- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Expansion of TMC Database-Procedural Issues
by Phil Corwin March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

I am well aware that the BC favored expansion of the TMC database to allow rights holders to add up to 50 domain name variations that had been recovered via UDRP or court proceedings. While not wishing to be the skunk at the garden party, I continue to believe that the manner in which ICANN made this determination raises serious procedural issues (especially coming right after being advised by the GNSO that a majority believed it was a policy matter requiring further discussion) - and raises additional implementation questions that have yet to be addressed. Tom Barrett of Encirca and TM.biz has a guest post at http://www.thedomains.com/2013/03/23/guest-post-tom-barrett-icann-expands-t… that addresses the subject in what I believe is a balanced manner. I have posted my own article on this at http://internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Amnesia . The point for business users is to be cautious in validating questionable procedures to reach decisions you favor, because the same procedures can later be used to ram through decisions you strongly disfavor. For my own part I think the TMC decision may sometimes be useful as an educational measure for registrants who may have no intention to infringe, but in many other instances will generate false positives that deter registrations that would not constitute bad faith registration and use. Regardless, now that ICANN has made the decision some additional questions arise that have not been clarified: * What if any documentation will rights holders have to submit to the TMC when they seek to list TM variants claimed to have been recovered in prior proceedings? * When a registrant receives a TMC warning will he/she be advised whether the domain being sought is an exact TM match or a variation that was lost in a UDRP or litigation? * When the domain was lost in a UDRP, will there be further information as to whether the filing was responded to or was a default judgment - and whether there was an appeal by registrant and, if so, its result? * If a registrant proceeds with a domain registration of a TM variation despite receiving the TMC warning will that subsequently be viewed (at least presumptively) as prima facie evidence of bad faith registration in a subsequent UDRP or URS, or will that critical factor remain an open question for panel determination? All of these are relevant questions that are not addressed in ICANN's announcement of last week. The answers are important for all prospective registrants in new gTLDs. Thanks for considering my viewpoint, and best regards. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Interesting Perpsective on DNS Industry Reputation
by Phil Corwin March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

https://www.centr.org/article/reputation<http://www.facebook.com/l/FAQFQRXz_/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.centr.org%2Farticle%2…> Reputation is an idle and most false imposition oft got without merit, and lost without deserving. (*) Created: Monday, March 25, 2013 - 10:45 Author: Peter Van Roste Since a few weeks, ICANN's CEO Fadi Chehadé has been travelling the world even more intensely than he did before. Participation in APNIC, APTLD, IG meetings in Paris, CEO roundtables across the world... At every single one of those occasions he underlines that he is serious about his commitment to implement much needed changes at ICANN. And he walks the talk. To turn ICANN into a truly international organisation he plans operational hubs across the regions and relocation of his exec team. To improve end-user experience the registrants will benefit from a charter outlining their rights and obligations. To understand better the perception issues his organisation faces, the ICANN community will be asked for its opinion. The trigger for more than a few of these changes is a reputational study that ICANN commissioned with Echo Research. The study isn't publicly available yet and therefore this might seem like taking a blindfolded swing at a piñata. But it isn't really. Comments from Fadi and ICANN staff and information that was circulated by participants of the roundtables give a pretty good idea of what to expect in Beijing. The study looked into the media reporting about 'DNS industry as a whole' and evaluated how favorable those reports were. The study looked into the industry's reputation across the different regions, the volume of the coverage and how that reputation changes - i.e. declines over time. And it also looked into the factors that drive that trend. So far for what is in the study. But what isn't in it is equally important. What it doesn't do - at least from the reports I received - is make a distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs, between registrars and registries, between policy and implementation, between ICANN and its thousand community members. The image that results from it ("The Domain Name Industry has a bad reputation") has been painted with a very thick brush. And that doesn't allow for much needed detail. The comments made by Fadi and the reporting that followed (http://domainincite.com/11717-its-official-people-hate-the-domain-name-indu…) trigger questions and raise eyebrows in government (and other) offices around Europe. In particular as this doesn't match with what studies on country code TLDs have been showing for the last few years: registrants have in general a very positive opinion of their ccTLD and local registrars. Actually, studies on the Dutch, Swedish and Italian (http://www.nic.it/everything-on.it/domini-.it-e-imprese) domains have shown exactly the opposite from the Echo Research findings. It is undoubtedly a positive thing that ICANN is serious about understanding the industry's reputation, fixing what is wrong and share the positive stories with the world. But messages should be delivered with caution and nuance otherwise they are bound to be counterproductive. (UPDATE: Last week it emerged that ICANN commissioned an additional study which does look into the reputation of ccTLDs. The results seem to be much better than the overall numbers. Where the overall study shows that 12% of the coverage of the industry qualifies as negative, this number would be as low as 3% in the ccTLD specific study. I am looking forward to a full update on both studies at the ICANN meeting in Beijing.) (*) Quote attributed to William Shakespeare, but the 'oft' probably gave that away already. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Reminder: Adobe connect access for BC Members call running now
by Benedetta Rossi March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please join the adobe connect room during the call that's currently running: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/busnsconst/ Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

Alerts from the Secretariat - Composition of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG)
by Benedetta Rossi March 25, 2013

