- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI) -- single registrant TLDs
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

I tend to agree with Jon's comments below. For sure, registration caps should not be required for internal registrations. In relation to Case #1, I feel confident we will see strong consensus develop from the VI WG on single-registrant TLDs. WRT to Jon's point on cases 2 & 3, Registrations to third parties not only can open the door to gaming, but IMO also begin to impede fair competition. For example, in case #3 Facebook offers a free or super cheap 2nd level domain (berrycobb.facebook) to it's customer that would have otherwise purchased a 2nd level domain (berrycobb.social) from the dot_social TLD at the going market rate. Would this not threaten the dot_social's business model? My example may not be the best here, but I invite CBUC members to review VI responses from Richard Tindal about threats to competition. He has some good insight in to this issue. Another variation to consider will be the not-for-profit organizations. The NCUC has mentioned several examples where business models will supply 2nd level domains as a value added service. Will this have potential to threat competition. As an FYI, I do believe the CBUC will need to set aside specific conference calls to build our consensus position. This will be a very complex topic to bring everyone up to speed on the concepts and issues in addition to any consensus that comes from the VI WG. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:56 AM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI) -- single registrant TLDs Steve: I support you on Case 1, but not Case 2 or Case 3. Once you start distributing the names to third parties outside of the company, it should follow the applicable restrictions. In case 2, why just bank customers, why not telecom customers or retail customers, etc.? It's a slippery slope. Similarly, in case 3, could a registry set up as a social media site and get around restrictions that we set-up. The thing about all exceptions is that they are subject to gaming. If the exception is limited to just that entity -- no third parties -- it would be cleaner, implementable, and more likely to be approved. It's not like Facebook wouldn't be able to give away names to its subscribers, it would just have to be done with whatever restrictions/protections that ICANN sets up. Thanks. Jon On May 14, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: > > Thanks to Berry and the other BC members on the VI working group for keeping > us apprised of your work there. > > As we form our constituency position on the proposed VI models, I wanted to > focus briefly on one issue: single registrant TLDs. > > Most of the 9 proposed VI models mentions single registrant TLDs and most > would allow the TLD to manage its registrations -- but with caps of 30,000 > or 50,000. Let me offer a few examples that show how companies (even some > BC members) would want more control over their own TLD registrations: > > Case 1: employees of a company. This is the example cited most often, as > in, IBM might want to create 2nd level registrations for all its employees, > for HR functions, scheduling, or even "mail(a)steve.delbianco.ibm". If a > company were to do this, they would rightfully insist upon total control > over 2nd level registrations, and would not want to let all registrars have > equal access to sell names. The employer might create its own accredited > registrar, in which case 100% cross ownership and self-distribution would > need to be allowed under the new VI policy. For this case, there is no > justification to impose an arbitrary cap of 50,000 on the number of > registrations that could be done before opening it up to all registrars. > IBM, for instance, has 400,000 worldwide employees, according to its 2009 > Annual Report. Case 2: bank customers. A global consumer bank > might pursue its own TLD, > hoping to give each of its customers their own 2nd level registration to > enable secure access to a DNSSEC-signed online banking page. An arbitrary > limit of 50,000 registrations would not be sufficient for even medium-sized > regional banks. When a bank reaches the registration cap, it will not want > to be forced to compensate and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to > enroll, authenticate, or remove banking customer registrations. > > Case 3: social network services. A global social network platform might > want to operate its own TLD in order to give each of its users their own 2nd > level web address. (e.g. SteveDelbianco.facebook ) Even sites like Flickr, > dropBox, and Twitter might want to offer this service to enrolled customers. > An arbitrary limit of 50,000 registrations would be too low a threshold, and > no service would want to lose total control over the privacy and security of > its users' data. These services would not want to be forced to compensate > and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to enroll, authenticate, or remove > their users. > -- > > I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member) who's planning to > apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to operate their own TLD > if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed registrations. > > I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for potential needs of > single registrant TLDs like those described in these examples. > > Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to conform with > ICANN's contract and consensus policies. It's also acceptable to require > the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can be > wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company. But let's > argue against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant > TLDs to use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com> wrote: > >> VI WG, >> >> Attached is the CBUC position statement from Aug 2009 regarding the >> issue of Vertical Integration. While several CBUC members participate >> on the VI WG, no substantial change has occurred requiring >> modification to our consensus. The CBUC reserves a change to our >> consensus position, if any, when the VI WG creates its final report >> and opens the final community comment period. >> >> In summary, Our present consensus position basically aligns to the >> ICANN board resolution in Nairobi and we are pleased with the >> substantial and adequate discussion with respect to VI/CO & also >> Single Registrant TLDs. The CBUC looks forward to the analysis of >> proposals by the VI WG and we are optimistic a solution will be >> created to match the expansion of gTLDs. >> >> Any specific questions to the CBUC can be filed through Berry Cobb. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Berry Cobb >> Infinity Portals LLC >> berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com >> http://www.infinityportals.com >> 866.921.8891 >

