- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

FW: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation
by Mike Rodenbaugh June 4, 2009

June 4, 2009

FYI the below string which clearly explains the motivation behind the 'fast track' IDN gTLD process that is proposed by the Registry Constituency, and sets forth a motion that Council will vote upon in Sydney. Personally, I think this is a good idea, and Chuck Gomes explains precisely why in his message below. We should take appropriate steps to try to ensure that ccTLDs do not have undue advantage over gTLDs, particularly in the new world of IDN TLDs. Please reply with comments, concerns, questions -- as the Councilors need to determine how to vote on this motion. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-idng(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:40 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation Thanks for taking the time to clarify Chuck. I'll give it due consideration (i.e. sleep on it) and get back to you. I think it is a slippery slope if you start this, however, in the scenario you suggest it could indeed be workable. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 10:32 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation It's really not very complicated Adrian. 1. The ideal approach for IDN TLDs is for both IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs to be launched at the same general time frame. Two reasons for this are: 1) To avoid giving either IDN ccTLDs or IDN gTLDs a competitive advantage over the other for a service that has had pent-up demand for years; 2) to give businesses and organizations that provide services and/or products in multiple countries to have a choice between registering their names in either an IDN gTLD or in multiple IDN ccTLDs or both. Regarding the latter, the Arab region is a good example; if I operate a business in multiple Arab countries, I may prefer to register my name in the Arabic script in one IDN gTLD rather than in multiple IDN ccTLDs; on the other hand, if I only operate my business in one Arab country, I might prefer to register it in the IDN ccTLD for that country. 2. It now appears that IDN ccTLDs could be introduced significantly sooner than new gTLDs, so there could be a gap of 6 to 9 months between when IDN ccTLDs are implemented and when IDN gTLDs are implemented, assuming that IDN gTLDs are introduced as part of the overall new gTLD process as originally planned. 3. In case #2 happens, we could close the gap by having an IDN gTLD fast tract process. You are of course correct that the overarching issues and other unresolved new gTLD implementation issues apply to IDN gTLDs as well as to ASCII gTLDs. That is why any IDN gTLD fast track approach would have to address those issues. There are probably multiple ways that could be handled; let me describe one possible scenario: 1) Let's assume that IDN ccTLDs are introduced by 1 January 2010; 2) let's also assume that the final DAG is approved in December 2009 as currently projected and that the minimum 4-month communication period starts then ; 3) an IDN gTLD fast track process could be implemented on 1 January 2010 just like the IDN ccTLD fast track process at the beginning of the communication period. In this scenario, the final DAG would apply to any IDN gTLDs that are approved. There of course could be different scenarios that would require other approaches but it does not seem unreasonable to think that processes could be developed to deal with them. One question for you: Why should IDN ccTLDs get a first to market advantage over IDN gTLDs? Regarding your last question, why should IDN gTLDs have a first to market advantage over ASCII gTLDs, I would say that it is much less of a market advantage when comparing IDN TLDs to ASCII TLDs than it is comparing IDN gTLDs to IDN ccTLDs. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-idng(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:18 AM > To: Edmon Chung; gnso-idng(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation > > > I'm sorry. I still don't get it. > > I'm sorry I haven't been available for phone calls particularly those > that fall on or after midnight (as every one has lately, my bad). > > Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, why this needs to > proposed? > > I understand completely that IDN ccTLD's should not delay the launch > of IDN new gTLD's however this seems somewhat superfluous to this > issue. If the ccNSO et al take too long sorting out their fast track > process so be it. Their loss. Go forth gTLD (IDN or otherwise) > > Why should IDN new gTLD's be launched *prior* to ascii gTLD's as is > being suggested? Why don't the exact issues that are retarding the > release of ascii gTLD's (the four overarching issues plus others) > apply to IDN gTLD's? Are IDN's not subject to trademarks like ascii > gTLD's or will they not be subject to second level issues (as proposed > by the GAC)? Will registrants like McDonald's still have to register > in every script to protect their brand and ignore any clearing house > suggestion as proposed in the IRT Report? > > What am I missing here? > > I merely don't understand the point of why IDN gTLD's should get > special treatment when they aren't special at all. Why should IDN > gTLD's have any first to market advantage over ascii gTLD's? > > Apologies if I am covering ground that is well travelled but I am at a > loss with the logic. > > As it stands I will be suggested to my Constituency to vote against > any such motion. > > Thanks. > > > > Adrian Kinderis > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-idng(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 6:29 PM > To: gnso-idng(a)icann.org > Subject: [gnso-idng] motion for IDNG WG formation > > > Hi Everyone, > > Below is a first stab at a possible motion to go with the IDNG > charter. Please take a look and make suggestions. > > Edmon > > > ======================================== > > WHEREAS: > > The ICANN community has been discussing issues related to IDN and IDN > TLDs since 2000, and the ICANN board as early as September 2000 > recognized "that it is important that the Internet evolve to be more > accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set"; > > There is expressed demand from the community, especially from language > communities around the world who do not use English or a Latin based > script as a primary language, including the CJK (Chinese Japanese > Korean) communities and the right-to-left directional script > communities (e.g. Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, etc.), for advancing the > introduction of Internationalized Top-Level Domains (IDN TLDs); > > GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 > and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the > GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, > describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs; > > The community observes the successful development of the IDN ccTLD > Fast Track based on the IDNC WG recommendations, and the ongoing > progress for the Implementation of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process; > > The implementation of the New gTLD process is ongoing and the schedule > and development of the implementation should continue; > > GNSO Council had made comments in response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues > Report on IDN Issues, as well as in its comments on the IDNC WG Final > Report expressed that "the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs > should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category, > but if they are not introduced at the same time, steps should be taken > so that neither category is advantaged or disadvantaged, and > procedures should be developed to avoid possible conflicts"; > > GNSO Council made a resolution in January 2009 to assert that "the > GNSO Council strongly believes that neither the New gTLD or ccTLD fast > track process should result in IDN TLDs in the root before the other > unless both the GNSO and ccNSO so agree"; > > An IDN gTLD Fast Track, if successfully implemented, could be > introduced in close proximity with the IDN ccTLD Fast Track in the > case that the New gTLD process is further delayed, and could address > the concerns expressed by the GNSO Council regarding possible > conflicts if IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs are not introduced at the same > time. > > > RESOLVED: > > To recommend to the ICANN Board that an IDNG WG (Internationalized > Generic Top-Level Domain Working Group) be formed under the Proposed > Charter for the IDNG Working Group (IDNG WG). > > > > > > >

