- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Statement of Interest Chris Chaplow
by Chris Chaplow Oct. 30, 2010

Oct. 30, 2010

Dear Members, My up to date statement of interest is published on the Mailing list of the IRTP-B Working Group. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00325.html Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andaluciaws.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andaluciaws.com

1 0

Information and Action: BC Members Meeting Date/Information about Cartegena communications/elections /Charter approval process announcement
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 30, 2010

Oct. 30, 2010

Dear BC Members The upcoming weeks before Cartegana's meeting will be action packed. I. BC Meetings Schedule: now to Cartegena Policy Discussions: As committed to Members, the ExComm is convening a BC Members Policy Discussion on November 11, at 10 a.m. EDT. The call will be recorded and transcribed.A bridge will be posted to members separately.The policy topics for the call will be posted shortly. Members who are activelyengaged in different topics will be reporting on status of key topics. Councilors will update on key Council topics, and Steve DelBianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordinationwill moderate the policy segment. Only urgent management topics will beaddressed on that call, so that the main focus can be policy discussion. TBC: BC Members Policy Discussion devoted to the new gTLD Guidebook;separately scheduled, after the Guidebook is published for comment.Steve DelBianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordination is soliciting volunteers to analyzedifferent sections and contribute as lead discussants on those sessions in that call. Please email Steve directly regarding volunteering. That date is not setand is based on ICANN's release of the DAG. Planning for Cartegena: A third logistics /coordination call will be held once the Agenda is posted byICANN and will focus on the agenda; pre-briefing for the CSG and BC on sitesessions. Those discussions will be limited to members who have signed upfor the meetings list. This is one more reminder to do that if you want to followthe activities of the BC during meetings. Sign up with Chris Chaplow, V.Chair, Finance and Operationsfor that list. It will only focus on ICANN meetings -- coordination and logistics.Policy discussions and needed decisions will remain on the full Bc-GNSO list, so thatall members can contribute on any policy updates or decisions taken. III. Themes/Topics for the Cross Constituency Breakfast on Tuesday morning and Tuesday's CSG meeting:Breakfast: ICANN's role and activities in the larger Internet Eco SystemOther topics?CSG Session: RAA amendments; Budget/Operating Plan Can I have other priorities for topics? Since remote participation is provided for meetings,we hope that you will plan to actively participate, even if you cannot attend in person. IV. Announcing a Non Commercial House meeting on Saturday a.m. in Cartegana:Please mark your calendar to participate in the House meeting on Saturday a.m., including by remote participation. We will discuss House V.Chair candidates for the GNSO Council, and discuss andfinalize the procedure for the Board Seat that the Non Commercial House elects.That election will take place in May, 2011, it appears, for a June seating of the Board member. V. Elections and Charter Approvals:--The BC presently has two elections underway: BC Councilor and Completion of termfor V.Chair, Finance and Operations. Those elections will conclude by Nov. 15. --The CSG Charter will be circulated for BC Member vote in a separate administrative process. A oneweek comment period on the draft has concluded. The BC will use an online ballot for approval for theCSG Charter. the other two constituencies are also undertaking consultation and approval process. --Beginning next week, we will start working on the updates to the BC Charter with a small group of volunteers. Please contact me off list if you have not already volunteered for participating in that process. We will not complete that process by November 15 but will target having a final draft version under discussion during Cartegena, with a separate sessionwith remote participation. Marilyn CadeBC Chair

1 0

POSTED: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

As discussed over last two weeks, the BC posted comments today on ICANN's plan to approve a new UDRP provider. Thanks to Phil Corwin, our rapporteur for this topic, and to all who contributed to this effort. Comment is shown below and is posted now at http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html --Steve ------ Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:58:06 -0400 To: <acdr-proposal(a)icann.org> Subject: Business Constituency comment on recognizing new UDRP providers 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.org

2 1

Informational post: Updated GNSO Council Agenda for 28 October 2010 at 20UTC
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

