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

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
 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@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

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 Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue N.W.
Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
tel:  202.346.1261
e-mail: aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.