- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

POSTED: BC Comments on initial report for Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR).
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 16, 2010

Aug. 16, 2010

BC comments on recovery of expired domain names are now posted to ICANN website. These comments address ICANN policy development on how registrants might renew their domain names after they expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate for registrants. Thanks to Berry Cobb for taking the lead on this issue. Our cover note is shown below, and our comment is posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-initial-report/msg00006.html ---- Attached are consensus comments of the Business Constituency (BC), regarding the initial report of the GNSO Working group on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR). The BC supports most of the recommendations in the Initial Report, and offers specific suggestions to guide the policy development process as it moves to the next stage. Several BC members contributed to this working group, including Mikey O'Connor, Mike Rodenbaugh, Mike Palage, Phil Corwin, and Berry Cobb. Our Rapporteur in developing these comments was Berry Cobb.

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

7 9

Action Needed by Members: Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010/Council Agenda items feedback/reminder about Review Teams Selection Process
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Dear Members: Please take note of the Council agenda. If you, as a BC member, have a specific topic(s) to discuss with BC colleagues that is on the Council agenda, please post it to the bc-gnso(a)bizconst.org list. You will reach all BC members and the full ExComm. Please Note: The ExComm met last Friday and took several decisions on improving the consultation processes on all fronts. A fuller report on those discussions is being prepared and will be posted over the week-end. I have been traveling in Africa since Saturday and have had limited access. However, to preannounce a couple of important decisions:We will be announcing ExComm calls that will take place a few days after the Council agenda is released. These ExComm discussions will primarily be focused on topics on the Council agenda. As needed, ExComm working sessions will address administrative/management work items of the Constituency. We will be announcing a schedule for BC calls for later in August, September [with a face to face option]; October and November. That will be a separate update. This update to the membership is to ask you to focus on the Council Agenda and share your views on any of the topics to be addressed.However, please note that one topic should be addressed privately, if you are commenting on candidates, or conveying your views on CSG or BC strategy. One topic on the agenda is already the subject of CSG consultation with the BC: Item 4: Endorsements of GNSO members of Review Teams As you know from earlier emails to the list, the CSG is meeting to undertake a decision on putting forward the CSG candidates to the RT. This is a reminder that on Tuesday, a CSG meeting will take place to consider the CSG nominations to the RTs. To date, the CSG does not support the Council intervening in the SG's nominations, nor in overturning an SG's preference. This was discussed at the Kenya CSG and BC Members meeting, and has continued to be supported by the CSG to date. It is possible that there will be a motion put forward by the CSG, after the Tuesday meeting. As members, you were asked to provide input on the candidates for the CSG, and also on the proposed approach of asking the Council to forward four candidates [ one per SG] for SSR [only three seats provided by Selectors for GNSO]; and four candidates [one per SG] on WHOIS [four seats provided by Selectors to GNSO]. Several members have responded. You have until CoB Saturday to provide comments but these should be sent directly to Sarah Deutsch and Marilyn Cade, as the CSG reps. FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, personal email addresses are provided.DO not post comments about these questions to the public list, please.If you have a more general comment, you are of course welcome to use the full BC list. We recognize that we are asking you to work on a number of items at the same time, and appreciate your participation and input at all times. From: Glen(a)icann.org To: liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 11:49:35 -0700 Subject: [liaison6c] Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010 Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 26 August 2010. https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_26_august_2010 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26aug10-en.htm This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Meeting Time 20:00 UTC See the following and http://www.timeanddate.com/ for other times: 13:00 PDT; 15:00 CDT; 16:00 EST; 17:00 Buenos Aires; 17:00 Brazil; 22:00 CET; 24:00 Moscow Friday, 27 August 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 06:00 Melbourne Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. GNSO