A BC member asked me for the updated Council Agenda. To support any member interested,it is pasted below. I know a few members wanted to listen in. I am listening to the audio feed. The Council is discussing the value of the prioritization exercise right now. Provided for your information. Marilyn CadeBC Chair > Reminder: The audio stream for the Council meeting will be located at: > http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u > Please distribute this link to your Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies > > Please find the updated GNSO Council Agenda for 28 October 2010 at 20 UTC. > > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-28oct10-en.htm > https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_28_october_2010 > The updates items are : > Item 3: Election of Council Chair & Vice Chairs (15 minutes) > > Item 4: Whois Studies (15 minutes) > > Item 7: Planning for Cartagena Meetings (15 minutes) > > 7.1 Overview of plans/schedule (Stéphane Van Gelder, Glen de Saint Géry) > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-draft-agenda-cartagena-26oct10-en.pdf > > Item 9: Other Business (5 Minutes) > > 9.1 Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o…> > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o… > > Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting 28 October 2010. > > 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, 29 October > 01:00 Pakistan; 04:00 Hong Kong; 05:00 Tokyo, 07:00 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:8000/gnso.m3u > Item 1: Administrative matters (15 minutes) > 1.1 Roll call of Council members and polling for Disclosures of Interest > . Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. > Here is the definition provided in the procedures: > "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." > The main issues for this meeting are > * GNSO Prioritization > * Election Procedures for Council Chair & Vice Chairs > * Whois Studies > * Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain > * Disclosure of Interest Procedures > > > 1.2 Update any statements of interest > Note that revised SoI"s were received from: > * Terry > Davis <http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/davis-soi-19oct10-en.htm> > * David > Taylor <http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/taylor-soi-21oct10.htm> > > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: > . 7 October 2010 meeting minutes <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg09798.html%20%20> - Scheduled for approval on 28 October 2010. > > Item 2: GNSO Project Prioritization (20 minutes) > > 2.1 Refer to posted project ratings <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtld-applicant-support-draft-recom…> : > http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-work-prioritization-project-list-value-r… > > 2.2 Key points made in the 15 July Council meeting (from meeting minutes): > > . ". . . not a useful exercise, not much was learnt, should not proceed further with the prioritization exercise." > . ". . . spending more time on the exercise will not accomplish useful results." > . "It was a difficult exercise, policy matters were not prioritized and the core issue, management of the workload, still has not been resolved." > . "The exercise was intended as a first step and not intended to solve the workload management; other steps are needed. The exercise contributed an important degree of common awareness and dissent to the group." > . "The prioritization process could be improved with further input from the Councilors and stakeholder groups." > . "The exercise is important and informative from a staff perspective and the Council needs to look at a two-step process going forward: step one - form a small team to improve the process used to date drawing on input received; step two - develop a process to manage the workload with input from staff of the resources being used to support each of the working groups, which will reflect both staff and community efforts." > . "Support was expressed for continuing the prioritization work, but linking it to the overall ICANN Staff and Community workload and to the Budget process." > . "The question of available resources should be looked at in context. The Vertical Integration working group as an example of one that would not normally have commenced with all the work before Council, yet it did and the community resources were available." > . "Some believe that work should be prioritized but the methodology chosen is not the most appropriate or efficient." > > 2.3 Next Steps > . Staff Utilization Analysis (Liz Gasster) > Refer to: > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-resource-management-polic… > > . Results of Adobe Connect Poll regarding possible next steps: > > o Option 1: Spend no more time on prioritization - 5 votes (33%) > o Option 2: Develop a plan for using the results to manage the workload in the near term - 2 votes (13%) > o Option 3: Form a drafting team with the task of developing a new process - 0 votes (0%) > o Option 4: Form a drafting team with the task of improving the process - 1 vote (7%) > o Option 5: Other? (including combinations of options 2, 3, and or 4) - 7 votes (47%) > . Discussion? > . Action Items > Item 3: Election of Council Chair & Vice Chairs (15 minutes) > Refer to proposed procedures: > http://gnso.icann.org/elections/draft-election-procedures-2010.htm > 3.1 Brief overview of procedures (Chuck Gomes) > 3.2 Discussion > 3.3 Edits? > 3.4 Any objections to using the procedures for this election cycle? > 3.5 Should we consider referring the election procedures to the OSC & GCOT for further review with the goal of starting the chair election process earlier to increase the chances of the chair being elected before the vice chairs? > Item 4: Whois Studies (15 minutes) > 4.1 Status Report and presentation on Whois Studies (Liz Gasster) > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-whois-studies-oct10-en.pdf > > . Refer to redline version of Proxy/Privacy Reveal study (Study 4) RFP at > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-29sep10-en.htm > > 4.2 Staff analysis of Study #3 -- WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse (Liz Gasster) > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/gnso-whois-pp-abuse-studies-report-05oct… > 4.3 Discussion > 4.4 Next steps? > Item 5: Voting Procedures when Councilors are absent &/or must abstain (25 minutes) > > 5.1 Overview (Ken Bour, Staff; Ray Fassett, GNSO Council Operations Work Team (GCOT) Chair) > > 5.2 Discussion > > 5.3 Report from Operations Steering Committee/ GNSO Council Operations Work Team (OSC/GCOT) (Philip Sheppard, OSC Chair; Ray Fassett) > > 5.4 Next steps? > > Item 6: Disclosure of Interest Procedures (15 minutes) > > 6.1 Report from OSC/GCOT (Philip Sheppard, Ray Fassett) > > 6.2 Discussion > > 6.3 Next steps? > > Item 7: Planning for Cartagena Meetings (15 minutes) > > 7.1 Overview of plans/schedule (Stéphane Van Gelder, Glen de Saint Géry) > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/gnso-draft-agenda-cartagena-26oct10-en.pdf > > 7.2 Next steps? > > Item 8: Status of Continued Action Items (10 Minutes) > > 8.1 Drafting team for draft DNS-CERT/SSR WG charter (Chuck Gomes) > > 8.2 Standing committee to monitor GNSO Improvements implementation (Glen de Saint Géry) > > . Volunteers to date: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISCPC), Tatyana Khramtsova (RrSG), Ray Fassett (RySG), Avri Doria (NCSG), Rudi Vansnick (NCSG), Philip Sheppard (CBUC) > . Feedback from Steering Committees (Rob Hoggarth) > . Question raised regarding GNSO Operating Procedures: Should the concerns about the newly approved disclosure of interest requirements be dealt with by the OSC & GCOT or by the standing committee? > . Next steps? Charter? > > 8.3 Progress of House/SG Elections > . Councilors > . Chair & Vice Chair Nominations > . NCA Assignments > Item 9: Other Business (5 Minutes) > > 9.1 Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o…> > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o… > 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 07:00 next day > ________________________________________ >