March 25, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below the ICAN announcement regarding the Composition of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). It is my pleasure to announce that one of our BC Members, Michelle Chaplow (Andalucia.com) was selected to be part of this Working Group. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org ICANN News Alert ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21mar13-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Composition of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) 21 March 2013 *20 March 2013* – The Selectors of the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) announce the composition of the Working Group. In selecting the MSWG, multiple factors were considered including understanding ICANN's working practices, consensus-building and analytical skills and balances of geography, gender, consistency, constituency. *Volunteer Working Group Member in Representation of a Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC)* *Candidate* *Gender* *Country* *Region* *SO/AC* Donna Austin F AU AP GNSO Satish Babu M IN AP ALAC Tijani Ben Jemaa M TN AF ALAC Michelle Chaplow F UK EU GNSO Keith Davidson M NZ AP ccNSO Eduardo Diaz Rivera M PR NA ALAC Paul Diaz M US NA GNSO Tracy F. Hackshaw M TT LAC GAC Sylvia Herlein Leite F BR LAC ALAC Sandra Hoferichter F DE EU ALAC Poncelet Ileleji M GM AF GNSO Dmitry Kohmanuyk M UA EU ASO Suzanne Murray Radell F US NA GAC Ana Cristina Ferreira Amoroso das Neves F PT EU GAC Douglas Onyango M UG AF ASO Margarita Valdés Cortés F CL LAC ccNSO This message was sent to bc-secretariat(a)icann.org from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=23976196&l=6333&s=AJLG&m=90…>

1 0

DRAFT FOR REVIEW: BC comment on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider
by Steve DelBianco March 23, 2013

March 23, 2013

Attached is a draft comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments on ACDR's proposal to serve as a UDRP provider (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/acdr-proposal-01mar13-en.htm>). The initial comment period ends 22-Mar and reply comments close 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 volunteered as rapporteur for these comments. As mentioned on our member call last week, this draft does not propose any changes to previous BC positions. Instead, the attached comment repeats the BC position expressed twice before: 2011: BC comments on Preliminary Issue Report on current state of the UDRP (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_UDRP_Issues_Report_July_…>) 2010: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html>) The 2010 BC position on ACDR’s initial application was that the BC could not support any accreditation of additional UDRP providers until ICANN developed a standard and enforceable mechanism to assure uniformity in UDRP administration. BC members should note that non-support is distinct from outright opposition. We are taking comments on this draft until midnight 21-Mar with plan to submit on 22-Mar. In my view, there is no requirement for formal voting since the BC is not taking any new positions in this draft. However, if 10% of BC membership objects or proposes changes to the prior positions expressed here, we'll hold a call to consider changing the present BC position. We have until 13-Apr to debate and develop a new position, if it comes to that. Keep in mind that any vote to change positions would require a majority vote of BC members. (per Charter section 7.3) -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

7 9

RE: Nom Com March Meeting Report Card
by Ron Andruff March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

With attachment. Aplogies! RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA <http://www.rnapartners.com> Partners, Inc. _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:22 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Cc: 'waudo siganga' Subject: Nom Com March Meeting Report Card Dear colleagues, As you know, we instituted Report Cards this year for the first time in the Nominating Committee's history to ensure that all ICANN stakeholders are privy to as much information as the Nom Com can release without compromising its work to find and appoint candidates to fill key positions within ICANN. Therefore, it is with pleasure that Waudo Siganga and I provide the BC membership with the Nominating Committee Report Card from our meeting this past Wednesday, March 20th. As always, should you have any thoughts, comments or recommendations for appointees, please do not hesitate to be in contact with either Waudo or me. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

2 2

Pre-Beijing Policy Webinar presentation and recordings
by Benedetta Rossi March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, The Pre-Beijing Policy Webinar presentation has been published on pages: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/presentations http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence The recording and transcript of the Policy webinar can also be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar and may be viewed directly at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-policy-update-webinar-21mar1… Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [liaison6c] Pre-Beijing Policy Webinar presentation and recordings Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:46:10 -0700 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: liaison6c <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, The Pre-Beijing Policy Webinar presentation has been published on pages: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/presentations http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence The recording and transcript of the Policy webinar can also be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar and may be viewed directly at: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-policy-update-webinar-21mar1… Thank you. Kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Reminder: Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar
by Benedetta Rossi March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below a reminder of the Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar taking place tomorrow, March 21st, 2013 at 12 pm UTC and 7 pm UTC. Please follow the instructions below to RSVP if you are interested in joining this webinar. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21feb13-en.htm Pre-Beijing ICANN Policy Update Webinar Invitation 21 February 2013 *In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (**gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>**) to receive the call details.* Whether you plan to participate in the upcoming ICANN meeting in Beijing remotely or in person, you're invited to an update on the background and current status of major policy issues which are likely to be discussed during the Beijing Meeting. The ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on *Thursday 21 March at 12.00 UTC and Thursday 21 March 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). Amongst other topics, updates will be provided on: * WHOIS related activities * The locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings * Protection of IGO and INGO Names * IDN ccNSO PDP * Study Group on Use of Names for Countries and Territories * SSAC report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation Taxonomy The webinar will cover other topics which will be raised during or otherwise relevant to the Beijing Meeting. In addition, staff will provide a briefing on the ALAC's activities related to current policy development issues of the Supporting Organizations. 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 policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@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) 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 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 2

Nom Com March Meeting Report Card
by Ron Andruff March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

Dear colleagues, As you know, we instituted Report Cards this year for the first time in the Nominating Committee's history to ensure that all ICANN stakeholders are privy to as much information as the Nom Com can release without compromising its work to find and appoint candidates to fill key positions within ICANN. Therefore, it is with pleasure that Waudo Siganga and I provide the BC membership with the Nominating Committee Report Card from our meeting this past Wednesday, March 20th. As always, should you have any thoughts, comments or recommendations for appointees, please do not hesitate to be in contact with either Waudo or me. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN will implement 3 of 4 Strawman rights protection improvements
by Jimson Olufuye March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

1 0