- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Election Announcement: Procedure for BC Vice Chair for Finance and Operations
by Benedetta Rossi April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, ELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT: Please note that this is an election announcement for the upcoming BC Election for the position of Vice Chair for Finance & Operations, following the BC Officer Elections for 2013 which took place in February without a candidate for this position. Please find attached the election procedure with the details of the election, timeline, requirements for nominees and nominators, and election procedure. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the election procedure. A brief outline of the election timeline will be addressed in the upcoming BC Members call taking place on Friday, April 26, 2013 at 11 am EST. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Reminder - IMPORTANT - RSVP required / ICANN News Alert - Webinar: WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update
by Benedetta Rossi April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below a reminder regarding the upcoming Webinar on the WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update, taking place tomorrow, Wednesday, April 24th 2013. To join this webinar please follow the RSVP instructions below, which close today, April 23, 2013 at 23:59 UTC. 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 Dear All, Please register via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Tuesday, 23 April - 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with login and dial-in details. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-16apr13-en.htm _____ Webinar: WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations - Implementation Update 16 April 2013 Join ICANN Staff for an update on ICANN's ongoing and planned activities to fully enforce the existing WHOIS policy for generic top-level domains. Webinar Details Date: Wednesday, 24 April Time: 15:00-16:30 UTC Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois/ You are invited to an update on ICANN's ongoing and planned activities to fully enforce the existing WHOIS policy and contractual conditions for gTLDs. These activities address ICANN's obligations to support access to accurate gTLD WHOIS data and are consistent with objectives included in the WHOIS Policy Review Team's recommendations. ICANN Staff will walk you through, and respond to questions on, the following projects: WHOIS as a strategic priority; RAA amendments; data accuracy/access; compliance and automated tools; internationalized registration data; WHOIS information portal; and outreach and communication efforts. Staff also will provide an overview of the efforts undertaken by the Expert Working Group to develop a proposed blueprint for gTLD directory services. Please join this webinar on Wednesday, 24 April at 15:00 UTC (duration 90 minutes). The meeting will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation. The session will be conducted in English. Participants will have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, these may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. Please register via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Tuesday, 23 April - 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with login and dial-in details. Background documents: * Blog post on <http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/whois-whats-to-come/> WHOIS & What's to Come * WHOIS policies and provisions <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/whois-policies-provisions> * Board Resolution on WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-08nov12-en.htm > * WHOIS Policy Review Team Recommendations <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.44 MB] <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=910079&act=CH61&r=25163209&c= 165637>

1 0

Invitation to conference call on Rights Protection Mechanisms
by Benedetta Rossi April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an invitation to a conference call on Rights Protection Mechanisms taking place on Thursday, April 25, 2013. -- 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 Invitation to conference call on Rights Protection Mechanisms An open conference call is scheduled for Thursday, 25 April to discuss the current draft document on Rights Protection Requirements (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/draft-rpm-requir…) This document provides a reference for registry implementation of Sunrise and Trademark Claims services. This draft was posted before the Beijing meeting and was discussed briefly there, and the call is to follow up on that discussion. The intention is to use the feedback from the meeting and the conference call to create a revised version of the document. The call is scheduled for 12:00 UTC on 25 April (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130425T12 <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130425T12&ah=2> &ah=2) Any who are interested in participating can RSVP to me directly at karen.lentz(a)icann.org for the call details. Best regards, Karen Lentz ICANN