4 5

Member call today
by BC Secretariat June 4, 2009

June 4, 2009

A reminder that there is a pre-Sydney member call today, Thursday 4 June. California, 8am Alberta, 9am NYC/DC/Ottawa, 11am London, 4pm Brussels/Paris/Geneva, 5pm Karachi, 9pm If anyone needs dial-in details again, please contact me directly at the secretariat address Best wishes Gary

1 0

ICANN staff misuse the word "implementation" in order to avoid going through the GNSO for new policies
by George Kirikos June 3, 2009

June 3, 2009

Hi folks, During yesterday's Registration Abuse Policies working group, the issue of “policy” creation and how it should be done properly came up. http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00206.html http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rap-20090601.mp3 Fast forward to 27:10 (27 minutes and 10 seconds) of the MP3 recording and listen to the next 2 minutes where I ask Margie Milam of ICANN a question about policy vs. implementation. At 27:24 or so she says the ICANN Bylaws *require* policy work to go through the GNSO. But, at 28:05 or so she says “The IRT work is *implementation work.*” !!! She dances around the issue for the next 40 seconds. Policies *need* to go through the GNSO. However, ICANN Staff are describing *all* the new gTLD stuff as *implementation*, even though they are definitely creating new policy. Furthermore, take a look at the IRT’s full name “Implementation Recommendation Team.” Once again, this is doublespeak by ICANN, a way to circumvent proper procedures. These recommendations *are policy* and should be going through the GNSO. That would have resulted in balanced work, instead of the abomination and extreme report we received. So, be watchful, as ICANN staff are mischaracterizing and deliberately calling things “implementation” in order to be able to do as much as possible in terms of policy creation in an unaccountable manner. Whether you're a supporter or an opponent of new gTLDs, whether you're a supporter or opponent of the IRT, this unaccountable behaviour of staff should be of concern, as it undermines the the role of the GNSO, and thus the role of the BC. I would hope this would be raised in the GNSO Council, as it is being neutered by staff and made more irrelevant day after day. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

4 8

FW:
by Zahid Jamil June 2, 2009

June 2, 2009

Thanks Gary. From: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@jamilandjamil.com] Sent: 30 May 2009 01:38 To: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org Cc: 'BC Secretariat'; 'Mike Rodenbaugh'; 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: Trademark owners get a chance to have their say on new gTLDs International - Latest news May 29 2009 Trademark owners have been urged to submit comments on a report issued today that looks at how trademarks can be protected when new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) come on line in 2010. The report is the work of the Implementation Recommendation Team <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-list-23mar09-en.pdf> (IRT), which was created by the Internet Corporation <http://www.icann.org/en/> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at the end of March. The report should go live on ICANN's website before the end of business Pacific Standard Time today (early Saturday morning GMT). "Many mark owners have become cynical of ICANN and the ICANN process over the years - and for good reason in many cases," IRT member Stacey King told WTR yesterday. "I would hope that mark owners recognize that this is the time to re-engage." The IRT published its draft report at the end of April (see "Trademark owners urged to comment on gTLDs <http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=aca7531c-4085-4678- 8791-b91ec8606d12> "). Significant changes to this are expected in the final report, especially around the proposals for the post-delegation dispute mechanism. This follows close consultation with a number of interested parties, including the World <http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en> Intellectual Property Organization. "I think that that you should be particularly interested in the foreword to the report that we have drafted," Nick Wood, another IRT member, told WTR. "This explains why the team gave up six working weeks without remuneration and sets the context for what we have done. We just hope that the comments from business and the trademark community are forthcoming and taken seriously." Other IRT members include J Scott Evans, senior director - legal at Yahoo! <http://www.yahoo.com/> , who has been vocal in his condemnation of ICANN's plan to introduce gTLDs. "Yahoo! does not believe there should be gTLDs," he said at a special session added to the programme at the recent International Trademark Association (INTA) annual meeting. "Individuals' service on the IRT is a voluntary service to the community and is in no way an endorsement of the report," he explained. Fellow IRT member Ellen Shankman <http://www.ellenshankman.com/> added that it was important to recognize that gTLDs were going ahead, and that even stakeholders who disagreed with their introduction should become involved in the process. "A good deal of credit should be given to the ICANN Board for creating the IRT and to ICANN staff for working with the IRT," said King. "This is the time, while we have ICANN's ear, to re-engage." Once the report is live, it is open for public comment. Those wishing to engage can submit comments online, as well as at the 35th ICANN meeting <http://syd.icann.org/> , held in Sydney from June 21 - 26, or during the following public sessions (note: ICANN has changed these dates since WTR first published <http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/daily/detail.aspx?g=58f43c9a-7fe4-46e1- 81f9-89a5d566d73e> the plans for open sessions): . London - July 15, 2009 - Jarvis Suite <http://www.architecture.com/RIBAVenues/RoomHire/Rooms/01-LowerGroundFloor/J arvisSuite.aspx> , Royal Institute of British Architects . New York - July 13, 2009 - venue to be confirmed . Hong Kong - between 20 and 24 of July 2009 - date/venue to be confirmed . Abu-Dhabi - between 2 and 6 of August 2009 - date/venue to be confirmed "Our work is just beginning," added King. "Those who were not able to be involved with the IRT or who are concerned with online brand abuse and fraud should take this opportunity to comment on the report, attend ICANN meetings, and have a say in the next phase of the Web." Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

1 0

Applicant Guidebook: Public Comments Analysis and Revised Excerpts
by BC Secretariat June 1, 2009