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Hotels for Brussels ICANN meeting
by Marilyn Cade May 14, 2010

May 14, 2010

I am at le Meredien. If folks prefer, add that info into your arrival and departure which you are sending to me off list to marilynscade(a)hotmail.com, and I will compile and send out via private list. Or send to Jim provately and cc me so I can get a document together re where we all are! Jim, great that you are attending. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Baskin James F (Jim)" <james.f.baskin(a)verizon.com> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 20:44:58 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Hotels for Brussels ICANN meeting Hi to all who are planning to be in Brussels for the ICANN meeting next month. I am in the process of making my air and hotel reservations, and I thought it would be useful to find out where other CBUC folks are planning to stay. If possible, could you share your hotel plans with those of us on the list? Are people stayimng at le Meredien or other hotels in the immediate 3-4 blocks around the venue? Thanks and see you at the meeting, Jim Baskin

1 0

BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI) -- single registrant TLDs
by Steve DelBianco May 14, 2010

May 14, 2010

Thanks to Berry and the other BC members on the VI working group for keeping us apprised of your work there. As we form our constituency position on the proposed VI models, I wanted to focus briefly on one issue: single registrant TLDs. Most of the 9 proposed VI models mentions single registrant TLDs and most would allow the TLD to manage its registrations -- but with caps of 30,000 or 50,000. Let me offer a few examples that show how companies (even some BC members) would want more control over their own TLD registrations: Case 1: employees of a company. This is the example cited most often, as in, IBM might want to create 2nd level registrations for all its employees, for HR functions, scheduling, or even "mail(a)steve.delbianco.ibm". If a company were to do this, they would rightfully insist upon total control over 2nd level registrations, and would not want to let all registrars have equal access to sell names. The employer might create its own accredited registrar, in which case 100% cross ownership and self-distribution would need to be allowed under the new VI policy. For this case, there is no justification to impose an arbitrary cap of 50,000 on the number of registrations that could be done before opening it up to all registrars. IBM, for instance, has 400,000 worldwide employees, according to its 2009 Annual Report. Case 2: bank customers. A global consumer bank might pursue its own TLD, hoping to give each of its customers their own 2nd level registration to enable secure access to a DNSSEC-signed online banking page. An arbitrary limit of 50,000 registrations would not be sufficient for even medium-sized regional banks. When a bank reaches the registration cap, it will not want to be forced to compensate and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to enroll, authenticate, or remove banking customer registrations. Case 3: social network services. A global social network platform might want to operate its own TLD in order to give each of its users their own 2nd level web address. (e.g. SteveDelbianco.facebook ) Even sites like Flickr, dropBox, and Twitter might want to offer this service to enrolled customers. An arbitrary limit of 50,000 registrations would be too low a threshold, and no service would want to lose total control over the privacy and security of its users' data. These services would not want to be forced to compensate and cooperate with all ICANN registrars to enroll, authenticate, or remove their users. -- I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member) who's planning to apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to operate their own TLD if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed registrations. I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for potential needs of single registrant TLDs like those described in these examples. Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to conform with ICANN's contract and consensus policies. It's also acceptable to require the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can be wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company. But let's argue against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant TLDs to use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached. Thoughts? -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com> wrote: > VI WG, > > Attached is the CBUC position statement from Aug 2009 regarding the > issue of Vertical Integration. While several CBUC members participate > on the VI WG, no substantial change has occurred requiring > modification to our consensus. The CBUC reserves a change to our > consensus position, if any, when the VI WG creates its final report > and opens the final community comment period. > > In summary, Our present consensus position basically aligns to the > ICANN board resolution in Nairobi and we are pleased with the > substantial and adequate discussion with respect to VI/CO & also > Single Registrant TLDs. The CBUC looks forward to the analysis of > proposals by the VI WG and we are optimistic a solution will be > created to match the expansion of gTLDs. > > Any specific questions to the CBUC can be filed through Berry Cobb. > > Thank you. > > Berry Cobb > Infinity Portals LLC > berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com > http://www.infinityportals.com > 866.921.8891

2 1

BC Members Alert: Deadline for Brussels Documents/Reports - 31 MAY 2010
by Marilyn Cade May 6, 2010

May 6, 2010

Just a reminder to all that if you are working on a Working Group, or any other ICANN initiatives that involves 'documents' which will be posted, there is a deadline -- see below. This is intended as a general announcement for the full membership. This will include the structural improvements work items as well. Best Regards Marilyn CadeBC Chair +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Posted from GNSO Secretariat:Please take note that for the Brussels meeting the deadline for documents to be posted to meet the guidelines is 31 May 2010. All documents/reports should be ready by this date if they are to be considered at the Brussels meeting.

