Fellow BC members: On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN's July 19th document "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report". In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC's longstanding position that UDRP providers should be subject to "a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities" . The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated: In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC membership. Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. The draft letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report - it just states the BC's long-held position on the need for a standard and enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of questions about some of the statements in the Report. I realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be happy to answer any questions during the call. Thanks, and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday. I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC+August+8+2013.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1377162255000>). Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 6-Sep). Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug) Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment) While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able. 2. Postponement of GNSO review (reply comments close 6-Sep) 3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep). No comments have yet been filed on this. Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration. (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call. 4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) 7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/dns-risk-mgmt/draft-final-19aug13-en.pdf%20>). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts. Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf%20>. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions. ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: "NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string." As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link<http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/>) There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now? This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard ("so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.") So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13

I am interested in all BC members comments that are as 'users' , not applicants. The BC membership is quite clear that it cannot address applicant views, and of course, applicants are actively engaged in the contracted party "house". Having stated that, which we all agree, as all BC members agreed to this in their application to be a BC member, I fully support that discussion about centralized repository services risks and threats, versus distributed services, in a new environment of thousands of gTLDS. As to risks and threats: Databases much larger than WHOIS are held, and operated by corporations and they deal with threats and risks and attacks, daily, and hourly. Still, it deserves discussion. BUT, informed discussion. WHOIS is a key priority for the BC. so next generation services must be as well. Marilyn Cade From: aparnasridhar@google.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call To: sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: bc-gnso@icann.org All, We appreciate everyone’s hard work and thoughtful commentary as the BC has worked toward developing a position on next generation directory services. We have thought about this issue further, and have a few targeted comments on the draft that we hope the BC will consider. First, we generally agree with Bill’s comments regarding the potential dangers of a centralized repository. A centralized repository is an incredibly tempting target for both governments and bad actors. As such, the concern with data loss or breach is not whether the data can be reassembled, as the comment currently suggests, but what is done with the data after it has been improperly accessed. While it is true that a centralized database may adopt stronger security precautions than multiple individualized databases, the incentives to overcome those security precautions will also be more substantial. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the BC should unconditionally endorse the centralized repository concept, and at the very least should recommend a thorough security review of the EWG’s recommendations before they are finalized. Second, we respectfully urge greater precision and circumspection in the comment’s treatment of the distinction between non-commercial and commercial sites. The concepts of commercial v. non-commercial sites were not discussed in detail in the EWG report, and we support the BC’s efforts to adopt this distinction and flesh it out in greater detail. However, we are concerned that some of the current suggested language may be overbroad, and inadvertently disadvantage many non-commercial actors that merit protection for their exercise of free expression. In particular: The current text provides: “The BC believes that any domain name employed to derive economic benefit on behalf of a domain registrant (individual or entity) should preclude registration via privacy and/or proxy services.” We are concerned that this purpose-driven test is overly vague and subjective. We welcome further discussion on feasibility of implementation, but perhaps a straight revenue-based test may be preferable. The discussion also notes that “domain names used in connection with the Internet that accept advertising of any kind, sell goods or services and/or accept donations, or link to commercial sites [should be characterized] as a commercial site.” We respectfully disagree that the acceptance of donations and links to commercial sites should disqualify websites from accessing privacy or proxy services. For example, a political or current events website with no commercial intention may often link to commercial media sites such as the New York Times for purposes of referencing the source of information. Similarly, an opinion or review blog for restaurants or gadgets or movies would likely link to further information about the subjects being reviewed, including the subject commercial homepages. And the very acceptance of donations is likely an indicator that a particular site is a non-profit enterprise. We also have concerns about some of the text related to protected political activity, namely, the reference to protection from “unjustified prosecution for political activity.” The term “unjustified” is a highly subjective concept which is dependent on who is making the decision. In addition, we respectfully believe that the reference to international treaties that promote freedom of expression is problematic, as the most relevant international treaty, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, has a carve-out for protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals that would be considered extremely overbroad in the United States. We encourage the BC to therefore consider a more general reference to the free flow of information and data. Finally, we would support a general statement along the lines of Marilyn’s suggested language, noting that “the issue of who’s data should be released to whom and under what circumstances, as well who is eligible to take advantage of privacy/proxy services, “is highly complex, and . . . more work is needed on what the characteristics are for eligibility to use a proxy /privacy registration service.” Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to further dialogue on this topic. Cheers, Aparna and Andy Aparna Sridhar Policy CounselGoogle Inc.1101 New York Avenue N.W.Second FloorWashington, DC 20005tel: 202.346.1261e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday. I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here). Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 6-Sep). Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug) Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment) While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able. 2. Postponement of GNSO review (reply comments close 6-Sep) 3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep). No comments have yet been filed on this. Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration. (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call. 4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D. 6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) 7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts. Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions. ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: “NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string.” As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link) There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now? This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard (“so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.”) So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

