RE: [bc-gnso] Also for discussion of BC comment on RAA

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anjali,Would it possibly be useful to have a 45 min call with interested 
members to assist? so many of us are drowning in other items that drafting may 
escape us,but I could join a brief call.
I take note that this is now a fairly complex updated document, and that is 
helpful to share views?
Not sure if that is useful to your rapporteur efforts, but I can join a call if 
that is helpful. Probably can't do drafting. 
I agree that the 'improved' RAA is quite important for the BC members.  Maybe 
Steve could also tell us what /whether the BC's scorecard issues were met, 
which might help define some input.
Marilyn 

From: AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Also for discussion of BC comment on RAA 
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:30:23 +0000









All,
 
I volunteered to draft comments for the BC on the proposed revisions to the 
RAA.  As Steve noted, ICANN recently released an updated version of the RAA, 
which may address
 some of the BC members’ prior concerns.  See ICANN’s issues memo (attached) on 
the latest revisions as a summary.

 
If any of you have had the chance to look at the latest version and can provide 
input today at our meeting, that would be great.  However, comments are now not 
due until
 May 13, so I would welcome your written comments by next Thursday.  I can then 
circulate a draft of the comments to everyone by end of next week.
 
There are a lot of specifications that need to be looked at as well.  Here is 
the link: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm
 
I had no idea what I was taking on when I volunteered for this project!  I will 
be greatly relying on everyone’s input.
 
Thank you and talk with you soon,
 
Anjali
 


Anjali Karina Hansen
 Deputy General Counsel
 
Tel: 703-247-9340
Fax: 703-276-0634
Email:
ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bbb.org  Start With Trust®
 
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA  22201
 
For consumer tips, scams and alerts:
Read our blog

Find us on: 
Twitter | Facebook
| 
LinkedIn | 
YouTube | 
Flickr
 
This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please 
notify the sender
 by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, 
copying or forwarding it. Thank you.

 


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco

Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:53 AM

To: 'bc - GNSO list'

Subject: [bc-gnso] for discussion of BC comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs



 



This is for discussion during today's BC Member call, during the Policy segment 
of the agenda.




 


Background for BC comments on Beijing GAC Advice                                
                       

Full GAC Communique and Advice from Beijing
here.       
 Initial public comments due 14-May

1. New gTLDs:
a. GAC objections to specific applications (. africa . gcc . islam . halal)
 
b. Safeguards for new gTLDs (Annex 1)
Safeguards for
all new gTLDs
 
1. Registry does Whois verification checks 2x per year
2. Registrant ToS should prohibit malware, botnets, phishing, piracy, 
TM/copyright infringement, fraud, deception, or anything contrary to
 applicable law.
3. Registry to periodically check domains in TLD for security threats 
(pharming, phishing, malware, botnets).  Notify registrar and suspend
 domain if no immediate remedy.
4. Registry to maintain stats on inaccurate Whois , security threats found, and 
actions taken.
5. Registry needs mechanism to handling complaints about inaccurate Whois, 
security, etc.
6. Registry must ensure immediate consequences (incl suspension) for inaccurate 
Whois or domain use in breach of applicable law
 
Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs: consumer protection, sensitive strings and 
regulated markets        (non-exhaustive list of TLDs in annex 1, page 9)
 
1. . Registrant ToS should require compliance with applicable laws, incl 
privacy, consumer protection, fair lending, organic farming, disclsoures

2. Registry will require registrars to notify registrants of ToS at time of 
registration.
3. Registry will require registrants collecting sensitive health or financial 
data have reasonable security measures as defined by applicable
 laws and industry standards.
4. Registry to establish relationship with regulators or industry 
self-regulatory body, plus strategy to mitigate risks of fraud & illegal
 activities.
5. Registry will require registrars to have single point of contact for 
complaints and mitigation

 
Additional Safeguards for Category 1 gTLDs in financial, gambling, professional 
services, environmental, health and fitness, corporate identifiers, and charity:
6. Registry must verify and validate registrant authorization, charter, license 
or other credentials
7. if in doubt about credentials, Registry should consult with national 
supervisory authority
8. Registry must do periodic checks on registrant validity and compliance with 
above requirements.
 
Safeguards for Category 2 gTLDs: restricted registration policies
1. Strings in Category 1 may restrict registration, appropriate to risks.  Be 
transparent and give equal access to registrars and registrants.
 
2. Generic gTLDs may have “exclusive” registry access if it serves a public 
interest goal.  Non-exhaustive list of generic terms where applicant
 has proposed exclusive access:
.antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, 
.carinsurance,.cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, 
.financialaid, .flowers, .food,
 .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail,.makeup, 
.map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon,.search, 
.shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, 
.tunes, .video, .watches, .weather,
 .yachts 
 
c. For further GAC consideration (.amazon .patagonia  .date  .spa  .yun  .thai  
.zulu  .wine   .vin )
 
d. Ability for applicants to change applied-for string in order to address 
GACconcerns
-- no prior BC position.   Concerns with changing strings?
 
e. Opinion of impacted community should be duly taken into account

-- consistent with BC support for community priority for new gTLDs (2010)
 
f. Reconsider contention sets for singular and plural versions of the same 
string.
--consistent with BC consensus discussions before and in Beijing
 
g. Initial protection for intergovernmental organization names and acronyms 
atsecond level
--no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC;
--BC should support “Strawman” TMCH warning notices for IGOs --  at least until 
GAC review of RPMs one year after 75th gTLD
 is launched.
 
2. finalize RAA and require it for registrars selling domains in new gTLDs.
--consistent with BC position (Jan-2012)
 
3. GAC’s 2007 Whois Principles should be “duly taken into account” by Directory 
Services Expert Working Group.  (Susan K)
 
4. Amend registry agreement to require permanent protection of Olympics and Red 
Cross
--no official BC position, but generally supportive of GAC;
 
5. more information on Public Interest Commitments (PIC) Specifications:
1. can 3rd party or governments raise concern about PIC compliance?
2. can applicants later amend their PICs?
3. will ICANN make registry operators aware of their PICs?
4. requirements to maximize public visibility of PICs?
5. how to amend where a registry made no PICs?  (but should have)
6. Are PICs enforceable?
--BC said ICANN should enforce PICs
7. Will ICANN follow sanctions recommended by PIC DRP?
8. Measures to remediate serious damage from past registration policies?