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

[Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm good with SArah's changes.


Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
408.349.5187

From: <Deutsch>, Sarah B 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 9:17 AM
To: "Baskin, James F (Jim)" 
<james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

All,

I’ve submitted the attached edits to our draft BC comments on the domain name 
collision issue but have not yet heard back from anyone.   Given August 
vacation schedules and the flood of other recent ICANN issues we need to 
address, I want to make this particular issue doesn’t fall through the cracks.  
Everyone needs understands the seriousness of the domain name collision issue 
and its potential effects on large, medium and small businesses and our 
customers.


I recommend folks check out Mikey O’Connor’s recent excellent blog post on this 
subject, which explains the technical issues, the urgency and provides some 
context for my proposed edits:



http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/new-gtlds-and-namespace-collision]

Thanks again for your consideration,

Sarah


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Baskin, James F (Jim)
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:59 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

Resend of Sarah Deutsch’s comments on the BC Name Collision draft

From:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:37 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call

Steve,

Thanks for the thorough list of issues.  Unfortunately, I have an 11:30 call on 
Thursday and may only be able to join you for the first 30 minutes. I’d like to 
be added to your team working on the domain name collision issue.

We have been looking into the issue internally and it’s fair to say that we 
have a growing list of questions and concerns about collisions and their 
potential negative consequences on businesses that are not currently mitigated 
by ICANN’s proposal.   I’ve edited the attached comments and hope we can at 
least ask ICANN for more time to study this issue more fully.  We have asked 
ICANN to extend the comment period to allow for further study, but hope the BC 
can do so as well.

Thanks,

Sarah




Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670



From: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> 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+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.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.