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

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

RESEND
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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf>.  
      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?