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

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1  The BC should have a formal comment along these lines.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 8:45 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

 

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 <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> 
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>


LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> 

 

Le 29 août 2013 à 17:35, Aparna Sridhar <aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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 <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 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.p
df> ).  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.