- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Pre-Sydney call
by BC Secretariat May 16, 2009

May 16, 2009

Dear Members Please mark Thursday 4 June for a pre-Sydney member call at the usual times. Gary

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Marilyn Cade May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

I would support an abstention. First, positions like this deserve broader BC discussion, and as noted by Philip, there are items where there may not be membership consensus. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:20:36 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf> The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip

4 4

Paper on Registry/Registrar separation
by Philip Sheppard May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

For information - please see the link below. The paper concludes that "The public interest in supporting competition does not support elimination of the current separation of Registry and Registrar ownership. The end result would be further consolidation of the top tier registrars, gaming of the loopholes in the reciprocity provisions which will, in the very least, provide a "time to market" advantage for select Registrars, among others. These changes would, in conclusion, present a severe negative impact on competition among Registries and among Registrars and harm to end users". The BC has I believe not formally changed its view on R/R separation (ie against) but we did presume the issue may be less relevant with the expansion of new TLDs and may be competition enhancing for smaller players. This paper argues (to my mind) persuasively against that presumption. Philip ________________________________ FYI. Enclosed is a paper produced by PIR, NeuStar and Afilias on the Registry-Registrar separation issue which reflects the dangers of the removal of the separation requirements. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-08may09-en.pdf. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & Policy

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Marilyn Cade May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

I disagree, Liz. There are cases where prior rights do exist. We all have to recognize that just like the GNSO reform is highly flawed, although it has been underway even longer, the GTLD policy recommendations have many serious flaws", and inadequacies. I already noted that I would not support the letter, and support abstention. But I respond now because I actually disagree with your point about parties having rights to object. We all have to understand that governments, as sovereign states, do not give up certain responsibilities for public policy irregardless of where they are "working" The .tavel and .info registries launched with reserve list of country names at the second level. I see no reason for that not to provide an approach that is scalable, but there will still have to be an objection process. In my personal view. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams(a)mac.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27 To: <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Philip The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto that others do not. An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed. Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent. I support the Council's position. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote: <GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Submission from BC and ISCPC
by Marilyn Cade May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

As noted from my public comments, I do not support creating "constituencies" for policy issues. The proposed "need" sounds more like a "birds of feather forum" than a constituency IDNs should be a cros cutting policy and standards work program across the GNSO and CcNSO, touching also the SSAC. In general, I didn't support the suggestion that the group fit into a constituency. IDNs nor ASCII TLDs cannot exist in a vacuum from each other. I can support the joint paper. But would give different advice to how to address such cross cutting issues, as noted in my public comments. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:04:35 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Submission from BC and ISCPC Thank you for considering an earlier version on the list. Please find attached a response from the Business and ISP Constituencies that has now been submitted to public comments. The IPC may also endorse the paper in due course but have some resourcing issues given their focus on the IRT. Philip

1 0

Submission from BC and ISCPC
by Philip Sheppard May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

Thank you for considering an earlier version on the list. Please find attached a response from the Business and ISP Constituencies that has now been submitted to public comments. The IPC may also endorse the paper in due course but have some resourcing issues given their focus on the IRT. Philip

1 0

BC position new member outreach
by BC Secretariat May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

The BC position paper on objectives and milestones for BC new member outreach has now been adopted and is on the web site. Many thanks to our Outreach group for developing the paper. Gary