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Proposed Final 2013 RAA - Comment period open
by Benedetta Rossi April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the Proposed Final 2013 RAA open comment period link. 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-22apr13-en.htm Proposed Final 2013 RAA Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 22 April 2013 Comment Close Date: 13 May 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 14 May 2013 Reply Close Date: 4 June 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr13-en.htm> Public Comment Announcement <mailto:comments-proposed-raa-22apr13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-22apr13/> View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is seeking public comments on the Proposed Final 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). This is the culmination of 18 months of intensive negotiations. Current Status: ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team commenced negotiation on amendments to the RAA in October 2011. Since the 7 March 2013 version was posted, ICANN and the Registrars (through the Registrar Negotiating Team) continued to reach agreement on the proposed text of the 2013 RAA, which is now posted for community comment. Next Steps: After review of the comment received, the Proposed Final 2013 RAA will be reviewed to determine if further changes are warranted. Input on the areas that have changed since the 7 March 2013 posting will be of particular help. Staff Contact: Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel <mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Pr oposed%20Final%202013%20RAA%20public%20comment%20period> Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: After an extended period of negotiations, ICANN is posting a proposed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for public comment. On 7 March 2013, ICANN posted its version of the 2013 RAA for public comment, noting some areas of disagreement between ICANN and the Registrar Negotiating Team (NT). In addition, some of the specifications posted for comment were ICANN versions only. Since the 7 March posting, the Registrar NT has engaged in frequent negotiation sessions with ICANN in order to bring to closure to all of the open negotiation topics and to consider the community comments received from the 7 March posting. As a result, at ICANN's public meeting in Beijing, ICANN and the Registrar NT announced that they had reached agreement in principle on each of the outstanding items highlighted in the March posting version. The documents posted today reflect ICANN and the Registrar NT's agreements and are the Proposed Final 2013 RAA. This proposed 2013 RAA is a cornerstone of ICANN's efforts to work to improve the image of the domain industry and to protect registrants through a further updated contractual framework. It is ICANN's intention to have the 2013 RAA completed and approved in the near future for use in the New gTLD Program. To allow for transparency into the proposed final version of the 2013 RAA and community input on the changes from the 7 March posting, ICANN is opening a full comment forum. ICANN thanks the Registrar Negotiating Team (NT) for its continued engagement in good faith negotiations on the RAA. The RAA posted today reflects hard-fought concessions on many of key issues raised throughout the negotiations. A fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of difference is available in <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-22apr13-en.pdf> ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum [PDF, 65 KB]. Section II: Background: The current round of negotiations over the RAA began in October 2011. ICANN and the Registrar Negotiation Team have presented updates to the community at each of ICANNs public meetings since that time. Information on the history of the negotiations, including previously released documentation, is available at the community wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Regis trars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement. This includes the group of documents posted in June 2012, which demonstrated the progress to date in the negotiations. Section III: Document and Resource Links: There are multiple documents for review as part of this posting. The new RAA is anticipated to be a base document with a series of specifications attached. Each specification is an integral, enforceable component of the RAA. This posting includes all documents that are currently anticipated to be part of the 2013 RAA. As noted above, a fuller discussion of the status of negotiations and areas of difference is available in <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/memo-22apr13-en.pdf> ICANN's RAA Posting Memorandum [PDF, 65 KB]. A <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/le-recommendations-22apr13 -en.pdf> summary [PDF, 59 KB] of how the 12 law enforcement recommendations are incorporated into the RAA is also provided. The base RAA documents: * Proposed 2013 RAA <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-22apr13 -en.pdf> [PDF, 311 KB] * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-07mar13 -redline-22apr13-en.pdf> Redline Showing Changes Between Proposed 2013 RAA and 7 March 2013 RAA Posting [PDF, 293 KB] * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-21may09 -redline-22apr13-en.pdf> Redline Showing Changes Between Proposed 2013 RAA and the 2009 RAA [PDF, 343 KB] * A <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-agreement-summary -changes-22apr13-en.pdf> Summary of Changes from the 2009 RAA [PDF, 496 KB] is also available. The Proposed Specifications and Addendums: Consensus and Temporary Policy Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-tempora ry-policy-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 90 KB] Redline Showing Changes from June 2012 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-tempora ry-policy-03jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 145 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-consensus-tempora ry-policy-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 161 KB] Data Retention Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-22 apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 77 KB] Redline Showing Changes from June 2012 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-03 jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 113 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-data-retention-07 mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 120 KB] Whois Accuracy Program Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-22 apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 86 KB] Redline Showing Changes from June 2012 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-03 jun12-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 121 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-accuracy-07 mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 115 KB] Whois SLA <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-22apr13-en. pdf> [PDF, 93 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-whois-07mar13-red line-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 169 KB] Specification on Proxy/Privacy Services <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-22a pr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 57 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-privacy-proxy-07m ar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 110 KB] Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrant-rights -responsibilities-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 50 KB] No changes since March 2013 posting Additional Registrar Operation Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-operat ion-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 73 KB] No changes since March 2013 posting Registrar Information Specification <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-informa tion-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 64 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-registrar-informa tion-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 128 KB] Compliance Certificate <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certif icate-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 55 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-compliance-certif icate-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 92 KB] Transition Addendum <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-addend um-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 61 KB] Redline Showing Changes from March 2013 Posting <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-transition-addend um-07mar13-redline-22apr13-en.pdf> [PDF, 105 KB] Section IV: Additional Information: A Report of the Public Comments submitted in response to the 7 March 2013 posting of the RAA is available <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-22 apr13-en.pdf> here [PDF, 178 KB]. _____ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Nominating Committee April (Beijing) Meeting Report Card
by Ron Andruff April 15, 2013

