- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

BC cocktail 28 October
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Colleagues, The BC is holding an outreach cocktail in Seoul. All BC members present in Seoul are invited. No need to RSVP. If you have contacts in the local business community and will be present in Seoul, please encourage them to join us. In this case please keep the secretariat informed of any acceptances. --------------------------------------- Wednesday 28 October 18.00 - 19.00 BC outreach cocktail - Athenee room - Lotte Hotel Seoul www.lottehotelseoul.com (the main venue hotel) 1, Sogong-dong, Jung-gu Seoul, Korea 100-721

1 0

Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

FYI -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Hi, Since it does not appear that the 4 SGs managed to negotiate to a common acceptable position on the placement of the NCA appointees, and given that a week has passed since the meeting and the decision to give the council a week to try and find another acceptable solution to the lottery, I believe that we are now in the position of accepting the results of the lottery and allowing the 3 NCAs to start participating with their houses on the decisions concerning candidates for the chair position. Thus, the NCA are allocated according to the following list as determined by the lottery: Terry Davis - Contracted Parties House Olga Cavalli - Non Contracted Parties House Andrei Kolesnikov - Non Voting Seat

1 0

What is ICANN doing to make sure that the UDRP providers are truly neutral?
by George Kirikos Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Hi folks, There was a very good article in the Wall Street Journal today discussing the turmoil in the arbitration world, in particular with NAF: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125548128115183913.html?mod=googlenews_wsj "Banks "don't need the taint that comes with mandatory arbitration." "While telling consumers that it was an impartial arbitrator, NAF worked closely with creditors, the regulator claimed, including drafting claims against consumers." "Former arbitrators, a congressional subcommittee, consumers and government suits are now alleging that NAF has been systematically ruling against consumers for years." "A congressional subcommittee, which began an investigation last year to study the fairness of mandatory arbitration, concluded in July that the current arbitration system is "ripe for abuse." Arbitration, as "operated by NAF, does not provide protection for those consumers," the committee said." "Before that case, she had ruled in favor of credit-card companies 18 consecutive times, she told the committee. She says she finished several pending NAF cases after she ruled for the card holder, but then wasn't given more cases. The official reason the NAF gave for canceling more work was scheduling conflicts. But Ms. Bartholet said in an interview that an NAF manager told her she was likely removed because she ruled for the debtor." In light of this, what is ICANN doing to ensure that UDRP is conducted in a neutral manner? Ideally it should be optional, unless *both* parties agree to it (i.e. parties should be permitted to choose the courts, a superior method for complex matters, if they feel it is appropriate). We have had NAF openly admit (in their IRT comments) that: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00178.html "Panelists have taken the opportunity, over time, to agree with those complainants and broaden the scope of the UDRP, but it started out as a mechanism only for clear cut cases of cybersquatting." It's clearly in the financial interests of UDRP providers (and panelists) to continue to expand the scope of cases and tilt their decisions towards complainants in order to encourage more complaints overall, and more complaints that involve either themselves as panelists or their UDRP provider ("forum shopping"). This represents a perversion of the system of justice that domain registrants rely upon. ICANN staff and the GSNO should prepare an issues report, and perhaps fund independent scholarly research like that conducted by Professor Michael Geist in the past: http://www.udrpinfo.com/ Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

From BC to CSG
by Rick Anderson Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Sarah and I and others have asked - and I ask again - where is the migration path to a more integrated involvement with the CSG? Why are all our calls and discussions focussed on the legacy BC, and zero on the CSG? Why are we discussing GNSO officers in the BC silo rather than as a CSG matter? When will there be a discussion list set up for all CSG members where we can discuss CSG business? Is there a CSG session at Seoul and may we dial in to that? cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

3 2

Remote Participation, BC meeting Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear Members I now have the dial-in details for remote participation in the BC meeting in Seoul. Please contact me if you would like me to forward them to you Best wishes Gary

1 0

FW: GNSO Council chair elections?
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

I have to report Zahid is having second thoughts about this. For which I for one fully understand. Will keep the list posted as we hear of developments. _____ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:21 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: GNSO Council chair elections? There are two chair nominations to date: Stephan Van Gelder (registrar) - supported by the R&Rs, Olga Cavalli (non com) - supported by NCSG. We have proposed Zahid as vice chair of our House. BC members input most welcome. Philip

