- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

gTLD global outreach programme
by BC Secretariat July 12, 2009

July 12, 2009

Dear Members Please find below a link to information about the ICANN gTLD global outreach and consultation programme Best wishes Gary http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD

3 3

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 9 July 2009
by BC Secretariat July 10, 2009

July 10, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 9 July, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090709.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#july Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by Rick Anderson July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

I know that in our firm it is not really the $7 registration fees which are the issue, even though x hundreds of registrations it adds up. The more serious cost is the tens of thousands of dollars in lost time while people sort these things out (usually in the legal department, an expensive resource), without even getting into the thousands more occasionally required for a UDRP or for the legal threats and wrangling preceding one. It is this lost time and trouble which I believe most people find the most aggravating and wasteful, moreso than the registration fees per se, and regarding which the thought of mutiplying it xfold for new TLDs is anathema. It sound like you are applying your creative juices in the right direction, if you can develop a method which fairly preserves the (bonafide) rights of TMholders with minimal hassle, then you may well significantly lessen the reflexive antagonism re new TLDs. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Jul 06 23:03:03 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants Hi Rick, On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Rick Anderson wrote: > What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders. The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan. Thanks for the feedback. One method to refine the concept further is to truly limit things to defensive registrations (as opposed to speculative registrations at lower cost) through a link to an active "base" domain name (one that does resolve). For example, the domain typo generator at DomainTools.com spits out a number of matches for "Verizon": http://www.domaintools.com/domain-typo/?q=verizon&mode=reg&status=b&rules%5… Let's say that the "base" domain name is declared to be Verizon.com. Then if Verizon wanted to own verizoln.com or verizom.com, but the traffic from those domains wasn't worth $7/yr to Verizon (i.e. it doesn't "pay" for them resolve), they could pay say $3/yr to register them but have no nameservers, at the same time linking it to Verizon.com. They could do the same for domains in other TLDs, declaring them "defensive registrations" that all link to one base domain that does resolve. One could develop an algorithm to test whether a domain that is declared as "defensive" is similar enough to that base domain name to qualify (e.g. a certain number of common characters, common typos like wwwdomain.com, etc.). An algorithm probably wouldn't capture 100% of defensive registrations, but it could probably reduce costs for a healthy fraction of them. There could also be a function to list all defensive registrations (with no nameservers) for a given base domain, to make abusers easier to bring to justice. For example, let's say someone other than Disney did own wwwdisney.com and used that as their active "base" domain for speculative but low traffic domains (which didn't generate $7/yr worth of traffic) such as wwwdisney.org. A markholder would be able to more easily capture the entire set of typos that didn't resolve (and thus were registered under the lower cost system) in one action because of that linkage. > As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve). That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If the domain doesn't generate $7/yr worth of traffic, a markholder might still keep the domain registered in order to avoid facing the UDRP and legal costs of $5,000+ if the domain is abused by someone else. If these marginal names could face lower carrying costs (say $3/yr instead of $7/yr), that cost savings could be dramatic, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per year. Registry operators might not be happy by the loss of "fully priced" defensive registration fees that they're used to currently, but that's not a suitable business model to begin with. Depending on the elasticity of demand, ironically registries might even actually increase the number and total revenues from defensive registrations, as the lower price for domains deemed "defensive" would actually increase the total number registered and possibly the total profitability for the registry. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ 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

Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by Rick Anderson July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

Hmm. This is not my favourite GK idea of all time. However, I do think the motivation is well-placed: how do we nurture the innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship and competition inherent in new TLDs and new registries and new models, while not saddling TMholders with the infinite costs of protecting their trademarks in an endless parade of TLDs. Figure that out, George, and we shall be away to the races. What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders. The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan. As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve). That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination. But I do agree with your premises, just not this particular tactic.... cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Jul 06 20:21:02 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants Hi folks, Any rational reading of the IRT comments archive demonstrates deep divisions between TM holders and the broader public, in particular domain name registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/ So, I thought it might be a good idea to try to find common ground between the two sides. Since we continue to lack a true cross-constituency GNSO mailing list, we'll have to do the best we can with those on both sides represented in our own constituency. Here's the first of several ideas that I'd like to "test", to see whether they have the support of folks here: 1) Registry fees should be lower for domains that do no resolve (i.e. have no nameservers). Since TM holders register a large number of domains only for defensive purposes, they waste considerable sums on domain names they simply do not really want to own or use. Conceivably abusive registrants would benefit by being able to register larger numbers of domains too at lower cost --- however, they'd be unable to actually USE these domains, since the names do not resolve. Please respond with "yes", "no", "maybe" and perhaps an explanation of why you feel the way you do about the idea. Perhaps we can queue up other ideas from both sides, and after devoting a day or two or three to each idea (in separate threads), be able to come up with a package of solutions that has strong consensus support (even unanimous support) that we can bring to other constituencies. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ 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.