Council meeting audiocast http://stream.icann.org/gnso/ Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll call of Council members 1.2 Update any statements of interest 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: • 5 August 2010 meeting – Approved 21 August 2010. Item 2: Overview of New Procedures Related to Voting (15 minutes) 2.1 Refer to: • GNSO Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf • Cheat sheet for new voting procedures Visual Procedures Map covering abstentions, absences, and vacancies http://gnso.icann.org/council/visual-procedures-map-en.htm Abstention Notification Form to be completed by an officer of the abstaining Councilor's appointing organization (Stakeholder Group or Constituency, as appropriate) http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm 2.2 Brief Overview (Ken Bour) 2.3 Discussion Item 3: Whois Studies (25 minutes) 3.1 Refer to: • Whois Studies Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-studies-report-for-gnso-23mar10-en… • RFP for Proxy/Abuse Study: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm • Liz Gasster's summary chart of the studies: http://gnso.icann.org/whois/whois-studies-chart-30jul10-en.pdf • Brief overview of the study choices presented by Lisa Phifer on 15 July: http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-whois-report… 3.2 Highlights of Report for Whois Study # 3 (Liz Gasster) 3.3 Motion to proceed with Study # 1 • Refer to motion: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?26_august_motions • Discussion • Vote (Note that absentee voting will not be allowed for this but new procedures may apply.) 3.4 Continuing discussion of how to proceed in selecting studies 3.5 Next steps? Item 4: GNSO Endorsements for the AoC SSR & Whois Policies RTs (25 minutes) 4.1 Refer to: • GNSO AoC Reviews site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/ • GNSO SSR RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/dns-ssr-en.htm • GNSO Whois RT site: http://gnso.icann.org/aoc-reviews/whois-policies-en.htm 4.2 SG primary & alternate endorsements: CSG NCSG RrSG RySG SSR Primary Ken Silva SSR Alternate(s) Whois Primary Kathy Kleiman Whois Alternate(s) Kim G. von Arx 4.3 Summary of Geographic & Gender Diversity for SG Primary Endorsements: # from Africa # from Asia/Pacific # from Europe # from Latin America & Caribbean # from North America # Male # Female 0 4.4 Possible Candidates to Improve Diversity: Africa Asia/Pacific Europe Latin America & Caribbean North America Male # Female None 4.5 Should the GNSO add one or two candidates to improve diversity of either RT slate? • Discussion • Next steps? [e.g., motion(s) for consideration on 8 September] • Note: GNSO endorsement slate is due to Selectors not later than 12 September Item 5: Vertical Integration (VI) PDP WG (20 Minutes) 5.1 Refer to Revised Initial Report from the WG (insert link) 5.2 Overview of the report (Stéphane Van Gelder) • Discussion • Next steps? • Deadline for submission of report to the Board for their retreat: 13 September 5.3 Refer to motion (if any): https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?26_august_motions • Discussion • Vote • Follow-up actions Item 6: Ongoing Action Items (10 Minutes) 6.1 Next Steps for Prioritization of GNSO Projects (Chuck Gomes) 6.2 Registration Abuse Policies WG Recommendations Action Plan (Marika Konings) 6.3 Suggested improvements for GNSO Public Council meetings * (Wendy Seltzer) * Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 6.4 Suggestions for GNSO Council interaction with the Board * (Stéphane Van Gelder) * Target date for completion of work and submission of input to Stéphane & Glen for schedule planning: 15 September. 6.5 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) 6.6 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) 6.7 Council meeting dates for November, December & January (Glen de Saint Géry) Item 7: Other Business (5 Minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (“GNSO Supermajority”); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that “a two-thirds vote of the council” demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ________________________________________ Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) 20:00UTC ________________________________________ California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 13:00 Cedar Rapids, USA (CDT) UTC-6+1DST 15:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil UTC-3+0DST 17:00 Dublin, Ireland (GMT) UTC+0DST 21:00 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+1DST 22:00 Moscow, Russian Federation (MSK) UTC+3+0DST 00:00 next day Karachi, Pakistan UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day Hong Kong, China UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day Tokyo, Japan UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 06:00 next day ________________________________________ The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2010, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ________________________________________

1 0

BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (filed 12-Aug)
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

