[bc-gnso] FILED: BC Comment on Initial PDP Report for IRTP Part D
The BC filed the attached comments today, regarding the initial PDP report for IRTP Part D. Thanks to our drafters: Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 4:40 PM To: BC Private <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: LAST CALL: BC comment on IRTP part D ICANN is soliciting comments on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. ) On 9-April, we circulated draft comments prepared by Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper. (attached) reply comments close 25-Apr, so please reply all with your comments before end of day 24-April. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 2:35 PM To: BC Private <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: Policy calendar for 10-Apr-2014 BC member call Here's a Policy Calendar for the BC member call on 10-Apr-2014. 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. Cross-community WG on ICANN’s submission to NETMundial (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ccwg-ig-netmundial-08apr14-en.htm>) (initial comment by 29-Apr) BC members in this WG are Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, David Fares, and Phil Corwin 2. Proposal for Policy Advisory Boards for Regulated Industries and Consumer-Trust-Sensitive New gTLDs (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pab-new-gtld-strings-21mar14-en.htm>) (initial comments close 16-Apr) ALAC approved this proposal to address perceived deficiencies in the Public Interest Commitment Specifications of some new TLD operators. 3. IDN Variant TLDs – Label generation rules (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/msr-03mar14-en.htm>) (reply comments close 22-Apr) 4. Mitigating risk of DNS namespace Collisions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/name-collision-26feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 21-Apr) BC filed these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20-%20Name%20Collision%20Risk%20FINAL.pdf> comments on ICANN’s proposal to mitigate collisions. Now let’s review and respond to the outside expert draft report (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-collision-mitigation-26feb14-en.pdf>). Jim Baskin, Sarah Deutsch, and Marilyn Cade indicated some willingness to draft comments for BC. 5. Draft plan for WHOIS accuracy and reporting system (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-accuracy-reporting-11mar14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 23-Apr) This plan will be used to generate an RFP for WHOIS accuracy reporting systems. 6. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D initial report (link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>) (reply comments close 25-Apr) Part D concerns reporting, disputes, best practices, penalties, etc. Chris Chaplow, Stephane Van Gelder, and Elisa Cooper drafted comments we should approve before 25-Apr deadline. (attachment 1) 7. ICANN future meetings strategy (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm>) (reply comments by 25-Apr) Michelle Chaplow, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack drafted BC comments (attachment 2). They are finalizing today, to account for Tim Chen’s perspective. BC posted these<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Comments%20on%20ICANN's%20proposal%20for%20consolidated%20meetings.pdf> comments in Nov-2012. 8. Issues report on IGO and INGO access to rights protection in UDRP and URS (link<https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm>) (initial comments by 14-Apr) BC comments on IGO/INGO from Nov-2013 (Link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00021.html>) 9. ICANN Strategy Panels (comments close 30-Apr) In Durban, the ICANN CEO appointed experts to 4 strategy panels to make recommendations. Steve and Marilyn will provide template language about the top-down process and status of these Strategy Panel reports. The 4 panels: Strategy Panel on Identifier Technology Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-technology/report-21feb14-en.pdf>). Elsia Cooper volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance’ Ecosystem (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-23feb14-en.pdf>). Marilyn, Aparana, Steve, and Angie volunteered to draft comments. Strategy Panel on ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation/quest-blueprint-30jan14-en.pdf>). Gabi Szlak, Chris Chaplow, and Andrew Mack circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 3 ) Strategy Panel on the Public Responsibility Framework (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsibility/outline-23feb14-en>). This panel’s membership, transcripts, videos, webinars, etc. are here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsibility>. Jimson circulated a draft on 25-Mar. (attachment 4 ) Note: BC members are encouraged to do their own comments. The BC selects topics on which to submit official positions based on member interest. --- Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council John Berard and Gabi Szlak, Councilors. Next Council meeting is 10-Apr-2014 at 14:00 UTC. (Agenda<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-10apr14-en.htm>) Item 4: Discussion of Spec 13 for new gTLD registry agreement, to determine whether NGPC resolution is consistent with 2007 GNSO principles on new gTLDs. Several BC members participated in email dialog on this question last week, with nearly all agreeing that Spec 13 is consistent with GSNO principles. Item 5: Discussion of internet governance issues Item 6: Submission of Council input on Strategy Panels and Future Meetings Strategy --- Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Marilyn Cade, CSG Liaison Election for GNSO representative to the ICANN Board. --- Channel 4. BC statements and responses during public meetings (outreach events, public forum, etc.) Call for Public Input: ICANN’s Draft Proposal of the Principles, Mechanisms, and Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm>) (comments close 8-May) This document includes a very tight scoping of the transition proposal: "To ensure a clear understanding of the specific issues for which a proposal is sought, a document describing the scope of the document (and what is not in scope): (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf>)” This scoping document excludes the external accountability that NTIA provides through its authority to award the IANA contract to an entity other than ICANN. As Larry Strickling told the CSG in Singapore: I do think that there really are two sets of issues here that are teed up by our announcement. One is the very specific one of how do the INA functions work and defining the US role in that, and I do think personally although we would never dictate this, that it might make sense to have that specific question answered by people largely out of the customer base of INA, because they’re the ones that at the end of the day have to be satisfied with this. That’s not our decision. That’s the community decision, so that might make sense, but there’s also the other issue that’s clearly been teed up by this, and everyone recognizes it, and many of you have spoken eloquently about this since we got here on Friday, and that’s the symbolic role that we’ve played, whether it’s providing confidence to the community that these systems are going to work right, if the extent that people think that we were able to discipline ICANN by virtue of having - I know that’s Steve’s made that point quite directly throughout the weekend. And so that’s an important topic for the community to work through as well, and that was I think teed up in the second session yesterday. From our perspective we think the issues are interrelated. We certainly think it’s appropriate for the community to take on both issues. I think all we would like to see is that it be organized as efficiently as possible so that we get a good outcome at the end, and that we get a consensus outcome that the community can buy into. Attachment:
BC Comment - IRTP-D.pdf |