2 2

Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
by George Kirikos July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

Hi folks, Any rational reading of the IRT comments archive demonstrates deep divisions between TM holders and the broader public, in particular domain name registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/ So, I thought it might be a good idea to try to find common ground between the two sides. Since we continue to lack a true cross-constituency GNSO mailing list, we'll have to do the best we can with those on both sides represented in our own constituency. Here's the first of several ideas that I'd like to "test", to see whether they have the support of folks here: 1) Registry fees should be lower for domains that do no resolve (i.e. have no nameservers). Since TM holders register a large number of domains only for defensive purposes, they waste considerable sums on domain names they simply do not really want to own or use. Conceivably abusive registrants would benefit by being able to register larger numbers of domains too at lower cost --- however, they'd be unable to actually USE these domains, since the names do not resolve. Please respond with "yes", "no", "maybe" and perhaps an explanation of why you feel the way you do about the idea. Perhaps we can queue up other ideas from both sides, and after devoting a day or two or three to each idea (in separate threads), be able to come up with a package of solutions that has strong consensus support (even unanimous support) that we can bring to other constituencies. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

BC Sydney meeting notes
by BC Secretariat July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

The notes of the BC meeting Sydney can be found on the BC web site www.bizconst.org under the meetings tab and also latest news. Gary

1 0

Latest news and events GAC
by BC Secretariat July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

http://gac.icann.org/ LATEST NEWS & EVENTS The next GAC Meeting will be held in Seoul, South Korea from October 25-30, 2009 Sydney Communique` GAC Chairman's Report for the information to the ITU Council's Working Group - WSIS June 2009

1 0

Call for volunteers for Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group
by Philip Sheppard July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Please let the BC secretariat know if you wish to participate as the BC representative. Philip ------------------------------------- The GNSO Council at its meeting on 24 June 2009 passed a resolution on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/pednr-wg-charter-24ju… tm Each constituency, and the liaisons, are invited to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. Other stakeholders and experts may be invited to join the WG by the GNSO Council. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat[at]icann.org> and the invitations will be reviewed by the GNSO council. The GNSO Council RESOLVES To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. The Working Group initially shall: 1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced; 2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle; 3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The Working Group shall then consider the following questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy. Working Group processes: All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt(a)icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/.

4 3

Public Comment Encouraged on Revised GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters
by BC Secretariat July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul09-en.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Comment Encouraged on Revised GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters 1 July 2009 As part of the comprehensive GNSO Improvements effort, last year the ICANN Board approved the formation of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). After considering proposed SG Charters that were submitted by the community and posted for public comment , the ICANN Board passed a Resolution in May directing its Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) and ICANN Staff to revise the SG Charters to make them consistent with the Board’s GNSO Improvements Report (and related Resolutions). Background and Explanation Stakeholder Groups are integral elements of a new, restructured GNSO, and are intended to be lightweight “caucuses” bringing together like-minded international groups (Constituencies) to elect the best representatives to fill the SG’s allotted Council seats. Stakeholder Groups ensure that the ratio of Council seats among SGs remains the same while encouraging the formation of new Constituencies and the continued growth and diversification of the GNSO community. The overall GNSO Improvements effort and the role SGs will play in that arena is more fully described in the Stakeholder Group section of the GNSO Improvements Information Web Page. The SIC provided the community with the revised charters linked below and discussed these documents during ICANN’s recent Sydney meeting. The revised charters are posted to further encourage public comment via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters(a)icann.org by 21 July 2009. a.. Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 29K] b.. Non-Commercial SG Charter [PDF, 59K] c.. Registrars SG Charter [PDF, 60K] d.. Registries SG Charter [PDF, 117K] Relevant Board Resolutions, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions a.. GNSO Improvements Information Web Page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ b.. GNSO Improvements Report adopted by the Board (3 February 2008): http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… c.. Resolution of 26 June 2009 Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#2 d.. Minutes of 28 August 2008 Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-28aug08.htm e.. Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm f.. Five Stakeholder Group Submissions received from the community: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm The Process From Here At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding each Stakeholder Group submission. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently take action on each Stakeholder Group petition and charter as it deems appropriate. Deadline and How to Submit Comments A 21-day public consultation forum has been opened from 30 June through 21 July 2009. The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#stakeholder To submit comments: Comments on the documents are welcome via email to gnso-stakeholder-charters(a)icann.org. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Community Comment Invited on Proposed Bylaw Amendments Related to Restructuring of the GNSO Council
by BC Secretariat July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#gnso-rest… Community Comment Invited on Proposed Bylaw Amendments Related to Restructuring of the GNSO Council 30 June 2009 Explanation: Implementation of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Review/Improvements process requires the amendment of a substantial number of the ICANN Bylaws to reflect new GNSO structures, processes and mechanisms. In particular, a specific package of draft Bylaws and additional Staff recommendations has been developed for Public review and comment so that the ICANN Board can move forward with Bylaw amendments to seat the new GNSO Council by the annual ICANN meeting in Seoul, Korea. Approving the Bylaws amendments is a key step toward seating a newly structured Council consistent with the recommendations of the ICANN Board Governance Committee. The draft Bylaw amendments included in the package being posted for public comment are the work product of a GNSO Council Restructure Drafting Team (consisting of the entire GNSO Council and additional GNSO community members) which has been working on a set of Bylaws Amendments for the last several months. The additional draft Staff recommendations included with the package are designed to address specific areas that are impacted by community discussions during the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia. The package consists of three documents. The first document is a comparison document [PDF, 122K] http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-redl… showing the existing Bylaws and comparing them to the amendments proposed by the GNSO Council deliberations so far. The second document is a clean version [PDF, 67K] http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clea… of what the Bylaws would look like if those amendments were approved. The third document is a Staff list of additional amendment components [PDF, 17K] http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/draft-staff-recommendations-30jun09-e… that have been necessitated by community discussion at the ICANN Sydney meeting and suggestions from the Board's Structural Improvements Committee. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 30 June 2009 through 29 July 2009, and invites community comments on this topic. To submit comments: Comments on the document are welcome via email at: gnso-council-draft(a)icann.org. This public forum will be open through 29 July 2009. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-council-draft/. For a copy of the public Announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30jun09-en.htm. That Announcement provides inks to a number of documents that give some useful context and background regarding the issues in this forum. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0