As noted last Friday, the BC executive committee drafted clarifications to the Sep-209 BC position on vertical integration. Below I’ve summarized comments from members that influenced the clarifications that were filed by the BC today: - Philip Sheppard agreed with the clarifications. (significant, since he was Rapporteur for Sep-2009 position) - John Berard has larger concerns, but ended saying the “status quo position is acceptable” - Ron Andruff offered several in-line edits. ‘Therefore, the BC position should be interpreted as opposing changes to any separation safeguards, including not more than 15% financial investments between any two structural entities.’ This implies that the BC assumed registrars should not own more than 15% of registries. - Ron Andruff also noted that the WG would resist our clarification about single registrant with multiple users. Mike Rodenbaugh and Fred Felman replied that the BC should nonetheless press our case. - Marilyn Cade noted that this comment is just for clarification of our Sep-2009 position, so it cannot be expanded to cover additional topics. That discsussion should, however, be part of ongoing BC policy position development. - Mike, Ron, and John had further exchange regarding SRSU/SRMU, all of which can be useful in further work, but would not be a clarification of our Sep-2009 positions. - Konstantin Kladouras (ETNO) supported the draft clarifications, but noted that we did not allow enough time for trade associations to react to draft comments. - Marilyn Cade asked for documentation for my assertion that a dot-brand should be able to manage domains for its “business partners, agents, and subcontractors”. Since I could not locate written documentation for this, we struck this from our clarification. Attached is the comment that the BC Executive Committee filed today. The cover note is shown below: The Business Constituency (BC) already has an approved position on Vertical Integration (VI), which was posted in Sep-2009. However, The executive committee of the BC believes that the BC needs to add clarifications of our Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group’s initial draft report: 1. clarify what the BC meant by “status quo” in our statement “the BC opposes any change to the status quo for all TLDs intended for sale to third parties” 2. clarify what the BC meant by “internal use” in our statement “The BC believes that uniquely for domain names intended for internal use, the principle of registry-registrar vertical separation should be waived.” 3. encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for dot-brand (single registrant) exceptions. We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration WorkingGroup Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