April 15, 2013

Dear colleagues, On behalf of Waudo Segunga and me, please find attached the Nom Com Report Card, which reflects the issues taken up and other relevant information from our 9.5 hours of meetings in session. As always, Waudo and I are happy to add any clarifications or respond to questions, should there be a need. Great to see such a large BC team in Beijing! A lot of excellent work came as a result of our combined efforts. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

1 0

FOR REVIEW AND VOTE: Alternative positions for ACDR proposal as UDRP Provider
by Steve DelBianco April 13, 2013

April 13, 2013

ICANN has called for comments regarding ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The comment period ends 13-Apr. (UDRP is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) Note: ACDR is the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, and is affiliated with BC Member Talal Abu-Ghazaleh. Phil Corwin and Nat Cohen volunteered as rapporteurs for these comments. We circulated Phil's initial draft on 20-Mar. The BC held a conference call on 28-March with ACDR representatives to discuss the first draft (transcript available on request). As a result of that discussion, the BC is now considering two alternative positions: Version 1: The existing BC position, with no comment on the merits of ACDR's proposal. This would maintain the present BC position that no new providers should be approved until ICANN has standards for UDRP administration. Version 2: Amend the present BC position and give "Qualified Endorsement" to ACDR's proposal. This alternative repeats the BC's prior rationale for ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration. It then modifies the prior position to acknowledge that ICANN may approve ACDR's proposal since they have acknowledged process concerns, answered questions, and agreed to adopt any standards ICANN develops. The endorsement is "qualified" in that the BC requests ICANN to develop standards for UDRP administration, and suggests a staff-driven process with community input. Voting: BC members should vote for either Version 1 or Version 2. To vote, please reply to this email indicating your support for Version 1 or Version 2. Voting will close on 12-April so that we can submit the comment on 13-April. Per our charter, a simple majority prevails and the required quorum is 50 percent of paid BC members. As always, members can REPLY ALL at any time to share their views on this issue. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

10 13

RE: [bc-gnso] Post on singular-plural problems
by Ron Andruff April 13, 2013

April 13, 2013

I second Steve's excellent work - and that of the GAC - this week in BJ! A LOT was accomplished by all in attendance. Really enjoyed the team effort! Reminded me od my old playing days.... ;o) Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: To: Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>,bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Post on singular-plural problems Steve, I am in the middle, as many of us are, of analyzing the GAC Communique. You did a great job in the policy development/coordination in how we have been working with the IPC and others where possible on policy positions, and here in Beijing! I know some members were watching from afar! I for one think that the GAC deserves a bit more praise than some are inclined to offer. MUCH of what the BC asked for in the Strawman improvements, in accurate WHOIS, etc. is in there, directly or indirectly. More work ahead! :-) Marilyn From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Post on singular-plural problems Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:22:55 +0000 See the top posting on CircleID. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130411_new_tlds_time_for_a_do_over_on_plura… Tried to voice the concerns I heard from BC members over last several weeks. With help from the GAC, we may see some progress here, too. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

Post on singular-plural problems
by Steve DelBianco April 12, 2013

April 12, 2013

See the top posting on CircleID. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130411_new_tlds_time_for_a_do_over_on_plura… Tried to voice the concerns I heard from BC members over last several weeks. With help from the GAC, we may see some progress here, too. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

