[bc-gnso] RE: BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011

Tue May 10 17:22:20 UTC 2011

FYI, the IPC has filed a comment on the .net renewal calling for amending the contract to require URS, so the issue is definitely out there.

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

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Phil Corwin
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 8:57 AM
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: RE: BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011

ICA supports this new draft. We greatly appreciate the response of other BC members to our concerns regarding the imposition of untested RPMs through this contract renewal, and look forward to working cooperatively with other BC members to address rights and consumer protection issues within the context of UDRP reform and other appropriate mechanisms.

ICA's comment letter will address the issue of RPMs based on the possibility that others may suggest such amendments to the contract. We will also support transition to Thick WHOIS, as well as the possibility of VeriSign's engagement in commercial use of traffic data so long as ICANN engages in vigorous enforcement of contract clauses regarding nondiscrimination and prohibition of wildcard services.

Finally, while not opposing new contract provisions that permit VeriSign to offer marketing and price incentives in "geographically underserved' regions, we request a tighter definition and other safeguards to prevent gaming as well as to assure that this will not lead to below cost furnishing of .Net domains to such regions subsidized by developed world registrants. In that regard, we note that the current and revised .net contract sets annual registry-level transaction fees at $.75 per domain, which is $.50 higher than the standard for most registry contracts, and that this differential generated approximately $6.8 million in additional ICANN revenue in 2010. These monies are set aside in a  restricted fund, the primary use of which is supposed to be support of developing country Internet communities in ICANN, and we request that ICANN account for how these funds are actually being utilized.

Again, we appreciate the BC's response to our concerns and look forward to seeing many of you in Singapore.

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

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 9:58 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC on .net renewal - Version 3, to be submitted 10-May-2011

Recap of BC discussion and review of our comments on .net renewal:

21-Apr member call:  BC members our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET    This was 21 days before the comment due date of 10-May.

3-May: we circulated draft written comment by Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor.  (8 days before deadline).  This draft proposed two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)

4-May:  Philip Sheppard offered a general principle: "The ICANN contract renewal process should be the opportunity to upgrade older contracts to the new standards."    Rapporteurs accepted this proposal.

8-May:   Phil Corwin questioned the rationale for requiring URS and TM Claims.  I advised Phil that the BC charter calls for discussion and/or vote only when 10% of membership (5 members) object to a proposed position.

Phil also pointed out that the URS and TM Claims proposals were circulated with 8 days of review period, which is less than the 14 days required per charter.

Recommendation of vice chair for policy coordination:

Today, I asked Elisa and Mikey to consider revising the draft comment to stick with Thick Whois, which was appropriately noticed (21 days) and for which no opposition was noted.

Response from BC Rapporteurs Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor:

Elisa and Mikey quickly responded with the attached version 3, adding Philip Sheppard's principle, retaining the recommendation for Thick Whois, and dropping recommendations for URS and TM Claims Service in .net

Next steps:

Please review version 3 (attached) since this will be submitted 10-May unless 10% of members object.

I also invite BC members to examine new gTLD registry contract requirements once the guidebook is finalized, so the BC can determine which requirements should apply when existing gTLD contracts are up for renewal.

I encourage any BC member to submit their own individual / corporate views on this and all ICANN public comment items.

Thanks to all members for conducting such a civil and practical discussion with due attention to the BC charter.

Thanks especially to Elisa and Mikey for their work as our rapporteurs.

--Steve

From:  Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:12 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org<mailto:'bc-GNSO at icann.org> GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC comment on proposed .NET Renewal

ICANN is gathering responses to the proposed renewal of .NET registry contract.
Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper  (with edits by Mikey O'Connor and Steve DelBianco)

On our 21-April BC member call, we discussed our approach for this comment, and there was universal support to request Verisign to have a "Thick WHOIS" service in .NET

Elise and Mikey added two additional requests based on new gTLD registry contract requirements:
 - Add TM Claims Service once the TM Clearinghouse is operating.
 - Add URS  (Uniform Rapid Suspension)

ICANN's Comment period closes 10-May.    Our member call on 21-Apr was 21 days before deadline, and today's draft is circulated 8 days before deadline.

We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period.
Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible.   If there are no disagreements noted by 10-May, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.

For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#net-renewal
Thanks again to Elisa Cooper and Mikey O'Connor for drafting this comment.

Regards,
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
________________________________

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3627 - Release Date: 05/09/11
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110510/9e916cac/attachment.html>