[bc-gnso] RE: BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

ICA supports this new draft. We greatly appreciate the response of other BC 
members to our concerns regarding the imposition of untested RPMs through this 
contract renewal, and look forward to working cooperatively with other BC 
members to address rights and consumer protection issues within the context of 
UDRP reform and other appropriate mechanisms.

ICA's comment letter will address the issue of RPMs based on the possibility 
that others may suggest such amendments to the contract. We will also support 
transition to Thick WHOIS, as well as the possibility of VeriSign's engagement 
in commercial use of traffic data so long as ICANN engages in vigorous 
enforcement of contract clauses regarding nondiscrimination and prohibition of 
wildcard services.

Finally, while not opposing new contract provisions that permit VeriSign to 
offer marketing and price incentives in "geographically underserved' regions, 
we request a tighter definition and other safeguards to prevent gaming as well 
as to assure that this will not lead to below cost furnishing of .Net domains 
to such regions subsidized by developed world registrants. In that regard, we 
note that the current and revised .net contract sets annual registry-level 
transaction fees at $.75 per domain, which is $.50 higher than the standard for 
most registry contracts, and that this differential generated approximately 
$6.8 million in additional ICANN revenue in 2010. These monies are set aside in 
a  restricted fund, the primary use of which is supposed to be support of 
developing country Internet communities in ICANN, and we request that ICANN 
account for how these funds are actually being utilized.

Again, we appreciate the BC's response to our concerns and look forward to 
seeing many of you in Singapore.



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

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:58 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011

Recap of BC discussion and review of our comments on .net renewal:

21-Apr member call:  BC members our approach for this comment, and there was 
universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET   
 This was 21 days before the comment due date of 10-May.

3-May: we circulated draft written comment by Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and 
Mikey O'Connor.  (8 days before deadline).  This draft proposed two additional 
requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)

4-May:  Philip Sheppard offered a general principle: "The ICANN contract 
renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new 
standards."    Rapporteurs accepted this proposal.

8-May:   Phil Corwin questioned the rationale for requiring URS and TM Claims.  
I advised Phil that the BC charter calls for discussion and/or vote only when 
10% of membership (5 members) object to a proposed position.

Phil also pointed out that the URS and TM Claims proposals were circulated with 
8 days of review period, which is less than the 14 days required per charter.

Recommendation of vice chair for policy coordination:

Today, I asked Elisa and Mikey to consider revising the draft comment to stick 
with Thick Whois, which was appropriately noticed (21 days) and for which no 
opposition was noted.

Response from BC Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor:

Elisa and Mikey quickly responded with the attached version 3, adding Philip 
Sheppard's principle, retaining the recommendation for Thick Whois, and 
dropping recommendations for URS and TM Claims Service in .net

Next steps:

Please review version 3 (attached) since this will be submitted 10-May unless 
10% of members object.

I also invite BC members to examine new gTLD registry contract requirements 
once the guidebook is finalized, so the BC can determine which requirements 
should apply when existing gTLD contracts are up for renewal.

I encourage any BC member to submit their own individual / corporate views on 
this and all ICANN public comment items.

Thanks to all members for conducting such a civil and practical discussion with 
due attention to the BC charter.

Thanks especially to Elisa and Mikey for their work as our rapporteurs.

--Steve


From:  Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract.
Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper  (with 
edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)

On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and 
there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service 
in .NET

Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry 
contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)

ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May.    Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days 
before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline.

We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day 
review and discussion period.
Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible.   If there 
are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a 
voting period, and posted to ICANN.

For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal
Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.

Regards,
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
________________________________

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3627 - Release Date: 05/09/11