- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Change in date: BC Members Call - March 12th, 2013 at 11 am EST
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC Members Pre Council call scheduled to take place on *Tuesday, March 12th, 2013 at 11 am EST (4 pm UTC)*. According to the draft call calendar the BC Members call was scheduled for this coming Monday, March 4th, 2013, but following the BC Officer Elections the Excomm has decided to postpone the call until after the seating of the new Excomm. Dial in details and agenda will follow. Please let me know if you require a dial out for the call, Thank you ever so much, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

FW: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 28, 2013

Feb. 28, 2013

I retransmitted the BC comment with a pasted version as well as a new copy of the document. It was saved on my mac, and while I could open it, Steve noted a problem with it. It has been received by ICANN in readable form. Marilyn Cade From: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com To: steve.crocker(a)icann.org; fadi.chehade(a)icann.org; john.jeffrey(a)icann.org CC: excomm(a)bizconst.org Subject: RE: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:37:29 -0500 It appears that the document may not have properly transmitted. It is pasted below, and is of course, posted back in Oct 2010 in the public comment process. Marilyn Pasted copy of 2010 submission: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers • To: "acdr-proposal@xxxxxxxxx" <acdr-proposal@xxxxxxxxx> • Subject: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> • Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:58:06 +0000 Business Constituency (BC) Comment on ICANN Proposal to Recognize New Domain Name Dispute Provider *Background* There is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) arbitration provider. *Summary* The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. *Explanation* The BC notes that the voluntary registration or renewal of a gTLD domain must be undertaken via an ICANN-accredited registrar. All registrars are subject to a uniform contractual agreement with ICANN, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). ICANN recently strengthened the RAA with additional amendments and the addition of flexible enforcement options, and a Final Report proposing additional RAA amendments has just been delivered to the GNSO for its consideration. In stark contrast, the involuntary termination or transfer of a domain can be ordered under the authority of a UDRP provider that has been accredited by ICANN but which is not bound by any constraints on or requirements pertaining to the exercise of that delegated authority. This has led to increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive consistency in the UDRP process. Such concerns are likely to grow if additional providers are accredited in the absence of the uniform framework of a standard mechanism. The BC strongly advocates that ICANN must first implement a standard mechanism with any and all UDRP arbitration providers that defines and constrains their authority and powers, and establishes regular and standardized review by ICANN with flexible and effective means of enforcement. The ultimate sanction of cancelling accreditation is an extreme sanction that ICANN has demonstrated a reluctance to initiate in other contexts. ICANN appears to be transitioning from an environment in which the vast majority of UDRP cases (approximately 98%) were handled by two arbitration providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which significant gTLDs were based in a limited number of national jurisdictions to one in which the majority of gTLDs and UDRP providers may well be headquartered in a widely distributed group of jurisdictions. In the future, business interests may well be investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive, new branding, and other purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that all UDRP providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost remediation for addressing cybersquatting. The BC notes that the issue of whether UDRP providers should be under a standard mechanism with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP providers should be under a standard mechanism. *** The rapporteur for these comments was Phil Corwin. ICANN Business Constituency http://www.bizconst.orgBusiness Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers From: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com To: steve.crocker(a)icann.org; fadi.chehade(a)icann.org; john.jeffrey(a)icann.org CC: excomm(a)bizconst.org Subject: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:57:57 -0500 Dear Chairman Crocker and President/CEO Chehade Comment from BC on recognizing new UDRP providers It has come to our attention that the Board Consent agenda includes consideration of a proposal for a new UDRP provider. This was a surprise to many, as there had been no intervening communications with the broader community since 2010. There is therefore a lack of information regarding the proposal and how earlier concerns have been addressed by ICANN. I am retransmitting the position of the BC regarding recognizing new UDRP providers, which was developed and posted in October 2010, in response to an ICANN proposal to recognize new domain name dispute providers. As described in the Statement, the BC believes that ICANN should implement a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. Transmitted by the BC Chair, on behalf of the Business ConstituencyFebruary 27, 2013

