reviews of its Chair and its Chair-Elect, which typically consists of input from an immediate circle of colleagues - top down, bottom up and peer-to-peer, and in this case will consist of interviewing other NomCom leadership, NomCom members, as well as designated NomCom staff. These 360 degree reviews will be conducted by an independent third party provider. The BGC will utilize the outcomes of these 360 degree reviews in their processes leading up to the Board's formal appointment of the 2014 NomCom Chair and Chair-Elect. The NomCom Chair is responsible for organizing the NomCom in its activities to select certain ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in key leadership positions within ICANN's supporting organizations (SOs) and advisory committees (ACs) in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. The Chair is a non-voting member of the NomCom selected by ICANN's Board to serve until the conclusion of the next ICANN Annual Meeting. The Chair-Elect is a position created within the Bylaws as an outcome of the independent review of the NomCom. The Chair-Elect position is not a replacement of the Advisor to the NomCom Chair, and is not intended to fill an advisory role. Rather, the Chair-Elect will receive the benefit of training while serving alongside the Chair, gaining skills and knowledge to be applied for the Chair-Elect's anticipated succession into the role of the Chair. Candidates for Chair-Elect should possess the same skills as candidates for the Chair. Position Description This position blends time management and negotiation skills with the practical aspects of conducting a world-wide search for individuals to fill various ICANN leadership positions. The NomCom Chair will be called on to schedule, organize and lead numerous in-person and telephonic meetings with a large committee of community members. The NomCom Chair is also responsible for managing the candidate identification and statement of interest process, with other committee members, and for managing the due diligence to be performed on nominated candidates, in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any retained outside firm(s). Throughout all NomCom activities, the Chair is responsible for ensuring that all NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed, and that all required documentation and reports are prepared in a timely fashion and provided to the proper parties as necessary. Skills and Experience To properly serve as the NomCom Chair, the selected individual must have: 1. adequate time available to undertake the role; 2. excellent communication and negotiation skills to manage a committee of 20-21 members; 3. a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities of each position for which the NomCom is selecting candidates; 4. experience on or with a Board of Directors of organizations with similar scale, scope and diversity as ICANN; 5. strong organization and leadership skills; 6. ability to remain unbiased; 7. no conflicts of interest, and 8. a thorough understanding of, and satisfy, all criteria set forth in ICANN Bylaws relating to the NomCom (see <https://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VII> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VII) Specific Duties and Responsibilities 1. Plans and schedules NomCom meetings as required, including ensuring posting schedules for public review. Please see attached for a Listing of the NomCom activities. 2. Appoints non-voting Associate Chair if so desired. 3. Reports to ICANN Board and the community on status of the NomCom. 4. Prepares and publishes the NomCom report. 5. Ensures that NomCom operating rules and procedures are followed. 6. Manages NomCom Selection Process, including: 1. Approves outreach/advertising methods for attracting candidates. 2. Conducts outreach with ICANN Constituencies, ACs and SOs (with Chairs of those groups), ICANN Board, and others. 3. With other committee members, reviews and evaluates candidate Statements of Interest (SOIs) and references submitted during NomCom process 4. Coordinates due diligence on nominated candidates in cooperation with ICANN's General Counsel and any outside firm(s) retained to perform due diligence activities. 7. Approves posting of NomCom announcements and schedules on ICANN website. 8. Ensures NomCom records are properly established, maintained and archived. Eligibility Exclusion No person who is an employee of or is a paid consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously serve as a member of the NomCom, including the post of Chair or Chair-Elect. Expenses All reasonable travel expenses and administrative costs incurred as a result of performing the duties as NomCom Chair or Chair-Elect in accordance with ICANN's policies will be reimbursed by ICANN upon the Chair or Chair-Elect's submission to ICANN of valid receipts and invoices. Expressions of Interest Expressions of Interest, which will be maintained as confidential, should be sent to <mailto:NomComChair2014@icann.org> NomComChair2014(a)icann.org no later than 30 June 2013. For more information about the NomCom see <http://nomcom.icann.org/> http://nomcom.icann.org/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Pre-Durban ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 27 June 2013
by Benedetta Rossi June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the Pre-Durban ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation for the 27th of June, 2013. To join this webinar please follow the RSVP instructions in the email below. 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03jun13-en.htm> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03jun13-en.htm Pre-Durban ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 27 June 2013 3 June 2013 In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Durban remotely or in person, you're invited to a quick reminder of the background and current status of each major policy issue currently under discussion in ICANN. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Thursday 27 June at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 27 June at 19.00 UTC, summarizing policy issues across the different ICANN Supporting Organizations, namely the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and Address Supporting Organization (ASO). Among other topics, updates will be provided on: * Protection of IGO/INGO names in gTLDs PDP * 'Thick' Whois Policy Development Process * Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP * 10th Anniversary of the ccNSO * IDN ccPDP * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group * Update on RSSAC Reorganization The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Thursday at 12.00 UTC or Thursday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Benedetta Rossi June 6, 2013