1 0

FW: [council] Invitation Policy Development at ICANN webinar
by Mike Rodenbaugh May 6, 2010

May 6, 2010

Fyi regarding an upcoming informational webinar by ICANN staff, particularly directed to newcomers to the ICANN world, but perhaps useful for many of us still struggling to understand the big picture. It will be archived as well, but unfortunately will only be offered in English. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:56 AM To: mail=Council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Invitation Policy Development at ICANN webinar WEBINAR: Policy Development at ICANN How You Can Help Shape the Future of the Internet 20 May 2010 at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC On Thursday 20 May at 12.00 UTC and 19.00 UTC, ICANN Policy Staff will host a webinar that introduces newcomers to the world of ICANN and policy development. The webinar will provide an overview of ICANN as an organization, what issues ICANN policy addresses, who develops policy at ICANN (and how), and most importantly, how you can become involved and help ICANN to shape the future of the Internet. This webinar provides useful, actionable information to you if you are wondering whether a role in Internet policy development could benefit your or your organizations long-term goals. The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run for 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, the slides and MP3 will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff is always available to answer any questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org. In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, 12.00 UTC or 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html) We will send you an e-mail reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. About ICANN: To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world, so that there can be one global Internet. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit partnership of people from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internets unique identifiers, primarily the domain name system (DNS), IP addresses, and port numbers. For further information, please visit http://www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> .

1 0

For BC members information and action: Accountability and Transparency Review Team -Audio Streaming of F2F Meeting (5-6 May 2010)
by Marilyn Cade May 4, 2010

May 4, 2010

Dear BC Members As BC Chair, I am forwarding this information to you to call it to your attention but noting that this is intended for your individual participation as a concerned and involved stakeholder in ICANN. The Accountability and Transparency Review Team is the first of four such review processes identified and required in the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce. As we all know, the business community, including many members of the Business Constituency were actively engaged in providing comments into the ICANN President's Strategy Committee (PSC) which did much of the preliminary work that led to the AoC. BC members individually filed comments and were actively engaged in various initiatives, including also a public process initiated by the US DoC /NTIA in a public comment process (NOI) related to accountability of ICANN to its stakeholders. More recently, the BC participated with its sister constituencies [IPC and ISPCP] in a process to nominate and support a nomee from the Commercial Stakeholder's Group (CSG) into the candidates which would then be eligible for 'selection' by the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the GAC as participants in the A&T RT. This Review team has been appointed, and the nominee that the CSG agreed upon -- Olivier Muron, France Telecom -- is a part of the Review team. The A&T RT has decided to make its deliberations very open to the community. You will find agendas, Preliminary Reports and Minutes posted on the web site posted below. Also, you will find information about how to listen into the public parts of the meeting. Best Regards Marilyn CadeBC Chair ======================================================================== FYI http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01may10-en.htm Accountability and Transparency Review Team - Audio Streaming of F2F Meeting (5-6 May 2010) 1 May 2010 The first F2F meeting of the Affirmation mandated Accountability and Transparency Review Team is to be held in Marina Del Rey on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 and Thursday, 6 May 2010 – 16.00 UTC – 01.00 UTC. An audio-streaming will be provided for the public parts of the meeting. The link to the Adobe Connect room is as follows: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/affirmation/ Please consult the agenda of this forthcoming session. Recording will be posted shortly after the meeting ends.

1 0

VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010

CBUC, Attached is a status report for the VI WG. I invite those members who also participate on the WG to add or comment on this summary, as I may have missed a thing or two. Kudos out to Mikey O'Conner who has taken the role of co-chair and moving the WG forward. Please advise if you have questions. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891

4 5

Re: [bc-gnso] Re: VERTICAL INTEGRATION WG Update
by berrycobb＠infinityportals.com May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010