1 0

FW: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

Dear BC members The following communication has been transmitted to ICANN Board Chair; CEO/President Fadi Chehade, with copy to John Jeffrey, General Counsel and Board Secretary to convey the position that the BC developed regarding concerns about approval of UDRP providers. During the BC's list discussion over the last few days regarding this topic, some members raised other considerations that they wish to discuss, such how to ensure that providers are available from the developing countries that can effectively serve the new gTLDs, especially IDNs and those who may have significant numbers of new registrants from such regions as Africa, Latin America, Arab States. Steve Delbianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordination has provided information about how such topics might be addressed, and changes to any BC position be undertaken. Stay tuned for whether BC members do propose changes or updates to an existing BC statement, such as this. In addition, one BC member, Phil Corwin also shared a letter from the association he represents, sent in individual capacity to the Board, and which also references the BC position of October 2010. If other BC members do also write in your individual capacity, please also share an informational copy with the BC list. Marilyn CadeBC ChairFrom: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com To: steve.crocker(a)icann.org; fadi.chehade(a)icann.org; john.jeffrey(a)icann.org CC: excomm(a)bizconst.org Subject: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:57:57 -0500 Dear Chairman Crocker and President/CEO Chehade Comment from BC on recognizing new UDRP providers It has come to our attention that the Board Consent agenda includes consideration of a proposal for a new UDRP provider. This was a surprise to many, as there had been no intervening communications with the broader community since 2010. There is therefore a lack of information regarding the proposal and how earlier concerns have been addressed by ICANN. I am retransmitting the position of the BC regarding recognizing new UDRP providers, which was developed and posted in October 2010, in response to an ICANN proposal to recognize new domain name dispute providers. As described in the Statement, the BC believes that ICANN should implement a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. Transmitted by the BC Chair, on behalf of the Business ConstituencyFebruary 27, 2013

2 1

ALERTS from the Secretariat: Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) | Call for Volunteer Members: Representing ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 27, 2013