June 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN Announcement for a call for volunteers on the Drafting Team to Develop the Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting. 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 Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04jun13-en.htm Date: 4 June 2013 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team (DT) that will develop a charter for a new Working Group (WG). The GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG will be tasked with exploring opportunities with respect to reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. 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 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines taking into account the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting, which recommended that such a Working Group should review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. Such a Working Group could also investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that may aid in GNSO policy development efforts. 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 ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. 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%20Uniform ity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports'. The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'. The GNSO in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to better aid the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await any further action regarding Contractual Compliance metrics and reporting until the conclusion of their three-year plan towards the end of 2013. At such time the GNSO Council will consider other actions, if any. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to be performed to help inform the deliberations of the WG. More information can be found on the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/uofr> GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG page. Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site should be sent to webmaster [at] gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Business Constituency Comment on ICANN's FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget.
by Chris Chaplow May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Please see attached comments of the GNSO Business Constituency on ICANN's FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget. . Submitted on behalf of BC by Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair Finance and Operations.

1 0

Durban Meeting BC Attendees & Extra information
by Benedetta Rossi May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Dear BC Members, In preparation for the upcoming meeting in Durban, can you please confirm whether you will be attending the meeting, and provide me with the following information: . Arrival/departure dates . Hotel name . Contact details on site . Extra guests Additionally for this meeting, can you please let me know if you have African business colleagues that you will encourage to attend the meeting in Durban, and whether you are a French speaker? We are currently preparing for the Cross Constituency Breakfast with the GAC, and expect several French only speakers within the GAC and from Africa, so it would be great to know who within the BC is a French speaker to coordinate this meeting as efficiently as possible. Thank you ever so much for your help, -- 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

6 6

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)
by Marilyn Cade May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

Actually, the verification was supported ny SSAC wasn't it? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:31:57 To: <abrams(a)google.com>; <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> Cc: <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <angie(a)webgroup.com>; <randruff(a)rnapartners.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 and echoing thanks. As a newcomer to the group, please forgive me for stating the obvious, but -- I do want to flag that there are aspects of what we are asking for which we should anticipate, in the absence of automated means to accomplish, will be viewed as overly burdensome and onerous (and which may actually be, at the very least, challenging), such as the annual re-verification of contact information and confirming contact information by both email and phone. To be clear, I absolutely support our request for these things; I just think we should also be thinking about compromises we can live with. I guess in the context of ICANN, one always has to be thinking about compromise? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:45 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > Cc: Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> >, Angie Graves <angie(a)webgroup.com <mailto:angie@webgroup.com> >, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 to Marie's statement. Thanks to all for your work on this. Best, Andy On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > wrote: No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this. Kind regards Marie From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 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@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > wrote: Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> ---------------- From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- "Right to Substitute Updated Agreement" -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised "form Registrar accreditation agreement" into which a registrar could "elect" to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org> > Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC&#4…> and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02…> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendme…> ) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen "new asks", incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that "pattern or practice of cybersquatting" is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers - not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won't be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be 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. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

1 0

FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching
by Steve DelBianco May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm>. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-2…>. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-docs-sep12/msg00007.html>) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

22 59