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] charter/process topic? mandate use of open lists
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Good idea. Election issues do belong on private list. Tranactional and policy on public. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:00:35 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] charter/process topic? mandate use of open lists hi all, this is another post inspired by my recent conversation with Danny Younger. in this case the question is whether we would like to strengthen the language about use of private email lists in our charter. i note that we've started to backslide a little bit here in the BC in that we're starting to see more conversation on the private list than the public one, which leads to concerns about transparency. i think it would be a good idea to review the language in both the CSG and BC charters to make sure that we're making it difficult for ourselves to retreat from public view. mikey - - - - - - - - - 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

charter/process topic? mandate use of open lists
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

hi all, this is another post inspired by my recent conversation with Danny Younger. in this case the question is whether we would like to strengthen the language about use of private email lists in our charter. i note that we've started to backslide a little bit here in the BC in that we're starting to see more conversation on the private list than the public one, which leads to concerns about transparency. i think it would be a good idea to review the language in both the CSG and BC charters to make sure that we're making it difficult for ourselves to retreat from public view. mikey - - - - - - - - - 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

issue topic? registrar de-accreditation transfers domains to different legal jurisdiction
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

hi all, this is the first of a couple notes that are the result of a recent chat with Danny Younger. he raised a really interesting issue with the recent de-accreditation of the 4Domains registrar. this US-based registrar closed and the the domains were transferred to Bahamas-based Internet.bs. the question is this -- what are the implications of an unexpected and involuntary change in jurisdiction (US to Bahamas in this case) for the business domain registrant? i know that i would be concerned if i woke up and found that the domain i base my business on had been transferred to a registrar outside the jurisdiction i registered it in. i'm wondering if others think this is an interesting topic too and would like to work on a statement from the BC suggesting that ICANN strive to select gaining registrars in the same country as the de-accredited one whenever possible. mikey - - - - - - - - - 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

Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSAWG) update
by Scott M. McCormick Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

