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

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Bill. 

I appreciate your clarification. Mine was not about Google, and I appreciate 
that you understood that after our exchange. 

However, as to user interests, that is the purpose of the BC. So, I will 
probably have to insist that is the view that the BC takes. 


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith  Bill <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:56:18 
To: <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

Marilyn, 

 
There has been considerable "discussion" in the BC regarding conflict of 
interest, particularly related to the new gTLD program. In particular, 
"applicants" have been singled out as being conflicted and consequently their 
views/comments are somehow less valid or inappropriate in our discussions. To 
give an example, yesterday you responded to what I considered a well-reasoned 
and -presented set of comments from Google as follows: 

 
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". 

 
Given the context, I took this to mean that you objected to the comments or 
alternatively the source of the comments. In the first instance, I believe 
Google's comments are consistent with a "user perspective" and thus are 
relevant within the BC and deserve our full attention. In the second instance, 
all BC members, regardless of their applicant status, are entitled to 
participate in discussions. 

 
Moving to my comment, if the BC has members that are UDRP "providers" (and I 
took your comment to indicate that we have three such members), they would have 
an interest in any "enforcement mechanism" that might be developed by ICANN as 
it relates to their service provision. They would be conflicted. 

 
While I believe their views are relevant, perhaps essential for us to hear, I 
also believe it imperative that we treat all members equally. If we persist 
with assertions related to conflicts, we will find ourselves unable to discuss 
much of anything. We *all* have interests here and we all know how to 
appropriately engage at ICANN. 

 
I have asked before, and I will ask again, that we please refrain from raising 
the conflict tot interest issue, even indirectly. It is pejorative and does 
enhance our interaction but rather makes it difficult to discuss substance. 

 
I hope that clarifies my intent. 

 
Bill 
 

 
 
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: 
 Bill, I didn't understand this, so just seek clarity. The concept that 
"supplier" is a broader category was part of this, I think, as ICANN steps up 
to overseeing agreements for URS, UDRP, etc. 
 
 Isn't that what we want? 
 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Smith  Bill <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:50:27 
 To: <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
 Cc: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> >; <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> >
 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
 
 Wouldn't these current providers have "an interest"? If so, we would need to 
question their comments just as much as we have questioned others with 
"interests". 
 
 
 Let's be consistent here and stop the talk of conflicts. 
 
 
 
 
 On Aug 29, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>  <mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: 
 
 
 Comments from mCADE llc:  
 In general, I think this is important to address on this call.  
 
 
 I would again want to hear from the three current providers who are members of 
 the BC but I am of the view that two of those: Mahmoud and Gabi/Celia 
supported this. I don't think we ever heard back from Zahid. That is 
unfortunate, but perhaps as he will be on today's call, we can either ask about 
DNDRC's views, or ask for follow up, quickly, after today's call.  
 
 
 In general, if we can get to concurrence on this, I would support a letter 
that asks for clarity and enforceable agreements.  However, we do need to fully 
recognize and support that there are concerns from governments that providers 
be based in the region.  And that a US and European approach to suppliers 
simply does not scale.  
 
 
 Supplier is  perhaps now a broader term at ICANN than in the past.  In adding 
in criteria and accountability, we also ask ICANN [or demand] that ICANN manage 
such agreements, standards, etc.  
 
 
 ICANN has to accept the responsibility of engagement, and enforcement.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ----------------
 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:26:01 -0400
 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
 From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
 To: psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>  <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
 CC: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
 bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>  <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
 
 Phil,
 
 My view and recollection is as Phil describes. An underlying principle of any 
business is clarity and contracts for these vendors would help do that.
 
 I am in favor of sending this letter.
 
 John Berard
 Credible Context
 
 Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
 
 
 
 Fellow BC members: 
   
 On July 21st I sent an e-mail to the BC list expressing concerns about ICANN's 
July 19th document "UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process - Status Report". 
In particular, the Report appears to conflict with the BC's longstanding 
position that UDRP providers should be subject to "a standard mechanism for 
establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and 
enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities" . 
   
 The closing paragraph of that e-mail stated: 
   
 In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider 
preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns 
about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or 
Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on 
future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication 
should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC 
membership. 
   
 Attached is a proposed draft letter for the BC to send to ICANN in regard to 
this matter; this item is on the agenda provided by Steve DelBianco. The draft 
letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report 
- it just states the BC's long-held position on the need for a standard and 
enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of 
questions about some of the statements in the Report. 
   
 I realize that the limited time may prevent a decision on this matter during 
the Thursday call and that we may need to follow up by e-mail, but I would be 
happy to answer any questions during the call. 
   
 Thanks, and best regards, 
 Philip 
   
   
 
 Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal 
 Virtualaw LLC 
 1155 F Street, NW 
 Suite 1050 
 Washington, DC 20004 
 202-559-8597/Direct 
 202-559-8750/Fax 
 202-255-6172/cell 
   
 Twitter: @VlawDC 
   
 "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey 
   
 
 
 From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>  
<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Steve DelBianco
 Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:03 PM
 To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>  <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
 list
 Subject: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call 
   
 
 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&amp;#43;BC&amp;#43;August&amp;#43;8&amp;#43;2013.pdf?version=1&amp;amp;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.pdf%20>
 ).  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%20> . 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 --- 
 
 
 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. 
 
   
 
   
 
 
   
 
   
 
 ----------------
 
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>  <http://www.avg.com/> 
 Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6594 - Release Date: 08/20/13