June 1, 2009

Applicant Guidebook: Public Comments Analysis and Revised Excerpts 31 May 2009 Analysis of Public Comment to Applicant Guidebook version 2 [PDF, 1,555K] http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv2-analysis-public-comments-31ma… Amended Guidebook Sections and Explanatory Memoranda http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm#matrix The second version of the Applicant Guidebook for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) generated continued public interest, as expressed by over 200 comments received. A comprehensive report [PDF, 1,555K] http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv2-analysis-public-comments-31ma… is being released today; comments are organised by topic and each are followed by analysis describing how the issues raised in the commentary can be reflected in the Guidebook. (A similar report [PDF, 588K] for the first version of the guidebook was posted in February 2009). http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18fe… This analysis, the additional excerpts and explanatory memos allow people to see how their comments will affect the next version of the guidebook The Highlights in this Round Many changes have been made as a result of the comments so far received. Discussions relating to the overarching issues will continue, and other subject areas have been revised and are being posted today as guidebook excerpts for public comments. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm One of the more significant is the recommendation that the proposed registry agreement for new gTLDs be modified to reflect a requirement that all registries offer "Thick" Whois service. Providing Whois service is a central obligation of gTLD registries and registrars under contract with ICANN. Many comments to the proposed registry agreement seek to mandate thick Whois for all new registries suggesting substantial benefits will result, including enhanced accessibility and enhanced stability. Other revisions include proposed clarifications to: handling of geographical names, evaluation questions, comparative evaluation scoring, dispute resolution procedures and other registry agreement provisions. More Discussion and More Comment These revisions along with all the others in this round will also be discussed at the ICANN meeting in Sydney starting June 21, 2009. The excerpts and analysis are supported by four explanatory memoranda. The public comment period for the guidebook excerpts released today will be open until 20 July 2009. There are four overarching issues:, Trademark Protection The Economic Analysis of new gTLDs Financial Analysis Objection Process The comments received to the material released today, together with the outcomes of the discussions relating to the overarching issues will constitute the basis for the third version of the guidebook that will be published at the end of the third quarter 2009. Other New gTLD Program Updates ICANN continues to balance the need to progress with the new gTLD program with community concerns on specific aspects. With that in mind, the program is expected to launch (i.e., applications will be accepted) in the first quarter of 2010, but we will not open the process until concerns about the overarching issues have been addressed. Between June and August 2009, ICANN will hold several public discussions designed to arrive at solutions to the overarching issues (focusing on Trademark Protection and Potential for Abusive Conduct) that were identified in the first version of the guidebook. These consultations will start in Sydney during the ICANN Meeting, followed by events in London on New York on 13 July, and London on 15 July. Outreach sessions in Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi to discuss the topics are also being arranged. Additional locations are still under consideration. More information about these events as well as pre-registrations will be announced shortly. Please continue checking the New gTLD program webpage for updates. Related links Public comment summary and analysis (pdf): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv2-analysis-public-comments-31ma… Revised excerpts: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm#matrix Public comment period for excerpts: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#dag-revised-excerpts New gTLD program webpage http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Public comment summary and analysis for guidebook's first version (pdf): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18fe…

1 0

Public Comment: IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs
by BC Secretariat June 1, 2009

June 1, 2009

ICANN News Alert Public Comment: IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs 29 May 2009 The Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) posted its Final Report on Trademark Protection in New gTLDs [PDF, 300K]. The IRT (Members of the IRT are listed here [PDF, 88K]) was formed by ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency in accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm) The resolution was in response to the request by the community seeking solutions for potential issues for trademark holders in the implementation of new gTLDs. The team reflects experiential and geographic diversity and is comprised of 18 members and two alternates. The IRT team participated in numerous teleconferences and several face-to-face meetings in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California, over a two month period. The resulting recommendations report on Trademark Protection Issues identifies several proposed solutions, including: a.. IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms, and standardized pre-launch rights protection mechanisms; b.. Uniform Rapid Suspension System; c.. Post delegation dispute resolution mechanisms; d.. Whois requirements for new TLDs; and e.. Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation. In the process of developing its recommendations, the IRT consulted with WIPO and the broader community, and evaluated the public comments received in response to the posting of the Draft IRT Report [PDF, 431K] on 24 April, 2009. These comments are posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/. In addition, several community members who had submitted substantive comments and proposals on trademark protection in new TLDs were invited to participate in the IRT meeting held on 11 May, 2009 in San Francisco. This Final IRT Report will be posted for a thirty (30) day comment period that closes on 29 June, 2009. Comments can be sent to irt-final-report(a)icann.org and reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report. The community will have additional opportunity to discuss the IRT proposal in an open forum discussion at the Sydney Meeting and in public consultations to be scheduled in July and August 2009. These consultations will take place in diverse geographic regions, and will provide a forum for ICANN to hear from the community on the effectiveness of proposals that address the overarching issues submitted by the IRT and others. For additional information: WIKI for Overarching Issues discussions: https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarc…. New gTLD Page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine

1 0

ICANN Expense Analysis: by Stakeholder Interest Area
by BC Secretariat June 1, 2009