I agree with Bill and Andy on this one.  I think Marilyn is advocating a position that just leads us down a rabbit hole.  Our current definition is very clean and I think we should stick with it unless someone can put forth some compromise language around which we can build consensus. J. Scott   j. scott evans -  head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@yahoo.com ________________________________ From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Cc: "Aparnasridhar @Google" <aparnasridhar@google.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call I support Google's views on this matter and see no reference or indication that they are expressing those views as "an applicant". The concerns raised by Google are the concerns of average *users* and I fully support further discussion. It is true that WHOIS is broken. It is not true that any system that replaces it is superior. On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>  wrote: I am interested in all BC members comments that are as 'users' , not applicants. 

The BC membership is quite clear that it cannot address applicant views, and of course, applicants are actively engaged in the contracted party "house".

Having stated that, which we all agree, as all BC members agreed to this in their application to be a BC member, I fully support that discussion about 

centralized repository services risks and threats, versus distributed services, in a new environment of thousands of gTLDS.

As to risks and threats:  Databases much larger than WHOIS are held, and operated by corporations and they deal with threats and risks and attacks, daily, and hourly.

Still, it deserves discussion.  BUT, informed discussion.

WHOIS is a key priority for the BC. so next generation services must be as well. 

Marilyn Cade

________________________________ From: aparnasridhar@google.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:21 -0400 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call To: sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: bc-gnso@icann.org

All,

We appreciate everyone’s hard work and thoughtful commentary as the BC has worked toward developing a position on next generation directory services. We have thought about this issue further, and have a few targeted comments on the draft that we hope the BC will consider.

First, we generally agree with Bill’s comments regarding the potential dangers of a centralized repository. A centralized repository is an incredibly tempting target for both governments and bad actors. As such, the concern with data loss or breach is not whether the data can be reassembled, as the comment currently suggests, but what is done with the data after it has been improperly accessed. While it is true that a centralized database may adopt stronger security precautions than multiple individualized databases, the incentives to overcome those security precautions will also be more substantial. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the BC should unconditionally endorse the centralized repository concept, and at the very least should recommend a thorough security review of the EWG’s recommendations before they are finalized.

Second, we respectfully urge greater precision and circumspection in the comment’s treatment of the distinction between non-commercial and commercial sites. The concepts of commercial v. non-commercial sites were not discussed in detail in the EWG report, and we support the BC’s efforts to adopt this distinction and flesh it out in greater detail. However, we are concerned that some of the current suggested language may be overbroad, and inadvertently disadvantage many non-commercial actors that merit protection for their exercise of free expression.  In particular:

* The current text provides: “The BC believes that any domain name employed to derive economic benefit on behalf of a domain registrant(individual or entity) should preclude registration via privacy and/or proxy services.” We are concerned that this purpose-driven test is overly vague and subjective. We welcome further discussion on feasibility of implementation, but perhaps a straight revenue-based test may be preferable. * The discussion also notes that “domain names used in connection with the Internet that accept advertising of any kind, sell goods or services and/or accept donations, or link to commercial sites[should be characterized] as a commercial site.”We respectfully disagree that the acceptance of donations and links to commercial sites should disqualify websites from accessing privacy or proxy services. For example, a political or current events website with no commercial intention may often link to commercial media sites such as the New York Times for purposes of referencing the source of information. Similarly, an opinion or review blog for restaurants or gadgets or movies would likely link to further information about the subjects being reviewed, including the subject commercial homepages. And the very acceptance of donations is likely an indicator that a particular site is a non-profit enterprise. * We also have concerns about some of the text related to protected political activity, namely, the reference to protection from “unjustifiedprosecution for political activity.” The term “unjustified” is a highly subjective concept which is dependent on who is making the decision. In addition, we respectfully believe that the reference to international treaties that promote freedom of expression is problematic, as the most relevant international treaty, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, has a carve-out for protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals that would be considered extremely overbroad in the United States. We encourage the BC to therefore consider a more general reference to the free flow of information and data. * Finally, we would support a general statement along the lines of Marilyn’s suggested language, noting that “the issue of who’s data should be released to whom and under what circumstances, as well who is eligible to take advantage of privacy/proxy services, “is highly complex, and . . . more work is needed on what the characteristics are for eligibility to use a proxy /privacy registration service.”

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to further dialogue on this topic.  

Cheers, Aparna and Andy

Aparna Sridhar Policy Counsel Google Inc. 1101 New York Avenue N.W. Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 tel:  202.346.1261 e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:

Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call.   Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday.  I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here).

...

Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process:  

ICANN Public Comment page is here.   Selected comment opportunities below:

...

1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS)    (comments close 6-Sep).      Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug)Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment)

...

While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able.       2. Postponement of GNSO review  (reply comments close 6-Sep)

3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep).   No comments have yet been filed on this.   

...

Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration.  (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call.

4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment).  Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.   

5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements     (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment).  Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.  

6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures  (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep)

7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link).  Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8)

Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments.  The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest.

Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. 

...

There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch

Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts.  Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week.

...

--- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors

Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTCAgenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here.

...

---Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison

---

Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)

What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions.

...

ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution:  “NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string.”

As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts.   In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link)

There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now?

This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process.  Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard (“so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.”)  So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations.  There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. 

...

Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD.   It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

...

I support Google's comments here. As I have said before, I strongly oppose any delay to the GNSO review as this can only prolong a situation which is detrimental to the NCPH in general, and the BC in particular. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 29 août 2013 à 17:35, Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar@google.com> a écrit :

All,

For your reference, Google's comment on postponement of the GNSO review can be found here:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00001.html

I also note that the ISP constituency has filed a comment recommending that the review not be delayed.

Cheers,

Aparna Sridhar Policy Counsel Google Inc. 1101 New York Avenue N.W. Second Floor Washington, DC 20005 tel: 202.346.1261 e-mail: aparnasridhar@google.com

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Those of you volunteering to collaborate on draft comments should feel free to circulate ideas and edits before Thursday. I found it helpful to consult Benedetta's meeting minutes from 8-Aug (here).

Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process:

ICANN Public Comment page is here. Selected comment opportunities below:

1. Draft report of expert working group (EWG) on next generation directory services (new WHOIS) (comments close 6-Sep). Initial drafting was done by Laura Covington, Susan, Elisa, Stephane, J Scott, and Bill Smith (thru 5-Aug) Then some compromise paragraphs from Marie Pattullo on 6-Aug. I added draft language on commercial use of privacy/proxy services. Then Marilyn, J. Scott, and David Fares added edits to the 9-Aug version (1st attachment) While the deadline is 6-Sep, we should finalize our comments ASAP since the EWG may begin reviewing comments later this week. Note to Bill Smith: please share PayPal comments as soon as you are able.

2. Postponement of GNSO review (reply comments close 6-Sep)

3. Locking of domain name subject to UDRP proceeding (PDP), board recommendation (reply comments by 13-Sep). No comments have yet been filed on this. Elisa Cooper drafted a brief comment for member consideration. (2nd attachment). Marilyn Cade expressed interest in this subject on 8-Aug call.

4. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 17-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (3rd attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.

5. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (initial comments by 27-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep) Elisa volunteered for first draft (4th attachment). Other volunteers included J Scott, Marilyn, and Steve D.

6. Charter amendment process for GNSO Structures (initial comments by 28-Aug, reply closes 18-Sep)

7. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (initial comments by 13-Sep) Board received a report from Westlake (link). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8)

Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest.

Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch

Standardized Contract for URS Providers Phil Corwin volunteered to draft a BC letter reiterating our position that URS and UDRP providers have standardized contracts. Phil contacted Mahmoud Lattouf and they should have a draft letter for member review this week.

--- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors

Next Council telecon meeting is 5-Sep-2013, 15:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted as of 26-Aug. GNSO Project list is here.

--- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison

--- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.)

What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions.

ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: “NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string.”

As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link)

There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now?

This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard (“so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.”) So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions.

Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

Here's a Policy Calendar for Thursday's BC call. Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Proposal to mitigate name collision risks from new gTLD delegations (reply closed 17-Sep) BC filed comments here<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-name-collision-05aug13/msg00048.html>. 2. Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) requirements (reply closed 18-Sep) BC filed comments here. 3. DNS Risk Management Framework Report (reply comments by 5-Oct) Board received a report from Westlake (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/dns-risk-mgmt/draft-final-19aug13-en.pdf>). Lots of process discussion, but at least they acknowledge that DNS is all about Availability, Consistency, and Integrity. (page 8) 4. Consultation on gTLD Delegation/Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy & Procedures (initial comment by 1-Oct) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual / company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. Geographic Indicator Debate On 1-Aug a discussion thread was begun by J Scott Evans regarding the "Geographic Indicator Debate at Durban", including broader issue of GAC's role. There is no firm deadline for this issue and ICANN has not posted GAC Advice for public comment. We have offers to draft from J Scott Evans, Stephane, and Sarah Deutsch Standardized Contract for URS Providers ICANN decided it didn't need uniform contracts for its UDRP/URS providers. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13-en.pdf>) Uniform contracts were a core issue for us on our comments regarding new URS providers. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/msg00007.html> to BC comment) Phil Corwin drafted a letter raising BC concerns and questions for ICANN leadership about this decision. We circulated this letter on 4-Sep for 14-day member review. Marilyn replied with comments, which Phil attempted to address in the attached letter. Gabi and Celia suggested we ask for a public comment period, too. If there are no objections, our chair will send this letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair, where it would show as Correspondence. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>) ICANN decision to delegate Singular and Plural forms of same string With recent arbitrator rulings on objections, this situation has become even more perplexing. (link<http://domainincite.com/14224-google-beats-donuts-in-objection-pet-and-pets-are-confusingly-similar> to DomainIncite article on pet/pets). See bottom of this email for our prior thoughts about possible BC responses. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors Report on 5-Sep Council meeting (agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-05sep13-en.htm> and transcript<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-05sep13-en.pdf>) Next Council telecon meeting is 10-Oct-2013, 18:00 UTC Agenda / motions not posted yet. GNSO Project list is here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf>. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) What shall we do to stop the madness of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD? This is an issue on which the BC has been vocal since Beijing, along with advice from the GAC to "reconsider" the singular/plural decisions. ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee "reconsidered" in its 25-Jun Resolution: “NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same string.” As many BC members have discussed on list, the Dispute Resolution panels are generally upholding the originally flawed findings of the experts. In one case, Dispute Resolution providers disagreed on the exact same string. (link<http://unitedtld.com/icann-must-now-decide-string-similarity-question/>) There's been an impressive discussion on BC list. Question is, What can the BC do now? This element of GAC Beijing advice was never posted for public comment, so we could insist upon that as a matter of process. Moreover, events indicate that experts and dispute resolution panels are not uniformly interpreting the Guidebook standard (“so nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion.”) So it's time to clarify the guidebook and re-do the string similarity evaluations. There's a limited class of strings at issue, and the same panels could act quickly once they receive clearer instructions. Also, we could enlist ALAC support to ask GAC to reiterate its concern over user confusion among singular and plural forms of the same TLD. It was disappointing that GAC didn't mention singular/plural in its Durban Advice, but events now vindicate the GAC's original concern about consumer confusion.