1 0

Ballot for a new BC Charter
by BC Secretariat Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers

11 12

Orderly introduction of new TLDs
by Ron Andruff Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

Dear fellow members, Prior to the close of the last round of comments on the DAG v2, RNA Partners submitted a comment that focused on the fact that ICANN is embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing some parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a definition. The logic in favor of defining the TLD is simple: Applicants should be encouraged to expand the name space, but should not be allowed to cannibalize other registries. A case in point was the round of 2004, when Tralliance Corporation received the right to manage .TRAVEL we were restricted from marketing to any travel entities that would fall under .AERO, i.e. airports, airlines, etc. In the discussions that I have had with ICANN community leadership over the last weeks it appears that all support the logic of including two questions in the final AG: (1) what community do you intend to serve? and (2) how does your TLD differentiate itself from others in the DNS? Answers to these two questions that demonstrate added value to the DNS would ensure that only those TLDs which act in harmony with one another are added to the root, rather than allowing applicants that meet the current criteria in DAG v3 irrespective of the fact that they may overlap or undercut another registry. With some 24 gTLDs today, one might say there is relatively little concern about this horizon issue; however, 5-10 years out, without the protections we are recommending, new applicant registry operators would have no impediment to undermining successful TLDs by selecting names that would diminish an established domain space. That would be anything but an orderly introduction of new TLDs to the DNS. We have reached out the GAC in this regard, as their recent communication with ICANN appears to be inline with our concerns. I have included my email to the Canadian GAC representative below for your information. In the interest of full disclosure, RNA Partners management is intending to apply to manage .SPORT on behalf of the global sport community. I look forward to furthering this dialogue with you on the list and in Seoul. Thank you for your consideration in bringing this issue to an appropriate resolution. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: 2009-10-09 18:24 To: 'Heather Dryden' Cc: 'Marilyn Cade'; Cherian Mathai Subject: Orderly introduction of new TLDs Importance: High Dear Heather, I am contacting you at the suggestion of Marilyn Cade as I, like you, am Canadian ;o) and a colleague of Marilyn's for some 10-years in the Business Constituency. I also note, in the interest of full disclosure, that my company will be applying to manage the .sport domain for the global sporting community. Marilyn and I have been discussing how to enroll ICANN in the notion of an orderly introduction of new gTLDs and were considering the GAC correspondence to ICANN Chair, Peter Dengate-Thrush of August 18th, 2009, in light of our concerns. I note that much of the contents of that letter are consistent with the Business Constituency position on new TLDs, as well as our personally-held position. The BC set forth the following principles regarding expanding the name space following the round of 2000: Five principles to determine future expansion Name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be user demand. In this way expansion will enhance choice, competition and be in the public interest. In a global market economy added-value means differentiation and a practical way to achieve this is if all new names meet five principles: 1 Differentiation a gTLD must be clearly differentiated from other gTLDs 2 Certainty a gTLD must give the user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for 3 Good faith a gTLD must avoid increasing opportunities for bad faith entities who wish to defraud users 4 Competition a gTLD must create added-value competition 5 Diversity a gTLD must serve commercial or non-commercial users Amongst several comments on DAG v 2, the BC noted the following: Module 1 1.1.2.7 We agree with the standard for confusingly similar gTLD strings, which will not be allowed if they are deemed "so similar that they create a probability of detrimental user confusion if more than one is delegated." But more detail is needed as to how ICANN will make this determination. Module 2 2.1.1.1The Standard for String Confusion is inaccurately limited to "visually" similar. Instead string confusion should be deemed to exist where they are "so similar - in sight, sound or meaning - that they create a probability of detrimental user confusion if more than one is delegated." I contacting you today because we would like to get a sense from you as to how we should engage with the GAC to ensure that ICANN, in fact, introduces new TLDs in an orderly and managed manner rather than its current position of throwing open the door without consideration of the consequences of their actions further down the road. In July 2009 we submitted a comment to DAG v2 that focused on the fact that ICANN is embarking on rolling out new TLDs without establishing some parameters around what a TLD is, i.e., a definition. The logic is simple: Applicants should be entitled to flesh out the name space, but should not be