1 0

Comments regarding PSC Report on Improving Institutional Confidence
by Steve DelBianco May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Only a handful of comments were filed on the PSC draft plan for Improving Institutional Confidence. http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-implementation-plan/index.html#00012 ATT made some intriguing suggestions to improve accountability. NetChoice raised similar concerns (below). We welcome your support for these ideas. The deadline was May 11, but your comments will likely be posted if you get something in today. --Steve NetChoice comments on the Feb-2009 DRAFT Implementation Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) I want to acknowledge the considerable work of the President¹s Strategy Committee (PSC) in developing this report. While I hesitate to ask volunteers to take-on more work, I hope that PSC members can take their work to the next level and soon. There is a growing urgency regarding institutional confidence, since ICANN¹s transition agreement (JPA) with the U.S. Government expires at the end of September. Moreover, the draft Plan does not include adequate proposals or sufficient implementation details in at least two critical areas, Accountability and Capture. Before describing where the IIC Plan needs more work, I should first address what transition means in the context of ICANN and the work of the PSC. In April of 2008, ICANN¹s chairman tasked the PSC to outline a plan for developing this transition framework.¹ This was a same-day response to a statement by the U.S. Commerce Department, pointing out that more work remains to increase institutional confidence¹. It seems to me that ICANN has perfected the method to respond to challenges of this type: develop a study; solicit public comments; then declare that the challenge has been met. I¹ve heard ICANN leaders tell Washington audiences that ICANN¹s transition is a fait accompli, since the JPA will simply expire on schedule. ICANN leaders have admonished me (and others) who ask whether the JPA¹s terms have really been met. If you accept ICANN¹s view, there¹s nothing left but the countdown to September 30, 2009. But hold the countdown for just a moment and think about what transition really means. The JPA is the latest agreement in a commitment the U.S. Government made 10 years ago to transition its original role of DNS management to a private sector organization created specifically for this purpose -- ICANN. For 10 years, ICANN has worked to become the kind of organization that could handle management of the DNS according to the principles articulated by the US and embraced by the world. I still believe that ICANN will fulfill the role it was created for. But I don¹t believe that ICANN today has the mechanisms to ensure that it remains accountable to those principles and is led by the private sector instead of governments. And absent those mechanisms, I don¹t believe it¹s in the interest of anyone to effect a full transition of DNS management roles. Only one recommendation in the draft IIC plan (2.9) would subject ICANN¹s board to external review, but that measure (Establish an extraordinary mechanism for the community to remove and replace the Board¹) would be too difficult to invoke and would create unacceptable and uncontrollable risks if it were ever actually used. The draft Plan for IIC should be expanded to include additional mechanisms that hold ICANN accountable for its decisions in the development and execution of DNS policies. The PSC has more work to do in this area to explore alternative plans, including the possibility of an ad-hoc or standing judiciary¹ that could hear appeals, perhaps through arbitration or something akin to what ICANN proposed for hearing objections to new gTLD applications. Additionally, the PSC could explore the principles and foundational documents that would form the basis to evaluate appeals of ICANN decisions. Finally, the IIC Plan does not adequately address the growing risk that ICANN¹s role could be captured by governments and multi-governmental organizations. The fact that over a billion people have access to the Internet is due to private sector innovation and over a trillion dollars in private sector investment. It¹s going to take yet more private sector investment to reach the next billion people, so ICANN needs to maintain the confidence of the private sector. NetChoice has been raising concerns about the risks of government capture at ICANN and IGF meetings and in comments filed over the last two years. For example: 1. At the 2003 Internet Governance Forum, the Russian Government asked the United Nations to take control of critical Internet resources, raising the risk of government capture. http://blog.netchoice.org/2007/11/dont-blame-it-o.html 2. In our Jan-2008 comments at the mid-term of the JPA, we raised the issue of government capture and suggested that U.S. oversight was providing some protection from capture. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpacomments2007/jpacomment_001.p df 3. In July 2008, we warned that ICANN¹s fast-track program would give governments initial control of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) with non-Latin alphabets. http://forum.icann.org/lists/iic-consultation/msg00024.html 4. After ICANN dismissed our concerns about government capture of IDNs, we reiterated the risks in our Oct-2008 comments on IIC. http://comment.icann.org/?14@@.ee7bbd2/1 5. Last week, we criticized yet another plan for government capture of ICANN, the G-12 for the internet¹. http://www.netchoice.org/press/eu-plan-to-increase-government-control-is-not -the-answer-for-icann.html Over the last year we have seen increasing ways and means of governments capturing the private sector¹s leadership role at ICANN. At the same time, government-controlled country-code domains have maintained their independence from ICANN policies and financial support, while insisting on having initial and exclusive control over new top-level Internationalized Domain Names. We appreciate the chance to comment on ICANN reports and draft plans, but it can be very discouraging when our concerns are dismissed even more so when events show that these concerns are justified. While NetChoice will continue to participate in ICANN, there is a real risk that broader participation could wane if others¹ concerns are similarly dismissed. Diminished public participation could have the unfortunate effect of letting ICANN leadership conclude that the Internet community broadly supports ICANN plans. That kind of false confidence could be the beginning of the end for institutional confidence in ICANN. Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice Coalition 1401 K St NW, Suite 502 Washington, DC 20005 www.netchoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org>

2 1

Comments on Registry Stakeholder Group Petition and Charter
by George Kirikos May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Hi folks, Yesterday ICANN invited comments on the Registry Stakeholder Group Petition and Charter, see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11may09-en.htm http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/registry-sg-petition-charter-24apr09.… We've posted our own comments in opposition to that charter, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ryc-sg-petition/msg00000.html in line with our previously stated position, see: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-constituency-renewals/ that there should be public mailing list archives, public budgets, and public membership lists. Their meetings should also be archived in MP3 format and ideally be accompanied by transcripts. We also noted that there should be an elected Secretary (as opposed to an unelected Secretariat). Their charter already implements the elected Treasurer position that we and many other members of the BC support as we formulate and move to a new BC charter. Given that the BC has voted for and implemented a public mailing list, we should be setting the bar high for other constituencies to match that level of transparency. I hope other BC members will take that same position if they submit comments, or perhaps that can be a position of the entire constituency if the BC submits comments for the entire constituency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Respectful Online Communication and Behavior
by BC Secretariat May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

Dear ICANN Community Leaders and Members: ICANN's Ombudsman, Frank Fowlie, recently posted a web page on Respectful Online Communication and Behavior: <http://icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication-en.htm>. This page emphasizes the importance of respectful communication in ICANN, particularly in this phase of its development as an international organization: "Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that fellow community members, volunteers, stakeholders, and staff members are all deserving of considerate treatment. Members of the community are asked to bear in mind that the diversity of thought, and diversity of participants, in this unique - bottom up - consensus driven - multilingual and multicultural organization is ICANN’s strength." ICANN's Standard of Behaviour also can be found on this page, and is included below for easy reference. I know some community leaders are discussing how to further encourage and enforce these standards within their community. Please don't hesitate to contact ICANN Staff if there is anything we can do to assist with this endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development policy-staff(a)icann.org ICANN EXPECTED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR "Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils undertake to: Act in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. In particular, participants undertake to act within the mission of ICANN and in the spirit of the values contained in the Bylaws. Adhere to the conflict of interest policy laid out in the Bylaws. Treat all members of the ICANN community equally, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community should treat each other with civility both face to face and online. Act in a reasonable and informed manner when participating in policy development and decision-making processes. This includes regularly attending all scheduled meetings and exercising independent judgment based solely on what is in the overall best interest of Internet users and the stability and security of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, irrespective of personal interests and the interests of the entity to which an individual might owe their appointment. Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. Act in accordance with ICANN policies. Protect the organization's assets and ensure their efficient and effective use. Act fairly and in good faith with other participants in the ICANN process."

1 0