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

Smith, Bill bill.smith at paypal-inc.com
Thu Aug 29 15:00:04 UTC 2013

I support Google's views on this matter and see no reference or indication that they are expressing those views as "an applicant". The concerns raised by Google are the concerns of average *users* and I fully support further discussion.

It is true that WHOIS is broken. It is not true that any system that replaces it is superior.

On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>

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".

Having stated that, which we all agree, as all BC members agreed to this in their application to be a BC member, I fully support that discussion about

centralized repository services risks and threats, versus distributed services, in a new environment of thousands of gTLDS.

As to risks and threats:  Databases much larger than WHOIS are held, and operated by corporations and they deal with threats and risks and attacks, daily, and hourly.

Still, it deserves discussion.
BUT, informed discussion.

WHOIS is a key priority for the BC. so next generation services must be as well.

Marilyn Cade

From: aparnasridhar at google.com<mailto:aparnasridhar at google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Policy calendar for 29-Aug-2013 BC member call
To: sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
CC: bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>


We appreciate everyone’s hard work and thoughtful commentary as the BC has worked toward developing a position on next generation directory services. We have thought about this issue further, and have a few targeted comments on the draft that we hope the BC will consider.

First, we generally agree with Bill’s comments regarding the potential dangers of a centralized repository. A centralized repository is an incredibly tempting target for both governments and bad actors. As such, the concern with data loss or breach is not whether the data can be reassembled, as the comment currently suggests, but what is done with the data after it has been improperly accessed. While it is true that a centralized database may adopt stronger security precautions than multiple individualized databases, the incentives to overcome those security precautions will also be more substantial. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the BC should unconditionally endorse the centralized repository concept, and at the very least should recommend a thorough security review of the EWG’s recommendations before they are finalized.

Second, we respectfully urge greater precision and circumspection in the comment’s treatment of the distinction between non-commercial and commercial sites. The concepts of commercial v. non-commercial sites were not discussed in detail in the EWG report, and we support the BC’s efforts to adopt this distinction and flesh it out in greater detail. However, we are concerned that some of the current suggested language may be overbroad, and inadvertently disadvantage many non-commercial actors that merit protection for their exercise of free expression.  In particular:

The current text provides: “The BC believes that any domain name employed to derive economic benefit on behalf of a domain registrant (individual or entity) should preclude registration via privacy and/or proxy services.” We are concerned that this purpose-driven test is overly vague and subjective. We welcome further discussion on feasibility of implementation, but perhaps a straight revenue-based test may be preferable.
The discussion also notes that “domain names used in connection with the Internet that accept advertising of any kind, sell goods or services and/or accept donations, or link to commercial sites [should be characterized] as a commercial site.” We respectfully disagree that the acceptance of donations and links to commercial sites should disqualify websites from accessing privacy or proxy services. For example, a political or current events website with no commercial intention may often link to commercial media sites such as the New York Times for purposes of referencing the source of information. Similarly, an opinion or review blog for restaurants or gadgets or movies would likely link to further information about the subjects being reviewed, including the subject commercial homepages. And the very acceptance of donations is likely an indicator that a particular site is a non-profit enterprise.
We also have concerns about some of the text related to protected political activity, namely, the reference to protection from “unjustified prosecution for political activity.” The term “unjustified” is a highly subjective concept which is dependent on who is making the decision. In addition, we respectfully believe that the reference to international treaties that promote freedom of expression is problematic, as the most relevant international treaty, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, has a carve-out for protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals that would be considered extremely overbroad in the United States. We encourage the BC to therefore consider a more general reference to the free flow of information and data.
Finally, we would support a general statement along the lines of Marilyn’s suggested language, noting that “the issue of who’s data should be released to whom and under what circumstances, as well who is eligible to take advantage of privacy/proxy services, “is highly complex, and . . . more work is needed on what the characteristics are for eligibility to use a proxy /privacy registration service.”

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to further dialogue on this topic.

Aparna and Andy

Aparna Sridhar
Policy Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue N.W.
Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
tel:  202.346.1261
e-mail: aparnasridhar at google.com<mailto:aparnasridhar at google.com>

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> 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 <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. 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>).  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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130829/ce381db2/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list