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

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

I support Google's comments here.

As I have said before, I strongly oppose any delay to the GNSO review as this 
can only prolong a situation which is detrimental to the NCPH in general, and 
the BC in particular.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 29 août 2013 à 17:35, Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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).
> 
> Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process:  
> 
> ICANN Public Comment page is here.   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).  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.
> 
> ---
> 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)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>