allowed to cannibalize other registries. Our comment is noted here: ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain' * To: <e-gtld-evaluation@xxxxxxxxx> * Subject: ICANN must re-confirm the definition of a 'top-level domain' * From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:34:27 -0400 To avoid the useless squandering of time and financial resources of ICANN reviewers, staff and those of new TLD applicants, as well as to avoid the needless bogging down of the roll out of new TLDs with objections based upon (1) string confusion; (2) misappropriation of community; and (3) infringement on the rights of others, ICANN must define what a top-level domain is. We recommend that the definition should be "the apex of a well-defined human activity, a community or a sector"; the key word in that definition being "apex", which directly equates to the word "top" of "top-level domain". This area was well-addressed in the new TLD application process used in the last round of introductions of new TLDs, but is missing from the current Draft Applicant Guidebook ("DAG"). In the applications for the 2004 round of sponsored top-level domains, the first question [paraphrased] was: How does the proposed TLD add new value to the Internet? The second question was: How does an application differentiate from existing TLDs? And the third question asked: Which unmet needs does a proposed new TLD meet? ICANN staff cannot overlook or discard these core principles going forward unless it intends to unilaterally abandon the logical expansion of the domain name space that the ICANN community has worked so long and hard to establish from the outset of ICANN's existence. This would be tantamount to abandoning the bottom up principles upon which ICANN was built and stands today. Absent inclusion of this critical definition, ICANN would open the door to a proliferation of TLDs that would be miniature sub-segments of apex TLDs, which would lead to user confusion at best, and, without doubt, challenges from apex TLDs, unnecessary defensive registrations and pernicious compliance issues. A case in point would be that in the event .NYC is granted to a registry, and another five TLDs would be awarded for .BROOKLYN, .BRONX, .MANHATTAN, .STATENISLAND and .QUEENS (the five boroughs that comprise the City of New York), the cacophony of domain names for the same community would render the whole TLD process absurd. The second DAG is not clear on this issue and therefore we believe that this oversight needs to be rectified to ensure that these particular requirements from the 2004 introduction of new TLDs are included in the process guaranteeing that in all cases the anticipated TLD expansion first and foremost brings value to Internet users, and thus ICANN can avoid any circumstance where user confusion could arise. This issue can be addressed and clarified in the definition of "confusingly similar strings". The current definition should be expanded beyond the semantic equivalence to also address the diminution of a TLD. In rectifying this oversight in the third DAG, ICANN will not only avoid user confusion issues, but it will stop the loss of precious valuable resources that will undoubtedly be wasted on a myriad of objections that could have been clearly avoided from the start. We trust that ICANN appreciates that the logical expansion of the domain name space is at the heart of this process and that the critical issue we are raising is in the interest of all stakeholders in the new TLD process, but especially trademark holders, those with responsibility for Internet security and stability, ICANN compliance staff and, most importantly, Internet users both in the near term and those in the coming decades. In August, the .sport Policy Advisory Council ("PAC"), which represents the global sport community sent a letter <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baumann-to-dengate-thrush-20aug09-en.pd f> to ICANN CEO and Chair to advise ICANN of the support and concerns of the international sports family, particularly with regard to diminution of .sport. Sport is concerned that such diminution would gravely undermine sport solidarity, which enables stronger federations to support those with less resources and capabilities. In short, the PAC has very real concerns that ICANN would approve .sport as well as .volleyball, .basketball and the like. As I mentioned at the start of this email, we believe that the GAC letter supports a position that calls for applicants to define their intended community as well as what differentiation they bring to the DNS, as examples of defining themselves (as was required in previous rounds). I would be most grateful if you could advise us as to how we best bring this forward for GAC consideration. I believe that the IP and ISP constituencies, as well as the BC, support establishing clarity around this issue and ensuring new TLDs are meaningful additions to the DNS (rather than creating a free-for-all). GAC support would ensure a logical expansion. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this rather long mail (I apologize for that!) and for giving us direction as we look to Seoul to get consensus on this position. I look forward to your soonest response. FYI, as I will be traveling over the coming weeks leading up to Seoul, should you need to speak with me my cell is: +1 917 770 2693. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