To all members Steve is finalizing the BC submission. Thanks to those members who posted their input. It was especially helpful given the short time frame. And, to ETNO's comment on such short time limits, we will try to identify what is out there of priority to members. As much as possible, the determinant of that is member initiated. But we will try to get a calendar reestablished. apologize that we all missed this one until the apparent need to clarify the BC position arose. It was on the Council agenda as well. But we will have to consider what it means to have WGs where many members present individual views, and how we then formalize the reporting back. In the meantime, look for Steve's filing ltr today. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:45:06 To: <jb7454(a)att.com> Cc: <kkladouras(a)ote.gr>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <debecker(a)etno.be>; <alain.bidron(a)orange-ftgroup.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) just a quick note -- today's the deadline for filing comments on the VI Initial Report. mikey On Aug 12, 2010, at 8:57 AM, BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) wrote: I agree that any comments should be limited to clarifications and broader SRSU/SMSU issues would require further discussion. Jeff From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kladouras Konstantinos Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 6:07 AM To: bc - GNSO list Cc: debecker(a)etno.be <mailto:debecker@etno.be> ; alain.bidron(a)orange-ftgroup.com <mailto:alain.bidron@orange-ftgroup.com> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) Dear BC colleagues, Regarding the consultation on the Initial Report on Vertical Integration, we would like to express the following: 1. ETNO fully endorses the need for BC to file comments 2. ETNO supports the proposed BC comments, as presented last Friday 6 August 2010. Being an Association, this was not an easy task for us. The fact that the BC comments are clarifications of a previous agreed position helped a lot. 3. It is obvious that certain issues, particularly the SRSU/SRMU, need more thought and exchange of views (accompanied by impartial arguments). As BC we are not ready to express a view now, but we should prepare for next time. In addition, recognizing that the BC is a very diverse Constituency, we would appreciate that any draft BC position is based on the things that unite us and not on individual interests. If a member has strong views about something which remains controversial, this member may submit additional comments individually. 4. Finally, we do appreciate all the work done by the drafters, but please do not wait for the last minute to present BC proposals. We need adequate time to examine any proposal, so we urge you to present them and "freeze" them in due time. Best regards, Konstantin Konstantin KLADOURAS Chairman ETNO IGV-WG OTE S.A. Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE Tel: +30 210 611 8319 Mob: +30 697 33 44 006 e-mail: kkladouras(a)ote.gr <mailto:kkladouras@ote.gr> ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:43 PM To: Fred Felman; Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: ron Andruff; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) Speaking in this case as the Chair, I offer the following point of view: A more robust, and clear set of discussoins of what members of the BC want to explore in this area will have to wait. Our present statement is very high level, and is not a documented set of calls or discussions to elaborate on different issues associated with SR/MU. We have to be careful, and responsible that we are not elaborating or adding onto the existing position, but providing narrow clarifications. That is within the scope of the ExComm, but elaborated and detailed discussions and new draft documents further exploring the issues will take time, and have to be undertaken in a longer time frame. As discussed on the call with the individual BC members who are representing their individual views on the WG last week, Steve DelBianco will be setting up a way to discuss this topic inside the BC. That is a separate discussion, yet to be had. I think it is an important one, and that is clear from the interest that this element is receeiving. However, the clarification document needs to stay very limited; and not over extend positions. Let's keep in mind that individual members can file more elaborated views on their company's/or clients views on this particular topic in the public comment process, if they wish to do so. Marilyn ---------------- From: Frederick.Felman(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com> To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:24:36 -0700 CC: randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> I'd agree with Mike in this case. It's the model that many Big brands are considering. Sent from +1(415)606-3733 On Aug 10, 2010, at 9:53 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: I disagree that Single Registrant - Multiple User models have no support in the WG. To the contrary, those models would be freely allowed under the "free trade" proposals that have garnered a lot of support in the WG - in fact receiving more support than either of the other major alternatives in the last straw poll of the WG. More importantly to our Members, such models may very well be desirable for many businesses who wish to own and operate a new gTLD, and so we should support that flexibility as there does not appear to be any additional or substantial harm that would be caused by those business models. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) Steve, Thanks for the updated comments. I have made a couple of edits/comments, as noted in the attached draft. I specifically commented on the Single Registrant Multiple User (SRMU), which has not gotten any traction, rather only push back from the broader working group. The BC should take note of this and perhaps modify its language in this regard. Thanks. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 1:24 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug) To: BC members From: BC executive committee On Thursday 5-Aug, your executive committee held a call with several BC members who are devoting much of their time to the Vertical Integration (VI) Working Group. ( Ron Andruff, Berry Cobb, Mike Palage, and Jon Nevett ) The discussion revealed that the Working Group is not likely to reach consensus for any single plan. However, there are principles which may emerge with significant support. The initial report of the Working Group is presently posted for public comment, with a due date of 12-Aug. (see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report ) The BC already has an approved position on VI, which was posted in Sep-2009. However, we believe that the BC needs to make key clarifications of our Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group's initial draft report: 1. define what the BC meant by "status quo" in our statement "the BC opposes any change to the status quo for all TLDs intended for sale to third parties" 2. define what the BC meant by "internal use" in our statement "The BC believes that uniquely for domain names intended for internal use, the principle of registry-registrar vertical separation should be waived." 3. encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single registrant - Single User exception. We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here for your review and comment. The executive committee plans to file these comments by 12-August deadline. (comment attached) Again, these are meant to be clarifications of existing position - not a new comment that would be subject to the 14-day review period required by our charter. But as you review these comments, please feel free to raise new issues that go beyond clarifying our Sep-2009 position, since your thoughts will be extremely helpful to the BC members on this working Group and to our GNSO Councilors. For example, please think about how to distinguish 'registered users' of a dot-brand owner from 'registrants' of an ICANN-accredited registrar. --Steve DelBianco - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust
by Ron Andruff Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

Philip, I apologize if I my comments were too strong. That was not the intent. Rather, I was attempting to rebut Mike R's comments, i.e., they haven't offered any good reason why these models shouldn't be allowed. Indeed, the topic of flaws in the WG model is very worthy of debate and further discussion. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:37 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust Ron, you put words into my mouth. a) I find the RACK proposal and reasoning excellent. b) I made a much more generic proposal. "This to my mind is one of the key flaws of the WG model of policy development. Incumbents are able to manipulate future markets. This has anti-trust implications". That is all I said. No accusations. Just noting the WG model has this potential. Actual abuse is the exercise of market power. Worthy of a debate surely? Philip

1 0

Proposed BC Comment on Vertical Integration Working Group Initial Report (to be filed 12-Aug)
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

To: BC members From: BC executive committee On Thursday 5-Aug, your executive committee held a call with several BC members who are devoting much of their time to the Vertical Integration (VI) Working Group. ( Ron Andruff, Berry Cobb, Mike Palage, and Jon Nevett ) The discussion revealed that the Working Group is not likely to reach consensus for any single plan. However, there are principles which may emerge with significant support. The initial report of the Working Group is presently posted for public comment, with a due date of 12-Aug. (see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#vi-pdp-initial-report ) The BC already has an approved position on VI, which was posted in Sep-2009. However, we believe that the BC needs to make key clarifications of our Sep-2009 position in order to make it more relevant the VI Working Group’s initial draft report: 1. define what the BC meant by “status quo” in our statement “the BC opposes any change to the status quo for all TLDs intended for sale to third parties” 2. define what the BC meant by “internal use” in our statement “The BC believes that uniquely for domain names intended for internal use, the principle of registry-registrar vertical separation should be waived.” 3. encourage continued work to define eligibility and scope for Single registrant – Single User exception. We drafted a comment along these lines and have posted it here for your review and comment. The executive committee plans to file these comments by 12-August deadline. (comment attached) Again, these are meant to be clarifications of existing position — not a new comment that would be subject to the 14-day review period required by our charter. But as you review these comments, please feel free to raise new issues that go beyond clarifying our Sep-2009 position, since your thoughts will be extremely helpful to the BC members on this working Group and to our GNSO Councilors. For example, please think about how to distinguish ‘registered users’ of a dot-brand owner from ‘registrants’ of an ICANN-accredited registrar. --Steve DelBianco

9 8

RE: [bc-gnso] Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust
by john＠crediblecontext.com Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

1 0

For info: ATRT - Summary of comments
by Kladouras Konstantinos Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

Dear BC colleagues, Those of you who follow the work of the first Review Team on Accountability and Transparency (ATRT) may be interested to know that last night (10 August 2010) ICANN published the Summary of public comments on the "Questions to the Community on Accountability and Transparency within ICANN". You will find the Summary attached, or at http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-questions-2010/msg00028.html. With so much information published at the ICANN sites in the name of transparency, finding important information is not always easy (something we are asking the ATRT to look at). Best regards, Konstantin Konstantin KLADOURAS Chairman ETNO IGV-WG OTE S.A. Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE Tel: +30 210 611 8319 Mob: +30 697 33 44 006 e-mail: kkladouras(a)ote.gr<mailto:kkladouras@ote.gr>

1 0

PEDNER BC Position Statement Draft v0.3
by Berry Cobb Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

BC, Here is the next draft per feedback from Philip and Mikey. Thank you! Note that this position paper is a refined restatement of the BC's prior position at the beginning of the PEDNER WG. It basically mimics the survey being advertised and made available for the public to complete during the open period. Around the time the WG publishes its Final Report, I will ensure scheduling of a PEDNER debrief, so that we may present this topic and formulate the BC's final position on the PDP efforts. Not much has changed from v0.2 I sent last week, but a few mentions are noteworthy: 1. Removed highlighted sections referencing BC member weighting and modified to only represent a single BC position (per Philip's feedback) 2. Updated slides attached as an appendix that references Post Expiration process documentation (per Mikey's feedback). I will pass the final draft to Steve DelBianco on Friday 8/13 at 12:00 EDT. Afterwards he will post the position on the PEDNER Public Comment side by COB 8/15 (PEDNER Due Date). Please advise if you have any other suggestions or require clarification. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735

2 1