Feb. 27, 2013

Dear BC Members, On Feb. 11th, 2013, ICANN posted a call for volunteers for nomination for a Meeting Strategy Working Group. The deadline for submitting self nominations is Sunday, March 3rd, 2013. This advisory by the BC Secretariat is informational. Please find below the link and text for ICANN's announcement and list of necessary materials. To date, three BC members have indicated their interest in submitting their self nomination to ICANN [alpha by organizational affiliation]: 1. Michelle Chaplow, Andalucia.com 2. Liz Sweezey, Fairwinds Partners 3. Gabriela Szlak, E-Instituto All three members are members in good standing, and along with any other self nominees, should follow the process described in the ICANN materials. It is important for all BC members to know that other CSG Constituencies have members who are also nominating themselves. Given the number of interested volunteers, and based on other similar nomination processes that involve nominees across the three constituencies, normally, the CSG Executive Committee [two reps per each of the three constituencies] has undertaken a process for endorsement, if endorsement is possible. As BC Secretariat, I leave this discussion to the two present participants in the CSG Excom: Elisa Cooper, CSG Rep and Marilyn Cade, Chair/Alternate CSG Rep. However, all BC members will want to review the relevant materials. As clearly noted in the ICANN materials, the number of representatives per SO will be between 1 and 4, with no guarantee of any specific number. Please find the link and ICANN announcement below for your convenience. Again, any interested BC member should follow the self nomination process. I would welcome your keeping the Secretariat informed so that I can advise the BC Excomm of candidates who self nominate [such as the three BC members above]. Discussion of process within the CSG is up to the two representatives of the BC to the CSG Excomm - the CSG rep, Elisa Cooper and the Chair/Alternate CSG rep, Marilyn Cade. Please note from the process established by ICANN that direct submission of materials is required. To facilitate the BC and then CSG process, it would be helpful if you cc'd the BC Secretariat on your self nomination materials. Kind regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org <http://www.bizconst.org> bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org> Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) | Call for Volunteer Members: Representing ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/call-for-volunteers… 11 February 2013 In Short In line with theBoard resolution <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-02feb13-en.htm#2…>adopted on February the 2nd 2013,ICANNnow invites interested individuals to apply for Volunteer Member positions – in representation of a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee – to serve on the Meeting Strategy Working Group. Candidatures are to be submitted tomswgcandidatures(a)icann.org <mailto:mswgcandidatures@icann.org>by*Sunday, 3 March 2013 – 23:59 UTC*. Please read below for more information and details on the application procedure and Meeting Strategy Working Group mandate. Background Information ICANNhas committed to identifyingICANNMeeting locations two years in advance. After consideration that adoption of a prior Consolidated Meetings Strategy proposal was not timely the Public Participation Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a working group to address the meeting location strategy. The successful operation ofICANN's public meetings in all of the geographic regions is an important part ofICANN's accountability and transparency efforts. The action today will allow community members to serve alongside Board members and staff in helping to develop a meetings strategy that will align with community needs, while taking into account the fiscal and facility requirements for these meetings. In line with these requirements,ICANNnow invites interested individuals to apply for a position of Volunteer Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee, in the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). Composition of the MSWG Members of the Board: Sébastien Bachollet (Chair), Chris Disspain; Staff representatives: Sally Costerton (As selector designee by the CEO), Nick Tomasso, Chris Gift; Representatives of the relevantICANNAdvisory Committees and Supporting Organizations^1 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/call-for-volunteers…> . EachSOorACwill get between 1 to 4 seats: * ASO * ccNSO * gNSO * At-Large * GAC EachSOandACis encouraged to send a list of volunteers taking into account the need for diversity and not limited to the number of seats open. This will allow the selectors (the CEO or his designee and the Chair of theWG) to balance the various factors more easily. Membership is individual. Working Group Members are expected to attend face-to-face meetings, conference calls and may not delegate membership responsibilities. Mandate & Mission The mandate and Mission of Meeting Strategy Working Group is defined as follows in the MSWG Charter: To discuss and propose strategy for the structure, purpose and locations forICANNPublic Meetings and conferences, starting in 2015. Topics for consideration by the MSWG include: * Number ofICANNmeetings per year, * Other types of meetings and conferences (Global, regional, topic, stakeholder…), * Objectives of the Meetings and conferences, * Organization of the Meetings and conferences, * Localization (including rotation) of the Meetings and conferences, * Role of local host, * Visa and travel support, * Role of hosts and sponsors, * Expected language services to be provided atICANNmeetings and conferences, * Remote participation, * Outreach (during the Meetings and conferences). Methodology, Budget & Support The working methodology will be determined by the Chairman, in consultation with the working group, including: * How often the working group will meet and how (telephonic, face-to-face); * Best time and day on which to meet; * How long the meetings will last; * When notice will be provided and when materials will be distributed before the meeting. English is the working language. ICANNStaff support will be made available to the working group. External expertise may be provided upon request. Timeline Proposed deadline for the deliverables of the working group, including reporting requirements: * Call for candidates: 12 February 2013 – 3 March 2013, * Applications send to the relevantACorSO: 4 March 2013, * List of applicants supported by the relevantSOandACsend to the selectors: 14 March 2013, * Publication of the list of the members of the MSWG: 20 March 2013, * First meeting of the MSWG: week of 25 March 2013, * Discussion in Beijing, * Draft initial report: 21 May 2013, * Draft report for comments: 21 June 2013, * Comment period: 21 June 2013 to 26 July 2013, * Discussion in Durban: 12 July 2013, * Reply Comment period: 26 July 2013 to 30 August 2013, * Last report to the community: 10 October 2013, * Final report to the Board: 28 October 2013, * Board decision during the Buenos AiresICANNMeeting. Desired Skillset Applicants should possess the following professional and personal skills: * Knowledge ofICANNand its working practices and culture; * Knowledge of international meetings; * Team spirit, adaptability, consensus-seeking attitude; * Willingness to learn; * Capacity to reason objectively, putting aside personal opinions or preconceptions; * Commitment to devote sufficient personal time to the review process. Call for Applicants This call is solely intended for individuals interested in applying for a position of Volunteer Member, in representation of a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee, on the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG). How to apply? How to Apply for the Position of Volunteer Member for the MSWG Interested individuals are invited to provide the following: * A resume (maximum three pages); * A letter of motivation; * A Declaration of Interests (the template may be found at:http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/coi-declaration-…, 34 KB]) * The Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee he/she wishes to represent; * Any additional information the Support Organization or Advisory Committee may require to reach its decision on endorsement. Candidatures will be forwarded to the Supporting Organization (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC) identified by the applicant, for endorsement. SO/AC endorsement will be factored into the selection process; Candidatures should be emailed tomswgcandidatures(a)icann.org <mailto:mswgcandidatures@icann.org>. The list of all candidates will be published on theICANNwebsite. Deadline Candidatures will be accepted until_Sunday, 3 March 2013 – 23:59 UTC_. Compensation MSWG Members will not be remunerated. However, travel, meal and lodging costs for appointed Members to participate in MSWG meetings will be reimbursed upon request in accordance withICANN'scommunity travel support guidelines <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support>. Contact Please contact Renate DeWulf atrenate.dewulf(a)icann.org <mailto:renate.dewulf@icann.org>for any questions you may have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^1 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/call-for-volunteers…> The Selectors will establish the number of positions on the MSWG available for each SO/AC and then determine the composition of the MSWG in line with a set of requirements and criteria including meeting objectivity and independence requirements together with geographical and gender factors. Only candidates who have received endorsement from a relevant SO/ACs will be considered for membership.