All, Below are a few notes from todays call for the DSSAWG. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. To sum up todays call: the WG is still working on drafting a charter. We should have a final draft in the next few days. Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA WG) 27 Oct 2010: First conference call - discussion on the Charter draft v5 Main Topics of discussion: What should come out of this WG: - The level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS (Is there a problem with the DNS?) - The current efforts and activities to mitigate these threats to the DNS (What are the problems and how are we working to mitigate them?) - Are their gaps (if any) in the current security response to DNS issues? (A DNS CERT is not completely off the table, but... if needed who is already conducting this type of work and who would be best to conduct it?) Questions that should be asked: - What is the true health of the DNS? - Is this about the core system, or everything that happens on the DNS? - Should we limit this to ICANN's mission? Other Items: - We need to evaluate the facts and the need. We need to come at this issue with NO assumptions nor preconceived notions. - We shall provide regular feedback and opportunity for comment from the SO's and AC's - We may allow observer status to those interested. Next call in two weeks 10 Nov 2010 V/r, -Scott Scott M. McCormick McCormick ICT International mobile +1 443.691.2013 e-mail: scott(a)mccormickict.com skype: scottmmccormick

1 0

Blog post
by Ron Andruff Oct. 26, 2010

Oct. 26, 2010

Dear all, As it may have relevance to members of the BC, I thought I should make you aware of a blog post I made on CircleID regarding the long delays and long timelines that lay ahead vis-à-vis new gTLDs [ http://www.circleid.com/posts/and_then_there_was_the_issue_of_time/ ]. The October 12th BC meeting in Washington, particularly the session on brands as gTLDs that Fred Felman chaired, was extremely valuable in fleshing out the complexities around brands as TLDs and got me to thinking more about how ICANN best handle this important aspect. I recommend that members go back and read the transcripts or listen to the MP3 to learn more if they didnt participate remotely. It got me to thinking more about what still needs to be done and how we should address that. In my post, I suggest putting all brands on a separate path towards gTLDs until such time as the issues around SRSU and the like have been properly considered and appropriate recommendations are put in place. I believe that this would address a number of concerns from different groups and build institutional confidence in ICANN. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

4 8

RE: For FINAL approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers
by Fares, David Oct. 25, 2010

Oct. 25, 2010

Thanks Steve and Phil. NewsCorp supports this final draft. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:17 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] For FINAL approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers Our rapporteur Phil Corwin has done a masterful job responding to edits and comments from several BC members over the past week. Attached is Phil’s ‘final’ version. According to our Charter, “ If no substantively opposing comments are received the position will be deemed approved.” So please use the remaining 6 days in our review period to register any substantive opposition to the BC filing these comments with ICANN on 28-Oct. Thanks again to Phil and to all the members who contributed to this effort. --Steve On 10/14/10 10:03 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: This draft comment is being circulated today (14-Oct) so that BC members will have 14 days to review, revise, and consider approval before the ICANN deadline of 28-Oct-2010. The attached comment was drafted by Phil Corwin and was polished for submission by Mike Rodenbaugh. Phil’s original note is shown at the bottom of this email, and contains some contextual material that may be helpful in your consideration of this draft. This draft comment is in response to ICANN’s proposal to recognize a new domain name dispute provider. For background on this proposal, see below, or at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#acdr-proposal Explanation/Background: ICANN has received a proposal from the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be recognized as one of the official dispute resolution providers under the UDRP. The proposal was submitted pursuant to the process specified at http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/provider-approval-process.htm. The ACDR is jointly established by the Arab Intellectual Property Mediation and Arbitration Society (AIPMAS) and the Arab Society for Intellectual Property (ASIP), with headquarters in Amman, Jordan and additional offices in other Arab Countries. Both the AIPMAS (established in 1987) and ASIP promote the activities of the Arab Center of Mediation and Arbitration, established in 2003, active in resolving conflicts related to intellectual property through international arbitrators. If approved, the ACDR would be the first Approved UDRP Dispute Resolution Service Provider headquartered in an Arab state. At its 5 August 2010 meeting, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to publish the ACDR proposal for a public comment for a period of not less than 30 days. Upon completion of the public comment period, ICANN staff will analyze the comments received and evaluate further recommendations to the Board on proceeding with the ACDR proposal. The proposal and relevant annexures are at: ACDR Proposal [PDF, 156 KB] Annex 1 – ACDR Initial List of Panelists [PDF, 176 KB] Annex 2 – ACDR Screening Process [PDF, 8 KB] Annex 3 – ACDR Supplemental Rules [PDF, 100 KB] 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