4 3

Here is GAC communique in text
by Steve DelBianco April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. New gTLDs . GAC Objections to Specific Applications i. The GAC Advises the ICANN Board that: i. The GAC has reached consensus on GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook on the following applications: 1. The application for .africa (Application number 1--1165--42560) 2. The application for .gcc (application number: 1--1936--2101) ii. With regard to Module 3.1 part II of the Applicant Guidebook4: 1. The GAC recognizes that Religious terms are sensitive issues. Some GAC members have raised sensitivities on the applications that relate to Islamic terms, specifically .islam and .halal. The GAC members concerned have noted that the applications for .islam and .halal lack community involvement and support. It is the view of these GAC membersthat these applications should not proceed. b. Safeguard Advice for New gTLDs To reinforce existing processes for raising and addressing concerns the GAC isproviding safeguard advice to apply to broad categories of strings (see Annex I). c. Strings for Further GAC Consideration In addition to this safeguard advice, that GAC has identified certain gTLD strings where further GAC consideration may be warranted, including at the GAC meetings to be held in Durban. i. Consequently, the GAC advises the ICANNBoard to: not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings : .shenzhen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .date, .spa, . yun,.thai, .zulu, .wine, .vin 2 To track the history and progress of GAC Advice to the Board, please visit the GAC Advice Online Register available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Recent+Meetings 3 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved. 4 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application “dot--example.” The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. 3 d. The GAC requests: i. a written briefing about the ability of anapplicant to change the string applied for in order to address concerns raised by a GAC Member and to identify a mutually acceptable solution. e. Community Support for Applications The GACadvises the Board: i. that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information. f. Singular and plural versions of the same string as a TLD The GAC believes that singular and plural versions of the string as a TLD could lead to potential consumer confusion. Therefore the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: i. Reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural versions of the same strings. g. Protections for Intergovernmental Organisations The GAC stresses that the IGOs perform an important global public mission with public funds, they are the creations of government under international law, and their names and acronyms warrant special protection in an expanded DNS. Such protection, which the GAC has previously advised, should be a priority. This recognizes that IGOs are in an objectively different category to other rights holders, warranting special protection by ICANN in the DNS, while also preserving sufficient flexibility for workable implementation. The GAC is mindful of outstanding implementation issues and commits to actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward. Pending the resolution of these implementation issues, the GAC reiterates its advice to the ICANN Board that: i. appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch. 2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Consistent with previous communications to the ICANN Board a. the GAC advises the ICANN Board that: i. the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreementshould be finalized before any new gTLD contracts are approved. The GAC also strongly supports the amendment to the new gTLD registry agreement that would require new gTLD registry operators to use only those registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA. The GAC appreciates the improvements to the RAA that incorporate the 2009 GAC--Law Enforcement Recommendations. The GAC is also pleased with the progress on providing verification and improving accuracy of registrant data and supports continuing efforts to identify preventative mechanisms that help deter criminal or other illegal activity. Furthermore the GAC urges all stakeholders to accelerate the implementation of accreditation programs for privacy and proxy services for WHOIS. 3. WHOIS The GAC urges the ICANN Board to: a. ensure that the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services, approved in 2007, are duly taken into account by the recently established Directory Services Expert Working Group. The GAC stands ready to respond to any questions with regard to the GAC Principles. The GAC also expects its views to be incorporated into whatever subsequent policy development process might be initiated once the Expert Working Group concludes its efforts. 4. International Olympic Committee and Red Cross /Red Crescent Consistent with its previous communications, the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: a. amend the provisions in the new gTLD Registry Agreement pertaining to the IOC/RCRC names to confirm that the protections will be made permanent prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural
by Ron Andruff April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Well said, Steve. This underscores all of the key arguments that were put forward. Well done. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion. But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish) Sport(s) Loan(s) Web(s) Game(s) Hotel(es) Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are well understood. -confusion -precedent for the next round -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous What’s not understood is how it happened and what we can do about it. First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar. Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” ) -Do-over on just these 24 pairs - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.” Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals are confusingly similar) String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the ICDR rightnow. If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs should be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble. We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch. No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound

1 0