Steve, This is my own two Cents and I invite the other VI BC members to comment........ I do NOT think the BC or other constituencies will be tasked to formally review all models (the number may reach 10 or 11 total). The VI WG is building a consensus matrix based upon VI/CO concepts in addition to an analysis sub-team formed to create a framework for evaluating the proposals. I suspect the WG efforts over the coming weeks will be to understand which concepts within the proposals will form the greatest consensus and as such boil down to one or two proposals for community review. It is sure to be some sort of hybrid of the proposals offered today. As for favorites, the BC members of the VI WG have not discussed this yet. I will say that the top 3 proposals seem to be JN Squared, MMA, & PIR (not in favored order), but this is only my interpretation. Bottom line, the BC can expect VI WG consensus around a proposal that is a departure from the current BC Position and most certain an evolution from any VI/CO we see in the market today. From my viewpoint and given the discussions within the VI WG, there will be several concepts that the BC can support. Given the varying business models for new gTLDs and current market forces, change is necessary to increase success. Lastly, I have not received any objections to date with respect to submitting the Aug2009 BC Position statement for the VI Initial Comment period. I will touch base with you on the 5th, for formal submission. I hope this helps. Thank you. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com http://www.infinityportals.com 866.921.8891 _______________________________________________________________________ Berry ? Thanks. Will the BC soon be asked to evaluate the 9 VI models presented thus far? Proposals are listed at: https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?https_st_icann_org_vert… Do you and the BC team on the VI working group have any favorites among those, or are we sitting on status quo? If no favorites, are there elements of any of these plans that the BC should consider supporting? Thanks, Steve On 4/30/10 9:40 AM, "berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com" <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com> wrote: > > > My bad, > > I should have included a link to the 08/2009 position statement. I > had a hard time finding it until it was pointed out to me right in > front of me. > > One other correction.....the position statement is from August 2009, > not November as I stated below. > > http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-08-2009_Registry_Regi… > ar.doc > > Berry Cobb > Infinity Portals LLC > berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com > http://www.infinityportals.com > 866.921.8891 > > > Quoting berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com: > >> >> CBUC, >> >> As I mentioned in the status provided below, the Initial Comment Period >> for Vertical Integration closes May 6th. Does anyone object to >> submitting the CBUC Position Statement created Nov 2009 as our position >> statement for this current VI period? I suspect that we will require a >> consensus exercise as the WG completes its efforts in mid-May. >> >> If I do not hear of any objections, I will advise Steve to repost >> on May 5th. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Berry Cobb >> Infinity Portals LLC >> berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com >> http://www.infinityportals.com >> 866.921.8891 >> >> >> Quoting berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com: >> >>> >>> CBUC, >>> >>> Attached is a status report for the VI WG. I invite those members who >>> also participate on the WG to add or comment on this summary, as I may >>> have missed a thing or two. >>> >>> Kudos out to Mikey O'Conner who has taken the role of co-chair and >>> moving the WG forward. >>> >>> Please advise if you have questions. Thank you. >>> >>> Berry Cobb >>> Infinity Portals LLC >>> berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com >>> http://www.infinityportals.com >>> 866.921.8891 > -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

Public Comments on Draft Final Report of the RSSAC Review Working Group
by Marilyn Cade April 29, 2010

April 29, 2010

Dear BC Members We will be very busy between now and the Brussels Meeting, and I know you will be feeling challenged by the volume of work. However, in order to make the voice of business effective within ICANN, our active leadership and involvement is very important. To try to make it easier for members, we will try to keep the subject lines precise and focused on what the particular topic is. That way, you can determine if you personally are interested in a particular topic. CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON RSSAC REVIEW WORKING GROUP: Please note a call for public comments on the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC Review Working Group. On the one hand, this will be fairly technical, but on the other hand, business leaders, whether from large or small companies, are affected significantly by the smooth, reliable performance of the Root. I would like to gather a group of volunteers from within the business constituency, ( BC) including whomever you might recruit from within your company who may be engaged in managing your DNS service [so more in the technical side of your company] and have a discussion about this report. My proposal is to at least submit a letter from companies who are interested and concerned about this topic, and the importance of continued interaction with the broader community. This topic is not a gTLD policy issue but is about ICANN's overall performance, stability, and reliability. Comments on these kinds of reports are open comments -- so, a submission would probably be a letter, that would summarize discussion. It will not be a formal policy position of the BC, but we do have a place to post correspondence to ICANN, and if there is sufficient interest among members, we can undertake a broader review within the BC. Thus, as Chair, I am calling it to your attention and asking for any volunteers who are interested in this topic to respond. See below for the process, deadlines. Marilyn CadeBC Chair http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27apr10-en.htm Public Comment: Publication for Public Comments of the Draft Final Report of the RSSAC Review Working Group 27 April 2010 The RSSAC Review Working Group releases today its draft Final Report for public comments. The Report presents the draft conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group on the review process of RSSAC, the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee. The Working Group based its draft report on the final report of the external reviewers and on comments received from community. Public comments will be received until the 5 June 2010, and then the Working Group will finalize its report to the Board.

1 0

Symantec survey - attack every 4.5 seconds
by Philip Sheppard April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8630160.stm "51% of all the viruses, trojans and other malicious programs (Symantec) has ever seen were logged during 2009" Philip Sheppard

1 0