During last week's BC member call, we called for volunteers to draft this public comment: Revised Public Interest Commitments dispute resolution procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm> (PICDRP). The BC advocated for public interest commitments (beyond what's in the TLD application) and should attempt to comment on the DRP. Need a volunteer… We're very fortunate that Gabi Szlak and Anjali Hansen stepped-up to the challenge. Gabi and Anjali's draft is attached, giving BC members 12 days to review and comment. Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions. We will finalize on 22-Oct and submit by the initial comment deadline of 23-Oct. Thanks again to Gabi and Anjali for taking the lead. --Steve

Thanks so much for your feedback Ron! Much appreciated. Gabi *Gabriela Szlak * * * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2013/10/22 Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>

Steve, Anjali, Gabi and colleagues, ****

** **

The draft BC comment is quite good in recommending a number of means by which PICS enforcement can be strengthened. Considering that the March PICDRP was edited down from 8 pages to 4 in this October version, it is going in the right direction in my view.****

** **

I support this good work.****

** **

Thanks and kind regards,****

** **

RA****

** **

*Ron Andruff*

*RNA Partners*

*www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>* *

** **

*From:* owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 21:29 *To:* bc-gnso@icann.org *Cc:* Hansen, Anjali; Gabriela Szlak *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on Public Interest Commitments dispute resolution****

** **

During last week's BC member call, we called for volunteers to draft this public comment:****

** **

Revised Public Interest Commitments dispute resolution procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm> (PICDRP). The BC advocated for public interest commitments (beyond what's in the TLD application) and should attempt to comment on the DRP. Need a volunteer…****

** **

We're very fortunate that Gabi Szlak and Anjali Hansen stepped-up to the challenge. ****

** **

Gabi and Anjali's draft is attached, giving BC members 12 days to review and comment. Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions. We will finalize on 22-Oct and submit by the initial comment deadline of 23-Oct.****

** **

Thanks again to Gabi and Anjali for taking the lead.****

** **

--Steve****

****

Here's a Policy Calendar for Today's BC call. (7-Nov-2013) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Draft Final Report<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm> on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (comments closed 1-Nov) The BC filed comments last week (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00021.html>). 2. Study<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm> on Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse (reply comments by 13-Nov) Thanks to Elisa Cooper and Susan Kawaguchi for drafting BC comments (attached) that we circulated on 31-Oct. Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions before the 11-Nov deadline. 3. Revised Public Interest Commitments dispute resolution procedure<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm> (PICDRP). (reply comments by 14-Nov) Thanks to Gabi Szlak and Anjali Hansen for drafting the BC Comment that we submitted on 24-Oct. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-02oct13/msg00006.html>) Still time to file a reply comment if we have remaining concerns. 4. Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report/Recommendations. (initial comments by 22-Nov) The ATRT2 just published its draft review/recommendations (here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-en.pdf>). The BC offered several suggestions to the ATRT2 when they began in Jun-2013 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20ATRT-2%20questions%20FINAL.pdf>) Initial comments are due 22-Nov so we want draft comments circulated to BC members before 8-Nov. Anjali volunteered to draft and other help is welcome. 5. Proposed bylaw changes for Technical Liaison Group 6. Thick Whois PDP recommendations (initial comments by 7-Dec) The BC commented on the PDP initial report on 3-Aug-2013 (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-thick-whois-initial-21jun13/msg00008.html>). Should we do another comment on the final recommendations? 7. ICANN draft for Vision, Mission & Focus for 5-year Strategic Plan (comments close 31-Jan) This draft is output of April-September "brainstorming" by board, community and staff. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/focus-areas-29oct13-en.pdf>) Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual/company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors. Gabi Szlak, Councilor-Elect Next Council meeting is 20-Nov-2013, 17:00 UTC. Agenda and Motions to be posted by 10-Nov. GNSO Project list is here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/projects-list.pdf>. --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Procedure to elect GNSO Council officers Planning for Buenos Aires meeting --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Some topics that will be prominent in Buenos Aires: Recent developments in global internet governance and the implications for ICANN and for private sector role. Implementing GAC Advice on Safeguards and Exclusive Generic gTLDs. ICANN plans to delegate Singular and Plural forms of same string, despite GAC advice and community concerns. The BC sent a letter to ICANN CEO and Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) with two requests: First, we request that ICANN publish any evidence considered by expert panels, arbitration providers, and ICANN staff in its evaluation of these decisions. Second, we ask that ICANN publish more specific objective criteria used to judge string similarity, and then allow for an appeal system where applicants can challenge prior ICDR decisions on singular-plural TLDs based on this specific criteria. ICANN’s latest plan to manage collisions between new gTLD strings and domains used in private networks. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf>)

