Data & Metrics for Policy Making Drafting Team

Last year I joined my first ICANN workgroup, well, drafting team to be more precise. Being it

ICANN 44 Wednesday 27th June Prague GNSO Council

ICANN 44 Wednesday 27th June Prague GNSO Council (Photo credit: icannphotos)

my first I must say it was interesting and engaging. The charter for the DMPM was approved by the board.

The 2010 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified the Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting which it described as “need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports.” The RAPWG recommended in its Final Report that “the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform problem-reporting and report-tracking processes.”

 

The GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to improve the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics by the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. The GNSO Council subsequently adopted the recommendation to form this non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities for developing reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that could better inform fact-based policy development and decision making.

It’s going to be interesting to see what the workgroup will do with it.  They are currently seeking volunteers, I thought about joining it but the current ICANN workgroup I am currently involved in consumes a lot of time not to mention that the RAA 2013 implementation is time-consuming also, coupled with the fact that Nominet decided to come up with a new RA also.

Request for volunteers :

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21feb14-en.htm

 

Full information and charter that was created after some interesting discussions is available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dmpm-charter-23jan14-en.pdf

 

Comments on the Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of “.Brand” New gTLDs

It’s been rather busy so not many updates lately.

ICANN 45 Toronto

ICANN 45 Toronto (Photo credit: veni markovski)

One I wanted to share is the one below regarding Registry agreements when it comes to the so-called bTLD’s (no I did not make the one up).

The statement is from the Registrar group, and I am one of the folks who signed it since I support the statement.

The statement can be viewed here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/msg00040.html

The statement in text format below:

 

Comments on the Proposal for a Specification 13

To the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of “.Brand” New gTLDs

Date: 30th January 2014
Public Comment URL:!http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
The undersigned registrars (“Registrars”), some of whom may also present individual comments, respectfully submit the attached comments on the Proposal for Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of “.Brand” New gTLDs and are available to engage with any questions or comments.
We thank the Brand Registry Group (BRG) for preparing this proposal and look forward to future collaborations with this new organization.
Registrars welcome the concept of a TLD operated by a brand owner for their exclusive use and recognize that these TLDs have distinct needs that may differ from those of general use TLDs. However, we cannot support several sections of the draft proposal as currently written, as we believe it creates the potential for abuse in the new gTLD program. Of particular concern are Section 3 and Section 5 of the Specification.
Regarding Section 3, while we do not object to the proposed language and recognize that it may not be appropriate for some TLDs to be re-delegated by ICANN following a termination of the registry agreement, we propose that the TLD operator should be obligated to take steps to notify affected third parties, such as operating system vendors, browser developers, SSL Certificate Authorities, major ISPs, and other relevant industries or organizations.
Our overall concern with the proposed language in Specification 13 is that if this proposal were adopted as written, it could re-introduce the concerns of equal registrar access and undermine the registry-registrar model for domain names. This could give rise to TLDs where the registry, registrar, and registrant (or a subset of those roles) are the same entity, and the beneficial user of the domain name lies with another party.
For example, a broad interpretation of 5.1(ii) and 5.2 would seem to imply that the TLD could offer a limited license to its trademark to unaffiliated parties, and then permit these licensees to register or use domain names in the TLD. These licensees would behave like registrants but without the rights or responsibilities currently provided for under the RAA and ICANN Consensus Policies. For this problem to be addressed in the current proposal, we recommend the phrase “Trademark Licensee, ” and the entirety of Section 5.2 be struck.

 

Finally, we would also like to note that there is a mechanism already in place to request and grant an exemption/waiver from the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9). Knowing this, we respectfully request that the BRG outline its specific concerns with the existing process, and articulate why it would fail to provide for the needs of their TLD.
Thank you,

 

Luc Seufer, EuroDNS
James Bladel, GoDaddy
Bob Wiegand, Web.com
Jeff Eckhaus, enom / Name.com
Volker Greimann, Key Systems
Theo Geurts, Realtime Register
Chris Pelling, NetEarthOne
Oliver Hope, HostEurope Group
Rob Golding, Astutium Ltd
Benny Samuelsen, Nordreg AB
Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd