- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

ALERTS From the Secretariat: Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 7, 2013

Feb. 7, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement about a new topic open for comment: Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification Comment/Reply Periods ^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 5 February 2013 *Comment Close:* 26 February 2013 *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05feb13-en.htm> *Reply Open:* 27 February 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-base-agreement-05feb13@icann.org> *Reply Close:* 20 March 2013 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13> *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* ICANN *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* To receive community feedback on the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes certain updates and changes, including a Public Interest Commitments Specification *Current Status:* The current draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement was published in June 2012 as part of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook: Base Agreement & Specifications <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-04jun12-en…>[PDF, 917 KB]. The New gTLD Registry Agreement requires various updates and changes, including the addition of the Public Interest Commitments Specification. *Next Steps:* ICANN staff will consider public comments on the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and recommend any additional necessary changes to the Board for approval. *Staff Contact:* Daniel Halloran *Email:* daniel.halloran(a)icann.org <mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Revised%20New%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20Including%20Additional%20Public%20Interest%20Commitments%20Specification%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The New gTLD Registry Agreement is the contractual document between successful New gTLD Applicants and ICANN, and will govern the rights and obligations of new gTLD registry operators. ICANN proposes to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement in connection with developments since the last posting of the Applicant Guidebook in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the new gTLD program. Among the proposed changes, ICANN has added the Public Interest Commitments Specification. The Public Interest Commitments Specification will require operators of new gTLDs to use only registrars that are party to the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (which is under negotiation). The Public Interest Commitments Specification is also a mechanism to allow registry operators to commit to certain statements made by the registry operator in its application for the gTLD, as well as to specify additional public interest commitments, in either case transforming such commitments into binding contractual obligations that may be enforced by ICANN through a new dispute resolution mechanism that will be available to any party harmed by a registry operator's failure to comply with such public interest commitments. Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013. The proposed revised New gTLD Registry Agreement is now open for public comment. *Section II: Background* The new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system. The Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the program and provide instructions on the application process. Within the AGB, Module 5 contains the draft New gTLD Registry Agreement. This is the document that will be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to the next phase of delegation and will contain the rights and obligations of each New gTLD registry operator. The current version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, published as part of the AGB in June 2012, requires certain updates and changes before it can be finalized for use by successful applicants. Each new gTLD application includes business plans and statements of intent regarding applicant plans for operation of the proposed new gTLD registry. For example, some applicants stated in their applications that they intend to implement registration restrictions or heightened rights protection mechanisms above those required in the current draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Outside of community-based applications, there are no mechanisms for requiring these plans and objectives to be incorporated into the New gTLD Registry Agreement. The GAC's Toronto Communiqué provided advice to the Board of Directors of ICANN that "it is necessary for all of these statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN." In response to the GAC, the New gTLD Program Committee of the Board has approved a public comment period on a proposed Public Interest Commitments Specification as a mechanism to transform application statements into binding contractual commitments, as well as to give applicants the opportunity to voluntarily submit to heightened public interest commitments. The Public Interest Commitments Specification has been incorporated into the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement as Specification 11 and is being submitted for public comments along with various other updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement more specifically described in the Summary of Changes, available below. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* * Revised gTLD Registry Agreement with Public Interest Commitments Specification 2013-02-05 - clean <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-05feb13-en…>[PDF, 886 KB] * Revised gTLD Registry Agreement with Public Interest Commitments Specification 2013-02-05 - red-lined <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-redline-05…>[PDF, 787 KB] * Summary of Changes 2013-02-05 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-ch…>[PDF, 445 KB] * Draft gTLD Registry Agreement 2012-06-04 version: Base Agreement & Specifications <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-04jun12-en…>[PDF, 917 KB] * ICANN Website for New Generic Top-Level Domains Applicant Guidebook: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb *Section IV: Additional Information* None /(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

BC Members Call - Monday, Feb. 11, 2013 at 11 am EST
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please save the date for the upcoming BC members pre Council call taking place next *Monday, Feb. 11th, 2013 at 11 am EST.* Agenda and dial in details will follow during the week. Please let me know if you require a dial out. 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 1

ALERTS From the Secretariat: "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm Dear BC members, ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: * Classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic * Determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. Concurrent with this comment period, the GNSO is being requested to provide guidance on this issue. Public Comment Box Link:http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.… The BC Excomm is discussing options to advance this discussion, and the discussion regarding "implementation versus policy", and ICANN's public interest responsibilities - what are they, what does it mean for ICANN to "act in the public interest"? In the meantime, please take note of the announcements regarding public comments. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb13-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Closed Generic" gTLD Applications 5 February 2013 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 5 February 2013 *Categories/Tags:* Top-Level Domains *Purpose (Brief):* ICANN is seeking public comment on the subject of "closed generic" gTLD applications and whether specific requirements should be adopted corresponding to this type of application. Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider this issue. In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to proposed objective criteria for: * classifying certain applications as "closed generic" TLDs, i.e., how to determine whether a string is generic, and * determining the circumstances under which a particular TLD operator should be permitted to adopt "open" or "closed" registration policies. The New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors has discussed this issue and has also directed completion of a set of focused research and analysis items to inform any possible action to be taken. Concurrent with this comment period, the GNSO is being requested to provide guidance on this issue. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm

1 0

Reply Comment of Business Constituency on Strawman Solution
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 6, 2013

Feb. 6, 2013

The Business Constituency filed extensive initial comments regarding the Strawman on 15-Jan-2013 (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>). Below are our Reply comments. Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also acting in the public interest to protect consumers. It is essential that broader business community’s views are heard and addressed to ensure their continued engagement in ICANN’s work. -- These comments were compiled based on previous positions and comments from BC members. This version was authorized by BC membership on 5-Feb-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal
by Marilyn Cade Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

Thanks, David. Excellent addition to comments. When I did initial draft, I overlooked the link to public interest. Excellent addition and fully consistent w BC positions. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fares David <DFares(a)newscorp.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:55:05 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal Thanks Steve. We too support the reply but would like to add the following two sentences: "While ICANN continues to consider the Strawman and LPR, they should recognize that being responsive to the concerns of the broader business community is also acting in the public interest to protect consumers. It is essential that broader business community's views are heard and addressed to ensure their continued engagement in ICANN's work. Thanks again, David From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:22 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link <http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html> ) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm> ) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

BC Reply Comment on Strawman proposal
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 5, 2013

Feb. 5, 2013

On 15-Jan, the BC filed substantive comments on the TM Clearinghouse Strawman solution. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00070.html>) We did not anticipate needing to also file a "Reply" comment. But the ExCom now believes we should file, since we heard last week about the CEO's wavering support for the Strawman proposal. Feb 5 is deadline for "Reply" comments on this topic. So we are proposing a brief Reply comment summarizing comments filed and re-emphasizing key parts of our initial Strawman comments. Below are DRAFT Reply Comments from the Business Constituency, regarding TM Clearinghouse Strawman Solution (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-strawman-30nov12-en.htm>) Of the 88 comments filed on the Strawman solution, 67 supported the Strawman solution and/or called for even stronger rights protection mechanisms, such as Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR). In other words, 76 percent of commenters favor implementation changes such as advance Sunrise notice and enhanced TM claim notices. Unsurprisingly, these supporting comments came from businesses that are negatively affected by having to purchase defensive registrations and engage in other expensive and often inadequate mechanisms to protect their consumers against confusion or outright fraud using second level domain names. While the BC does not believe that new gTLD operators will proactively solicit fraudulent registrations, we believe the comments submitted show that present anti-abuse mechanisms are simply inadequate. That is why commenters from around the world have endorsed the minimal implementation improvements proposed in the Strawman. The additional Strawman suggestion for Limited Preventive Registrations (LPR) also found wide support in comments filed. We believe that LPR could be done as a matter of implementation. But if ICANN determines that LPR is new policy, we believe that GNSO Council should embark on a fast-track policy development process (PDP). The gNSO Council has in the past done at least one fast-track PDP, which entailed face-to-face working sessions and significant time commitment from Councilors. ICANN should also commit to provide support for a fast track PDP, such as consulting services and travel funding for PDP participants. Unless we see objections from at least four BC members, we will file the above comment before end of day tomorrow, 5-Feb-2013. -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

6 5

ANNOUNCEMENT From Secretariat: Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open
by Benedetta Rossi Feb. 4, 2013

Feb. 4, 2013

Dear BC Members, Please find below an ICANN announcement about Policy vs. Implementation: Public comment period open. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org Policy vs. Implementation Comment/Reply Periods ^(*) Important Information Links *Comment Open:* 31 January 2013 *Comment Close:* 21 February 2013 *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Public Comment Announcement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm> *Reply Open:* 22 February 2013 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13@icann.org> *Reply Close:* 14 March 2013 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/> *Close Time (UTC):* 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview *Originating Organization:* ICANN Staff *Categories/Tags:* Policy Processes *Purpose (Brief):* In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened. *Current Status:* ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. implementation in the future. *Next Steps:* The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. *Staff Contact:* Marika Konings *Email:* Policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:Policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Policy%20vs.%20Implementation%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. The paper <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the community may want to consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to identify next steps. *Section II: Background* There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There are formal policies developed through the policy development processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p" policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again there are a variety of considerations. There could be established practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that policy might impact or require change to established practice(s) (resulting in "Policy"). One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community is identifying the proper process to follow when there are changes to policy recommendations that have already been adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose, for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry model. Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community. In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed framework which can be found in the annex to the paper. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* Policy versus Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j…>[PDF, 195 KB] *Section IV: Additional Information* N/A /(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses./ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Election Announcement: BC Officer Elections 2013 - Nominations open
by Benedetta Rossi Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

*From: BC Secretariat* *Date: January 31st, 2013* *CC: ICANN GNSO Secretariat* *bcvotes(a)hotmail.com <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com>* *Re: BC 2013 Officers Election Process* Please note that this is the announcement for the BC elections for the BC Officers positions (Chair, Vice Chair Finance & Operations, Vice Chair for Policy Coordination, CSG Representative). The election process opens on today, Jan. 31st, 2013. The election will be conducted by myself, BC Secretariat, fulfilling the role of Voting Officer for the duration of the election process. For the election process, all communications regarding elections will go to a _separate email_ --bcvotes(a)hotmail.com <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com>. The ICANN GNSO Secretariat will serve as Verifying Officer to verify the vote count, and validate the Election Process. _*Detailed information regarding the election procedure can be found in the election procedure document attached*_, which includes: *The attached election procedure covers:* . time-frames for the three stage process outlined in the BC Charter . description of open seats; . who is eligible to nominate, or accept a nomination . how to nominate; . how to accept a nomination, . candidate statements . when the elections will be held, . outcomes of election announcement . as exception: ties in any election The BC Charter provides the basis for the elections and is referenced in the relevant sections of the Elections Process, in particular Sections 4.2-4.7, 5, and 8.2.3. Eligibility for participation in the elections process is referenced in Section 11, regarding payment of Membership fees. Eligibility to stand for election is referenced in section 4.7 of the Charter. Questions about status of payment of dues should be sent tobc-secretariat(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-secretariat@icann.org>, but final status is determined by the BC ExComm who will make final determinations based on payments received. The detailed description of the Elections and Voting process is provided in the attached document so that all members are fully informed of the Elections Process and can avail themselves fully of the opportunity to nominate or stand for office, and vote, if eligible. *Dates of Nomination and Election:* The 4 weeks for this year's BC Officer elections opens today, Jan. 31st, 2013, and close on February 28th. The phases of the Election process are detailed in the Election Procedure attached. All communications regarding the election is conducted by a separate email, password protected, and available only to the Voting Officer, and to the Verifying Officer atbcvotes(a)hotmail.com <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com>. *Elections Process:* Questions regarding the Elections process, as of today should be sent tobcvotes(a)hotmail.com <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com>and the Voting Officer/Verifying Officer will be able to respond to questions regarding the Elections Process. /_*Once again, please refer to the attachment for the full details regarding this election.*_/ Transmitted by the BC Secretariat: Benedetta Rossi tobc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-private@icann.org> Copy to: Glen De Saint Gery, GNSO Secretariat, acting as Verifying Voting Officer, and tobcvotes(a)hotmail.com <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat(a)icann.org

1 0

ICANN CEO remarks on Strawman
by Steve DelBianco Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

This was reported in DomainIncite on 25-Jan-2013 http://domainincite.com/11732-industry-man-chehade-admits-strawman-mistake Industry man Chehade admits strawman “mistake”<http://domainincite.com/11732-industry-man-chehade-admits-strawman-mistake> Kevin Murphy<http://domainincite.com/about>, January 25, 2013, Domain Policy<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-policy> ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade today admitted that he badly handled recent discussions about improving trademark protections in the new gTLD program, saying he made a “mistake”. The remarks came during his speech at a meeting of registries and registrars in Amsterdam this afternoon. The address, which along with a Q&A lasted an hour, was remarkable for Chehade’s passion and candor, and his apparently conscious decision to portray himself as an industry man<http://domainincite.com/11717-its-official-people-hate-the-domain-name-indu…>. But he arguably risked alienating the parts of the ICANN community that would certainly not define themselves as part of the “industry”, such as the intellectual property community. This was no more evident as when he discussed the controversial trademark protection “strawman” proposals. “We’re moving very fast at ICANN now,” he said. “You almost have no idea how fast we’re moving. We are opening so many new things and fixing so many things, that frankly should have been done for a long time at ICANN, that the speed at which we’re moving is making me, and sometimes my team, make mistakes.” “I made one big mistake in the last few months,” he said. “I didn’t quite fully understand… this concept of ‘trying to take a second bite at the apple’, when I engaged with the Trademark Clearinghouse discussions.” That’s a reference to meetings in Brussels and Los Angeles late last year, convened by Chehade at the request of the Intellectual Property Constituency and Business Constituency. These meetings came up with the strawman proposals<http://domainincite.com/11064-straw-man-proposed-to-settle-trademark-deadlo…>, which would create (arguably) new rights protection mechanisms and bolster others in favor of trademark owners. Registries, registrars and new gTLD applicants complained that the IPC/BC proposals had already been considered multiple times by ICANN and the community and discarded. Apparently Chehade has now come around to their way of thinking, helped in part by Non-Commercial User Constituency member Maria Farrell’s complaint about the strawman process<http://domainincite.com/11294-ombudsman-probing-secretive-trademark-clearin…>. “I frankly didn’t fully understand until I went through the process, and appreciated what people were actually trying to do,” Chehade said. “So, okay, big learning experience for me… I take it, I move on and hopefully I won’t make that mistake again.” What does this mean for the strawman? Well, it’s not looking great. While the proposals are still open for public comment, at some point ICANN is going to have to decide which bits it wants to adopt as “implementation” and which are more suited to policy development. After today’s comments, I’d expect Chehade to be less inclined to push for the former.

4 3

Xavier presenting budget ar Intersessional. full room view.
by Chris Chaplow Jan. 31, 2013

Jan. 31, 2013

Sent from my iPad

1 0