1 0

Election Reminder: BC Officer Elections 2013 - Vote Closes on Tuesday Feb. 26, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 26, 2013

Feb. 26, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is an election reminder for the BC Officer Elections 2013. Voting closes on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013 at Midnight PST. Please submit your completed ballot before then to the BC Votes email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. As a reminder, all primary contacts and all eligible members were sent a ballot. If you have any questions regarding your eligibility to vote in the elections, please contact me, BC Secretariat at this email address bc-secretariat(a)icann.org, or for any other questions regarding the elections. Thank you ever so much, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 2

European Privacy Authorities Object to ICANN Whois Proposals
by Phil Corwin Feb. 26, 2013

Feb. 26, 2013

FYI, re:WHOIS--- http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120928_european_privacy_authorities_object_… European Privacy Authorities Object to ICANN Whois Proposals<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120928_european_privacy_authorities_object_…> * Sep 28, 2012 11:47 AM PST * Comments: 1<http://www.circleid.com/posts/print/20120928_european_privacy_authorities_o…> * Views: 3,265 By Brenden Kuerbis<http://www.circleid.com/members/2009/> [Brenden Kuerbis] In response to a letter from ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency<http://ncuc.org/> (NCUC) to data protection authorities concerning overreaching requests of law enforcement agencies in ICANN's ongoing Registrar Accreditation Agreement negotiations<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-24sep12-en.htm>, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party<http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/workinggroup/index_en.htm> has written the ICANN Board. Their comments focused on two new requirements proposed by LEAs for domain name registrars, namely that they re-verify registrant contact details and that they retain registrant data for a period of two years after a contract for a domain has ended. Regarding re-verification the Working Party noted that the problem of inaccurate WHOIS data can only be solved by addressing the unlimited public accessibility of private contact details in the WHOIS database. It also disagreed with the notion that the re-verification request originated from LEAs when the purpose of the WHOIS database is to facilitate contact about technical issues: The fact that WHOIS data can be used for other beneficial purposes does not in itself legitimise the collection and processing of personal data for those other purposes. The Working Party finds the proposed new requirement ... excessive and therefore unlawful. Concerning data retention, the Working Party found the proposed specification to have very broad scope, suggesting it may well facilitate the collection of information like credit card data, Skype handles, and communication log files and registration data. They noted that the requirement did not stem from any legal requirement in Europe, but "is explicitly introduced by ICANN to accommodate wishes from law enforcement." As such, The Working Party strongly objects to the introduction of data retention by means of contract issued by a private corporation in order to facilitate (public) law enforcement..." You can read the Working Party's entire letter here<http://www.circleid.com/pdf/20120926-scan-ICANN-letter-revised-final.pdf>. By Brenden Kuerbis<http://www.circleid.com/members/2009/>, Fellow in Internet Security Governance, Citizen Lab, Univ of Toronto. Kuerbis is also a contributor to the Internet Governance Project blog<http://internetgovernance.org/>. 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

ICANN Board Considering New UDRP Provider
by Phil Corwin Feb. 25, 2013

Feb. 25, 2013

FYI, on the consent calendar for the 2/28 ICANN Board Meeting https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-28feb13-en.htm --- Arab Center for Dispute Resolution's Proposal to Serve as UDRP Provider You may recall that the BC is on record as stating several years back (don't have time right now to find document) that ICANN should not accredit any new UDRP providers until it developed a standard contract for all providers. My recollection is that this provider was one of the two being considered at that time and is based in Amman, Jordan. In a related matter, while ICANN announced yesterday that NAF would be a URS provider, it did not state whether NAF would be placed under contract per the STI recommendation. 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 4

