Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

[Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxx


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>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<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 
> <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 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>).
>  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>
> .
>
>
>                      *---*
>      *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.
>
>
>
>
>
>