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

[Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

For your reference, Google's comment on postponement of the GNSO review can
be found here:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00001.html

I also note that the ISP constituency has filed a comment recommending that
the review not be delayed.

Cheers,

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>