June 1, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-29may09-en.htm ICANN Expense Analysis: by Stakeholder Interest Area 29 May 2009 As one important element of transparency and accountability, ICANN strives to publish meaningful, accessible financial and operational information. Through its history, ICANN has consistently increased its financial reporting. Within the last 24 months, for example, ICANN developed monthly dashboard reporting on financial data. Earlier this year, the dashboard started to provide financial information by primary functions. See http://forms.icann.org/idashboard/public/. In response to community requests to view ICANN's expenses in reports more aligned with stakeholder interest areas, ICANN has developed a new financial report: Expense Area Group (EAG) reporting. The categories depicted in this view of ICANN's budget are based on ICANN's organizational structure. http://www.icann.org/en/structure/ The attached paper [PDF, 272K] http://www.icann.org/en/financials/eag-analysis-29may09-en.pdf describes the Expense Area Group reporting, the analysis and methodology used to create these reports, and more information on cost accounting at ICANN. This new EAG reporting is simply one more view of ICANN's finances, equal in importance with a functional representation, or a representation by ICANN's accounting codes. In fact, no single representation captures the fundamentally interconnected nature of ICANN's work and mission. ICANN is responsible for coordinating the Internet's unique identifiers at a global level, which is only possible when all of ICANN's organizational structures are working with each other, and on a global basis. Still, this EAG analysis should provide another useful way to understand the totality of ICANN's financial operation. The community is encouraged to provide feedback on this new financial report, to help ensure that this type of reporting is responsive to the needs of the community. A comment period has been opened for feedback on the Expense Area Group reporting at this online forum and will remain open until after the Sydney meeting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat

1 0

IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
by George Kirikos May 30, 2009

May 30, 2009

Hi folks, The IRT final report was published on the ICANN website a few hours ago. Here's a copy of our initial comments: ----- start of comments ---------- I was holding out hope that the IRT would actually take into account the public comments of the non-IP world and create a balanced report. We made extensive comments in good faith that reflected the needs of responsible registrants: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00015.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/msg00016.html (the 3rd link in particular discussed a novel approach that would protect ALL registrants from new gTLD confusion at the top level in an elegant manner, and was superior to the rehash of old ideas produced by the IRT) I just finished reading the final report and frankly it is an abomination, showing total disregard for balanced solutions that protect the rights of legitimate registrants. Trademark trolls who wish to reverse hijack valuable domain names would be cheering at this report, if it was implemented without significant changes. The URS in particular is an extremist view of trademark rights, tilted in favour of IP interests compared to the UDRP and beyond what is protected or recognized by law and due process. It also obfuscates the dual requirement of BOTH bad faith use AND registration (there are lots of inconsistencies in the language that seek to weaken the standard to make it "OR" instead of "AND"). The level of defaults will be even higher than the UDRP simply because good faith registrants never receive actual notice of complaints. Even faxes were considered too expensive! A 1 page fax, using email-to-fax technology (so it can easily be automated by the URS provider) would cost less than $1 ANYWHERE in the world! The IRT team should try sending registered letters in a statistically valid sample size and measure how long it takes them to be delivered to different parts of the world -- it can be more than a week, even from the USA to Canada, let alone from Europe to Canada. And the URS was said to be a "higher burden" than the UDRP, yet no consideration was given to the creation date of the domain name! Restricting the URS to recently registered domains would have demonstrated that the IRT was showing balance, i.e. only wanting to cover "clear cut" cases of abuse. Frankly, the IRT team is demonstrating that their tactics and extreme positions can be even worse than those of the cybersquatters that they decry and detest. I will do a detailed deconstruction of the final report in the coming weeks (there are more pressing comments required by the NTIA first), however simply re-read the comments that I and others submitted previously. They were completely ignored. ---- end of comments ------------- Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

JPA/ICANN Oversight Hearing in DC next week
by George Kirikos May 29, 2009

May 29, 2009

Hi folks, I forgot to mention, there's also a meeting on June 4, 2009 (next Thursday) at 10:00 am in Washington, DC, of the US House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extm… on the "Oversight of ICANN", and Paul Twomey will be there. If any BC members attend, they might want to provide summaries to the constituency. According to the minutes of the latest ICANN Board meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm "Staff reported that the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet scheduled a hearing on the Joint Project Agreement and other ICANN related issues including new gTLDs on 4 June 2009 and invited Dr. Twomey to appear as a witness." Given that our own BC conference call is currently scheduled just 1 hour after the start of the above meeting, if many BC members in the DC area (or flying in from outside DC) are planning to attend the hearing in person, perhaps it might be wise to adjust the timing of our own conference call.... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 2

US Cybersecurity
by George Kirikos May 29, 2009

May 29, 2009

Hi folks, As BC members finalize their comments for the NTIA over the coming week: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00023.html they might wish to take into account the US Cybersecurity review. The Obama speech today is at: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/29/HP/R/19192/Pres+Obama+announce… (video) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Secu… (text transcript of speech) The cyberspace policy review is discussed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CyberReview/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.p… Have a great weekend. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0