Techdirt: Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level Domains For Their Own Use?
by Phil Corwin Feb. 23, 2013

Feb. 23, 2013

FYI--- http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/02172722048/should-google-amazon-… Should Google, Amazon And Others Be Able To Lock Up New Generic Top Level Domains For Their Own Use? from the wasn't-quite-the-idea... dept For many years, we've noted that the entire setup of ICANN rolling out new top level domains (TLDs) was a complete joke<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/2157135146.shtml>, often driven by ICANN members who were in positions to be the registrars and registers for those new domains. Thus, all they seemed to do was create money out of thin air for those companies, since there was no actual demand for the TLDs, but companies felt obligated to buy them up anyway, to "keep them out of the hands" of critics, scammers or others. And, certainly a big fear<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120323/03201418221/massive-conflict-inte…> when ICANN decided to offer up its big "generic TLD" setup, whereby anyone could make a play for any new TLD, was that the whole thing was a boondoggle for domain registers and registrars with which to set up a whole bunch of new tollbooths. However, a funny thing happened along the way. While there certainly were a bunch of those kinds of TLDs applied for (many with competing claims fighting for the right to cash in), what became more interesting was the fact that the list of applications was absolutely dominated by Google and Amazon<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/12491719310/rip-off-highlights-to…> seeking to gain control over a very long list of TLDs. In fact, we noted that in many cases, Google and Amazon were lined up head to head competing over who would gain control over those TLDs. For example, they're competing with each other (and with some others) for the rights to .book, .shop, .store, .free, .game, .search, .play, .movie, .show, .mail, .map, .spot, .talk, .wow, .you and .cloud. And both of those companies are going for a bunch of others where they're not competing with each other. Google, for example, wants (among other things) .car, .dad, .mom, .dog, .family, .fyi, .plus, .tour, .prod, .here, .prof, .phd, meme., .lol, .day, .love and more. As you look down the list, you begin to realize that while the initial fear of registers and registrars shaking down everyone to buy new domain names to "protect" their trademarks was a legitimate concern, there was a second serious concern as well: that a bunch of these new gTLDs were not being applied for to set up a registry where anyone could obtain those kinds of domains, but rather to lock them up for one company's use. And while Amazon and Google are the most prominent players here, lots of other companies jumped in as well. Hasbro wants .transformers. Johnson and Johnson wants .baby (so do a bunch of others). Ralph Lauren wants .polo. Travelers Insurance wants the completely ridiculous .redumbrella, while Nationwide Insurance wants .onyourside. Monster Cable (of course) wants .monster. While some of those more specific ones wouldn't have any demand for anyone else to register anyway, there is a growing concern that companies might lock up certain TLDs, rather than make them available for registering. I'm sure lots of car companies would like theirname.car. But would that be possible? Apparently, ICANN -- whose boss has already admitted that they're in way over their heads<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/02052521823/icann-boss-were-not-r…> on these new gTLDs -- is now considering whether or not such a use of a gTLD should even be allowed<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/icanns-debating-whats-in-a-domain-nam…>. But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L'Oreal and others also applied for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the registry as "closed" -- meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are known as second-level domains. Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck. The article quotes someone from a hosting firm who notes that "It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to ... new [generic top-level domains] to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD." Of course, there is the flipside to this argument as well -- such TLDs that are simply locked up for a single company or service are also not on the market, meaning that they're not another in the long list of domains companies feel they "need to buy" purely for defensive reasons. Either way, at least one (still unnamed) applicant who is competing with a bunch of these companies for a few of the new gTLDs is hiring people to lobby Congress and the EU Parliament not to allow<http://domainincite.com/11861-mystery-gtld-applicant-to-take-google-fight-t…> firms to lock up any new gTLD. In the end, I think our original conclusion still stands: the whole gTLD process appears to be a continuing boondoggle for certain companies, whether it's to lock up certain TLDs or to sell off domains to people and companies who don't really want them, but feel compelled to pay up anyway. 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

Nom Com February Report Card
by Ron Andruff Feb. 22, 2013

Feb. 22, 2013

Dear colleagues, On behalf of Waudo Sigunga and I, please find attached the Report Card from the Nominating Committee meeting this past Wednesday. A few highlights to note: * Participation on the NomCom 2013 calls remains very high, with very few members missing the calls. * For BC members who are attending WSIS + 10 and IGF Consultation in Paris, please note that the NomCom Chair will be hosting an outreach event on Feb 28. I understand that our current Chair, Marilyn is confirmed, and Waudo and I would welcome knowing who else from the BC is planning on participating at the IGF to ensure that all of you are informed of the reception. * Outreach into all ICANN regions also remains a key priority, and Waudo Siganga is undertaking outreach in Africa, with support from other African BC members. As always, if you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations for Waudo or me, please feel free to contact us directly. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com>

1 0

Closed Generic TLDs: a straw poll of BC member views
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 22, 2013

Feb. 22, 2013

BC Members: ICANN just opened a public comment period (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>) asking whether to classify certain TLD applications as "closed generic", and to deter me "circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt open or closed registration policies." As written, this comment solicitation steers away from the question of whether a registry can own all the domain names in a TLD. Instead, ICANN is asking whether we need new policies regarding who may register a domain, as is apparent from this "background" statement under the public comment: "it should be clarified that the Code of Conduct refers to registry-registrar interactions, rather than eligibility for registering names in the TLD. Rather than the Code of Conduct, the true issue of concern being expressed appears to be that in certain applications, the proposed registration policies are deemed inappropriate by some parties." That points us to the Registry Code of Conduct (attached), which was created partly in response to BC concerns about allowing vertical integration of registries and registrars. Here's the section most relevant to this discussion: 1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD to: b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD Reasonable people interpret 1b differently. Does 1b prohibit a registry from owning names in its own TLD, except for limited circumstances? Or does 1b allow a registry to own any and all names that suit the purpose of their TLD? ICANN legal may further clarify its interpretation of 1b, but I believe they see 1b as permitting a "closed generic" TLD to own all its own names. Whatever the thoughts of ICANN legal, we have an opportunity to comment on what should be the interpretation and implications for closed generic TLDs. As we discussed last Tuesday, the BC may not arrive at a consensus or majority view, in which case we could submit just background information. My goal with this email is to to conduct a "straw" poll of BC members to assess convergence around a desired policy outcome that would form the basis of a BC Comment on closed generics. First, I compiled a 3-page history on the BC's support for closed TLDs, starting in 2007 with sponsored TLDs and then for dot-brand TLDs starting in 2009. (See attached) BC members with long memories may want to improve on that history, but its only here for background so let's not get too wrapped-up in that. So, here are the 3 potential outcomes we proposed on the BC call last week. Please reply with your views and preferences by 21-Feb-2013 and we'll see whether there's enough support to do a BC position on this before ICANN's deadline of 7-March. Outcome #1: Anything Goes. The registry Code of Conduct clearly allows a TLD operator to have control over who registers domains in their TLD, and the operator can own all the domains if they wish. Under this outcome, a registry could own all the domains in their TLD without having to ask ICANN for an exemption from the Code of Conduct. Outcome #2: Exemption Required. The registry Code of Conduct prohibits a TLD operator from registering names in its own TLD, except for names reasonably necessary for operating the TLD. Under this outcome, the 1b "except for" does not swallow the rule and thereby allow control of all domains in the TLD. A registry that wants to own all the domains in its TLD can still do so, however, if it obtains an exemption from the Code of Conduct, as provided in Para 6 of the Code: 6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest. All that remains is for ICANN to develop & publish the process and criteria they will use to determine whether giving an applicant this exemption is "in the public interest" as required by para 6. Presumably, the public interest would include considerations of consumer protect, freedom of expression, competition, innovation, and relevant pledges made by ICANN in the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments. Outcome #3. Only dot-brands may get an exemption. Only dot-Brands should get the Code of Conduct Exemption. That would allow .Hilton, .Apple, .Google to pursue the exemption, and they should have no trouble getting it. But Goodyear would not be eligible for an exemption that allow it to own all names in .tires TLD, for example. If this straw poll reveals no significant support for any of the above, the BC would not draft a position on this public comment period. Instead, the BC might submit just background information and analysis, and perhaps a Reply comment later on. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

7 8