2 2

Ballot for a new BC Charter
by Rick Anderson Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

This is a ridiculous provision, a clumsy attempt at stifling discussion. My company would never agree to have its own actions and statements bound by the charter of an association it belongs to, no seripus business could or would. Let's just disband the BC and get on with the new CSG. We have stalled on that long enough, and it is where we need to apply our energies and focus. It has been a very long time since the BC was an effective means for the provision of our input to the BC, it has become a private fiefdom of a very small number of individuals. We vote against the adoption of this charter. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Oct 13 07:59:15 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Hello, I, and other members, had been under the impression that there would be a set period to review the new updated draft charter, to allow for another round of comments and revisions, before going to a vote. Yet, now the officers seem to be calling for a vote on a seriously flawed charter. My company cannot support the draft charter, and will leave the constituency if it is adopted. While this will cause glee to certain members who seek to stifle free speech that counters their positions and who wish to use the BC as a mechanism to further their extremist positions that are not reflective of businesses, I think all should actually re-read what you're agreeing to if you accept the charter. I previously submitted comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html and many of the important concerns remain. In particular, referencing the latest draft: 1. Section 3.4.2 states membership can be reviewed if: "a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent, that contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency;" I said it before in my previous comments. This means that Constituency members would not be permitted to externally voice dissent or act against an adopted position of the BC. It's shocking that this provision survived a revision of the charter. Other constituencies do not have this provision, and for good reason. If a registrar or registry or IP holder feels strongly against something that their respective constituency votes for, they are not bound by that position as an organization --- they are free to submit their own comments to ICANN, or to the DOC/DOJ/NTIA, or to politicians, or in the courts if the matter is serious enough. The same holds for trade associations within the BC -- members of AIM, CADNA, ICA, ETNO, ICC, USCIB or WITSA are certainly not externally limited in their behaviour if they disagree with a position of their trade association. I don't see how *any* BC member can support 3.4.2, unless they are not actually reading the words that they're voting for, or they wish to engage in voluntary servitude. (2) There are so many other flaws in the charter, that one should simply re-read: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html most of which still ring true, despite the conference call we had. For example, positions all over the place are "appointed" instead of elected, use the "up to" language, deny an elected treasurer and secretary, is anti-free speech (truth is not important), etc. etc. Given the existing officers have failed to deliver an acceptable charter, I believe that the process going forward to create a new charter should consist of the formation of a committee of volunteer members (excluding the current officers) to draft a new charter. As a starting point, we (and I would volunteer to help take on the work) can use the City-Top Level Domain constituency charter, which was relatively balanced (although would need some modifications), see: http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-red… Of course, after a new draft is prepared, the existing officers and all other members would be free to comment on it, before another round (or rounds) of revisions and ultimately a vote. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM, BC Secretariat <secretariat(a)bizconst.org> wrote: > Dear Members > > Ballot on revised BC Charter > > At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I > have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. > > A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority > non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. > > A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote > should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation > or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your > ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. > > The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October > 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. > > Best wishes > Gary > ---------------------------------------------------- > > We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the > attached revised BC Charter. > A definitive PDF version is attached. > A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for > information. > > The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in > which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. > As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO > representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. > There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in > addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. > The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN > staff based on learning since the last Charter. > The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives > given the diversity of those perspectives. > The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by > Seoul. > > Zahid Jamil > Mike Rodenbaugh > Philip Sheppard > > BC Officers This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

1 0

Follow up from last week's conference call
by Liz Williams Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

All Further to our discussion last week about how to make the leap from the current structure to a new one, I have re-circulated a straw man proposal I sent around a couple of months ago. It suggests a way forward which is easy to do, low impact on our systems and gives clear results quite quickly. The only thing that would need to change in the document are the actual dates -- I proposed end of July to have a new slate of volunteers/elected people in place by Seoul. That's not going to happen but it could happen anytime shortly afterwards. Liz

2 1