And me - sorry. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos

On 07 Nov 2013, at 16:33, Stephane Van Gelder Consulting <svg@stephanevangelder.com> wrote:

A last-minute hiccup is preventing me from attending today's call. Apologies and look forward to seeing everyone in Argentina.

Safe travels.

Stéphane

Le jeudi 7 novembre 2013, Steve DelBianco a écrit :

...

Here's a Policy Calendar for Today's BC call. (7-Nov-2013)

Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is here. Selected comment opportunities below:

1. Draft Final Report on protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all TLDs at top & 2nd level. (comments closed 1-Nov) The BC filed comments last week (link).

2. Study on Whois Privacy & Proxy Service Abuse (reply comments by 13-Nov) Thanks to Elisa Cooper and Susan Kawaguchi for drafting BC comments (attached) that we circulated on 31-Oct. Please REPLY ALL with any questions or suggestions before the 11-Nov deadline.

3. Revised Public Interest Commitments dispute resolution procedure (PICDRP). (reply comments by 14-Nov) Thanks to Gabi Szlak and Anjali Hansen for drafting the BC Comment that we submitted on 24-Oct. (link) Still time to file a reply comment if we have remaining concerns.

4. Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report/Recommendations. (initial comments by 22-Nov) The ATRT2 just published its draft review/recommendations (here). The BC offered several suggestions to the ATRT2 when they began in Jun-2013 (link) Initial comments are due 22-Nov so we want draft comments circulated to BC members before 8-Nov. Anjali volunteered to draft and other help is welcome.

5. Proposed bylaw changes for Technical Liaison Group

6. Thick Whois PDP recommendations (initial comments by 7-Dec) The BC commented on the PDP initial report on 3-Aug-2013 (link). Should we do another comment on the final recommendations?

7. ICANN draft for Vision, Mission & Focus for 5-year Strategic Plan (comments close 31-Jan) This draft is output of April-September "brainstorming" by board, community and staff. (link)

Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual/company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest.

--- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Zahid Jamil, BC Councilors. Gabi Szlak, Councilor-Elect

Next Council meeting is 20-Nov-2013, 17:00 UTC. Agenda and Motions to be posted by 10-Nov. erif;word-wrap:break-word"> Next Council meeting is 20-Nov-2013, 17:00 UTC. Agenda and Motions to be posted by 10-Nov.

GNSO Project list is here.

--- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Procedure to elect GNSO Council officers Planning for Buenos Aires meeting

-- Sent from my iPad p:break-word">

-- Sent from my iPad d

Here's a Policy Calendar for Tomorrow's BC call. (5-Dec-2013) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: ICANN Public Comment page is <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment> here<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment>. Selected comment opportunities below: 1. Second Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report/Recommendations. (reply comments by 13-Dec) The ATRT2 just published its draft review/recommendations (here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/draft-recommendations-15oct13-en.pdf>). The BC offered several suggestions to the ATRT2 when they began in Jun-2013 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20ATRT-2%20questions%20FINAL.pdf>) Elisa drafted comments on meetings and Angie on multi-lingual resources (attached). These were circulated to the BC on 18-Nov, so we should finalize soon. 2. Thick Whois PDP recommendations (initial comments by 7-Dec, comments close 28-Dec) The BC commented on the PDP initial report on 3-Aug-2013 (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-thick-whois-initial-21jun13/msg00008.html>). Should we do another comment on the final recommendations? 3. Protecting IGO/INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. (initial comments by 18-Dec) The BC filed comments on this plan on 2-Nov (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00021.html>). Should we file further comments before Board considers the plan? 4. Study<http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/cmu-misuse-study-26nov13-en.pdf> on Whois Misuse (initial comments by 27-Dec) In 2009, the BC prompted this study to learn whether "Public access to WHOIS data leads to a measurable degree of misuse – that is, to actions that cause actual harm, are illegal or illegitimate, or otherwise contrary to the stated legitimate purpose." We need volunteers to analyze the study and draft comments. 5. ICANN draft for Vision, Mission & Focus for 5-year Strategic Plan (comments close 31-Jan) This draft is output of April-September "brainstorming" by board, community and staff. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/focus-areas-29oct13-en.pdf>) Tim Chen and Chris Chaplow are drafting comments for the BC. Note: BC members are encouraged to submit individual/company comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Gabi Szlak, Councilors. Next Council meeting is 12-Dec-2013, 15:00 UTC. Agenda and Motions here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-12dec13-en.htm>. Highlights: Item 4: motion to accept final report of Joint IDN Working Group (JIG). Item 5: motion to adopt final report (link<http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf>) of joint DNS Security and Stability and Analysis working group (DSSA WG) Item 7: consider Council response to Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Developments in global internet governance and implications for ICANN and for private sector role. --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) ICANN plans to delegate Singular and Plural forms of same string, despite GAC advice and community concerns. The BC sent a letter to ICANN CEO and Board on 22-Oct (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Singular-Plural%20TLDs.pdf>) with two requests: We asked ICANN to publish any evidence considered by expert panels, arbitration providers, and ICANN staff in its evaluation of these decisions. We asked ICANN to publish specific objective criteria to judge string similarity, and allow for an appeal system where applicants can challenge prior ICDR decisions on singular-plural TLDs based on this criteria. Steve re-iterated those requests at the Public Forum in BA, asking if the Board shared the BC concerns. NGPC member Mike Silber replied, "Yes, several of us are very concerned about this." This topic was on NGPC’s 20-Nov agenda (Report on String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations), , but minutes<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-20nov13-en.htm#2.a> indicate they postponed this item. ICANN’s latest plan to manage collisions between new gTLD strings and domains used in private networks. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-07oct13-en.pdf>) To develop the framework for new TLDs, ICANN hired JAS Advisors. JAS posted initial thoughts on detection & response at DomainIncite (link<http://domainincite.com/15205-dns-namespace-collisions-detection-and-response-guest-post>), where BC members can reply with suggestions. Implementing GAC Advice on Safeguards and Exclusive Generic gTLDs. First item in Buenos Aires GAC Communique is a query about open and nondiscriminatory access to domains in new TLDs. Full Communique is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-20nov13-en>. Excerpt below. 1. Category 1 and Category 2 Safeguard Advice. The GAC welcomed the response of the Board to the GAC's Beijing Communiqué advice on Category 1 and Category 2 safeguards. The GAC received useful information regarding implementation of the safeguards during its discussions with the New gTLD Program Committee. GAC members asked for clarification of a number of issues and look forward to ICANN's response. The GAC highlights the importance of its Beijing advice on 'Restricted Access' registries, particularly with regard to the need to avoid undue preference and/or undue disadvantage. The GAC requests a briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PIC specifications (including 3c) fully implements this advice. Where this is 3c from Spec 11 of Standard Registry Agreement: c. Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies.