May 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

BC comment on singular plural
by Steve DelBianco Aug. 16, 2013

Aug. 16, 2013

Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion. But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish) Sport(s) Loan(s) Web(s) Game(s) Hotel(es) Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are well understood. -confusion -precedent for the next round -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous What’s not understood is how it happened and what we can do about it. First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar. Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” ) -Do-over on just these 24 pairs - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.” Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals are confusingly similar) String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the ICDR rightnow. If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs should be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble. We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch. No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound

13 34

Business Constituency Comment on ICANN's FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget.
by Chris Chaplow May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Please see attached comments of the GNSO Business Constituency on ICANN's FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget. . Submitted on behalf of BC by Chris Chaplow, Vice Chair Finance and Operations.

1 0

Durban Meeting BC Attendees & Extra information
by Benedetta Rossi May 31, 2013

May 31, 2013

Dear BC Members, In preparation for the upcoming meeting in Durban, can you please confirm whether you will be attending the meeting, and provide me with the following information: . Arrival/departure dates . Hotel name . Contact details on site . Extra guests Additionally for this meeting, can you please let me know if you have African business colleagues that you will encourage to attend the meeting in Durban, and whether you are a French speaker? We are currently preparing for the Cross Constituency Breakfast with the GAC, and expect several French only speakers within the GAC and from Africa, so it would be great to know who within the BC is a French speaker to coordinate this meeting as efficiently as possible. Thank you ever so much for your help, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

6 6

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement)
by Marilyn Cade May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

Actually, the verification was supported ny SSAC wasn't it? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:31:57 To: <abrams(a)google.com>; <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> Cc: <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <angie(a)webgroup.com>; <randruff(a)rnapartners.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 and echoing thanks. As a newcomer to the group, please forgive me for stating the obvious, but -- I do want to flag that there are aspects of what we are asking for which we should anticipate, in the absence of automated means to accomplish, will be viewed as overly burdensome and onerous (and which may actually be, at the very least, challenging), such as the annual re-verification of contact information and confirming contact information by both email and phone. To be clear, I absolutely support our request for these things; I just think we should also be thinking about compromises we can live with. I guess in the context of ICANN, one always has to be thinking about compromise? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com <mailto:abrams@google.com> > Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:45 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > Cc: Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> >, Angie Graves <angie(a)webgroup.com <mailto:angie@webgroup.com> >, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >, "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 to Marie's statement. Thanks to all for your work on this. Best, Andy On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be> > wrote: No comments from AIM, except to join in the thanks to all who have worked so hard to prepare this. Kind regards Marie From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: mercredi 29 mai 2013 18:27 To: 'Angie Graves'; 'Ron Andruff' Cc: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'Bc GNSO list'; 'Hansen, Anjali' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) +1 Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain. De:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Angie Graves Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de mayo de 2013 18:16 Para: Ron Andruff CC: Steve DelBianco; Bc GNSO list; Hansen, Anjali Asunto: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) Thank you, Steve et al, for the draft, which I support. Angie Graves On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > wrote: Thanks to the drafters for their hard work! RNA Partners supports this final document. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com> ---------------- From:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:27 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Cc: Hansen, Anjali Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR FINAL APPROVAL: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) On the 22-May BC member call we discussed final changes to the BC comment draft, to address whether registrars would be obligated to sign an updated RAA. Anjali Hansen and Elisa Cooper updated the draft with this paragraph (on page 2): Section 5.3 -- "Right to Substitute Updated Agreement" -- provides for the possibility that ICANN will enter into a revised "form Registrar accreditation agreement" into which a registrar could "elect" to enter. The procedure for updating the RAA appears to be on a different track from the amendment process and the BC requests more information on this process and wishes to understand the repercussions of having some registrars elect to enter into a new agreement while others might elect to stay with the current accreditation agreement. Please do your final review by 30-May-2013 so that we can submit to ICANN. Any objections or edits should be sent as Reply to All. Thanks again to Anjali Hansen, Elisa Cooper, Susan Kawaguchi, and others for work on this draft. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:45 AM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Cc: "Hansen, Anjali" <AHansen(a)council.bbb.org <mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org> > Subject: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) ICANN has posted the proposed final 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement) for public comment. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm> ) Anjali Hansen admirably volunteered to draft BC comments. Several BC members provided input, including Ron Andruff, Bill Smith, Susan Kawaguchi, Zahid Jamil, and Elisa Cooper. We held a conference call on this topic on 2-May where many others provided ideas. (call minutes <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/Minutes+BC&#4…> and Transcript <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31162833/BC+MAY+02…> ) Still, Anjali shows several pending questions in the attached draft. We need further help from BC members with direct experience dealing with registrars and privacy/proxy providers. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 28-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:54 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Notes from Monday 8-April Beijing session on new RAA ICANN staff just spent an hour answering BC questions about the new RAA (registrar Accreditation Agreement). The main element of controversy is the process for ICANN to amend the RAA. On 2-April, ICANN proposed a new amendment process (link <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-proposed-amendme…> ) The notes below may be helpful for volunteers Anjali Hansen and Zahid Jamil, who volunteered last week to draft BC comments on the new RAA. Law enforcement items were first priority for negotiation. ICANN says the LEA items are agreed by registrars, so ICANN added a dozen "new asks", incl: - EBERO, Registrant Rights, data escrow, abuse contact, - obligations for registrars using Resellers, - greater compliance tools, incl provision that "pattern or practice of cybersquatting" is grounds for termination ) Made progress on privacy /proxy services (P/P) since Toronto. Temporary P/P specification while ICANN develops accreditation program. In response to a compliance question, Samantha said the P/P Spec sets high level principles that are actually easy to enforce. At my request, Susan Kawaguchi is drafting BC comment on just this specification since she has significant experience with P/P issues. I asked about delay to the P/P accreditation in light of the Expert Group on Directory Services. Samantha said that Registrars truly want ICANN to do a P/P accreditation program so it would apply to all P/P providers - not just those affiliated with Registrars who have to sign the RAA. RAA will be a model document, so its not subject to negotiation with each registrar (except for bilateral amendments). So negotiations won't be a bottleneck for getting registrars on-board. I asked whether the RAA needed exceptions for registrars created just to service a dot-brand gTLD. (single registrant, single-user) Such as transition on termination; Rights to data; transfers, etc. Staff and BC members could not come up with concerns that would call for exceptions. Public comment would be valuable in these areas: Registrant rights & responsibilities. This was drafted by registrars. Validation of registrant data (registrant and account holder?) Penalties for inaccurate data Registrars want to drop Port 43 access for thick registries Unilateral amendment by ICANN. See Cyrus blog on 2-Apr Ron Andruff asked if the next iteration of the RAA will be posted for public comment. Answer was not definitive, so I asked Ron to draft a couple paragraphs of rationale for BC comments. -- Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>

1 0

FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching
by Steve DelBianco May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013

As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tmch-docs-24sep12-en.htm>. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/matching-rules-2…>. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-docs-sep12/msg00007.html>) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency

22 59

RE: RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by icann＠rodenbaugh.com May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013

Thanks MJ. I will lay off the list today, except to say I am not clear that I represent applicants for closed generics. In absence of a clear definition, I could not be clear about them, and the BC cannot be clear in commenting on them (whatever they are). Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mari Jo Keukelaar Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 8:07 AM To: stephvg(a)gmail.com Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [Bulk] RE: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I, too, found yesterdays dialogue discomforting. Although I do not have anything to do with closed generics, it does seem that the process itself did not foreclose on applying for them. I also see that closed generics do raise issues that closed TM TLDs do not. Yesterdays discussion did nothing to clarify the issues that Mr. Evans, et al were attempting to address in their comments, but did ask an attorney to make full disclosures about clients that, as attorneys themselves, they recognize may be impossible to make. I think Mike was clear that he represents parties applying for closed generics and that he disagreed with the comments being put forth by this group and that he preferred those made by Steves original proposition. I generally do not comment when I do not hold strong positions that have nothing to do with the business I represent. Whenever I have commented, however, the BC has always been highly respectful of my minority opinion. So rest assured, Stephane, that this was a rare event. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg(a)gmail.com <mailto:stephvg@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM To: Ron Andruff Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs All, Due to the difference in timezones, I missed this discussion as it was happening "live" and had the pleasure of catching up at my leisure whilst sipping my morning coffee :) I have to admit to being very uncomfortable with the path this discussion seems to be taking. I have the words witch hunt forming in my mind. My approach is this: I have an implicit trust that anyone who is keen and engaged enough to take the time to read the emails on this list, take part in the discussions, be active in the BC calls or volunteer for BC work is operating for the greater good of the BC. I find any suggestion otherwise worrying. And actually quite discouraging. Does this mean that next time I make a comment that someone doesn't like, then I will also be put on the spot and asked to justify myself from a business point of view? So is it better for me to shut up rather than risk taking abuse? Those who know me already know that I find it very hard to shut up, so that is hardly likely to happen :), but I do want to go on record here as saying that unless someone proves to me that any member of the BC is acting with ill intent, my base approach is to trust that people have exactly the same take on BC work as me: working for the good of the BC and the defense of the ICANN model which is the governance model that provides me, as a small business owner, with a voice in the Internet's ,naming and address governance discussion. Best, Stéphane Oh, and BTW, I don't work for any closed generics ;) Le 23 mai 2013 à 23:44, Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> > a écrit : Mike, As an observer to this string of debate, it appears to me (and possibly other members) that you are obfuscating. You have been asked on several occasions to declare your interests, but you parry that question with more questions. What is holding you back from being up front with the members and disclosing? Disclosure would, IMHO, lend more credibility to your arguments. Disclosure should be our first obligation as members of the BC considering the convoluted nature of our membership today. Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. <http://www.rnapartners.com/> _____ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Oh, and as to a counter-argument to your position, I refer you to the USPTO's disposition of the various .music trademark applications. While not identical, the USPTO's reasoning is very solar to the concerns I have heard from others. J. Scott Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone _____ From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> >; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> >; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> >; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> >; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry. Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com> [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com <http://yahoo.com> ] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> ; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here? Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone _____ From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> >; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> >; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> >; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <javascript:return> >; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <javascript:return> >; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <javascript:return> >; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <javascript:return> >; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It cant be done, as far as I know. The GAC didnt bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we dont really know what we are responding to. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <javascript:return> ] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <javascript:return> ; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <javascript:return> ; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <javascript:return> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hey, Mike, I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose. As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else? Laura Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> " <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> " <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs It seems that every dictionary word is a pre-existing trademark at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called closed generic TLD applicant. Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily and the list goes on past Apple.) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com <http://Weather.com> to operate .weather that way? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> ; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> >, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hi Laura, Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)? Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely. Best, Mike _____ From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> > To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> >; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I dont know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that: * Consists of a generic term/phrase which * Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and * The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com> 408.349.5187 From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> " <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com <mailto:svg@stephanevangelder.com> > Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> >, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> >, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere? Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> www.StephaneVanGelder.com ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant LinkedIn: <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> > a écrit : All, To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australias earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue. Our proposed language is attached for Members consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, Thank you so much for all of your work on this. Please find attached my edits to Sarahs draft. As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position: <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20G eneric%20TLDs.pdf> http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20Ge neric%20TLDs.pdf. Thank you again. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. Id suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GACs concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANNs new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. ( <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en .htm> link) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> Wiki). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Ron Andruff May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

Andy and all, In terms of the relevance to the discussion on this string, this may be less relevant, but nonetheless important. One needs to make the distinction that no one 'owns' or will own a top level domain. ICANN grants a 'license' to manage a domain space to a manager (which can be replaced). Registrants have virtually no rights to a domain name if they do not pay the annual 'subscription'. Registries effectively lease a domain name, with few rights or protections. The last thing they do is 'own' their domain name. Registrars have put a lock on that space. I bring this point forward because many applicants are incorrectly defining the circumstances and the facts may benefit those new to ICANN and the BC. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Andy Abrams <abrams(a)google.com> Date: 05/23/2013 18:59 (GMT-05:00) To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com>,jscottevans@yahoo.com,icann@rodenbaugh.com,Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>,svg@stephanevangelder.com,sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com,Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>,Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>,bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Phil - good point. We will not operate as closed any strings that appear on the GAC Communique list of exclusive registrations. If we get them, we still plan to operate as closed or offering pointing strings such as .tube, .play, .plus, .nexus and .chrome. This goes precisely to Mike's earlier point about what constitutes a "closed generic." I agree that brands should be exempted from this discussion, but who decides what is a "legitimate" brand? We've personally seen a lot of overreaching from applicants claiming to own trademark rights (and thus the sole right to own the string) in generic terms such as music, mail and home. Andy On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: > Andy:**** > > ** ** > > Point of information – when you state “ For disclosure purposes, we no > longer have strings that are the subject of GAC advice on exclusive > generics” are you saying that Google (via Charleston Road) no longer > proposes to be the exclusive registrant in any of the strings it has > applied for, or just that it no longer has such plans for strings that > appear on the non-exhaustive list of exclusive registration strings > included within the GAC Beijing Communique?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks in advance.**** > > ** ** > > (Full disclosure: I formerly did some work on behalf of a client that is > in contention with Charleston Road on one string, but that relationship no > longer exists.)**** > > ** ** > > Best, Philip**** > > ** ** > > *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*** > > * * > > *Twitter: @VlawDC***** > > **** > > *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey***** > > ** ** > > *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Andy Abrams > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:35 PM > *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh > *Cc:* jscottevans(a)yahoo.com; icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; Laura Covington; > svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com; Elisa Cooper; > Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list > > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > ** ** > > Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks to all who have worked on these comments. For disclosure purposes, > we no longer have strings that are the subject of GAC advice on exclusive > generics, but we still believe in the principle that such registries are > not inherently problematic and can improve the gTLD program by allowing > for innovative business models. **** > > ** ** > > My vote would be to go back to Steve's original language, which strikes a > balance between the BC's existing non-position on this issue and respecting > the GAC's advice by asking the Board to consider the meaning of "public > interest." However, if enough members feel strongly about giving some > substantive guidance to the Board on this interpretation (and some clearly > do), I would not be opposed to adding our varied viewpoints in the > document. I appreciate that Sarah, J.Scott and Laura have already given > their written input, and would be interested in others' opinions on the > specific conditions where exclusive generics should be allowed. For our > part, we respectfully believe that the GAC envisions at least some subset > of exclusive generics being permitted, as otherwise, requiring a registry > to open up to all competitors in the industry would no longer render the > registry "exclusive." **** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > ** ** > > Andy**** > > ** ** > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote:**** > > All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader > than the domain industry.**** > > **** > > Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing > competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns > (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with > no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem > to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am > raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of > those points?**** > > **** > > Mike Rodenbaugh**** > > RODENBAUGH LAW**** > > Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087**** > > http://rodenbaugh.com**** > > **** > > *From:* jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM > *To:* icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com > *Cc:* Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; > bc-gnso(a)icann.org**** > > > *Subject:* RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Mike: > > We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency > that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my > discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and > want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the > latest draft. Do others gave perspective here? > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > *From: *icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; > *To: *'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; > 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; > *Cc: *'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' < > sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; > *Subject: *RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs > *Sent: *Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM **** > > **** > > We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in > 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the > IPC. It can’t be done, as far as I know.**** > > **** > > The GAC didn’t bother to provide a definition either. Making any response > problematic as we don’t really know what we are responding to.**** > > **** > > Mike Rodenbaugh**** > > RODENBAUGH LAW**** > > Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087**** > > http://rodenbaugh.com**** > > **** > > *From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM > *To:* mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' > *Cc:* 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Hey, Mike, **** > > I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed > generics" if you have ideas to propose. **** > > **** > > As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants > on the call the other day seemed interested in including – or at least > considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It > seems clear – and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody > else? **** > > **** > > Laura**** > > **** > > **** > > Laura Covington**** > > VP, Intellectual Property Policy**** > > Yahoo! Inc.**** > > lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com**** > > 408.349.5187**** > > **** > > *From: *"icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > *Organization: *Rodenbaugh Law > *Reply-To: *"mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> > *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM > *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" < > svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" < > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> > *Cc: *'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' < > sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > It seems that every dictionary word is a ‘pre-existing trademark’ at least > insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of > the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of > those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by > any so-called ‘closed generic’ TLD applicant.**** > > **** > > Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of > everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple > domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, > Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily… and the list goes on past > Apple….) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate > .weather that way?**** > > **** > > Mike Rodenbaugh**** > > RODENBAUGH LAW**** > > Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087**** > > http://rodenbaugh.com**** > > **** > > *From:* Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM > *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B > *Cc:* Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your > question? Pre-existing trademark? **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Laura Covington**** > > VP, Intellectual Property Policy**** > > Yahoo! Inc.**** > > lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com**** > > 408.349.5187**** > > **** > > *From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > *Reply-To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> > *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM > *To: *"Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" < > svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" < > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> > *Cc: *Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < > sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Hi Laura,**** > > **** > > Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not > just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at > the USPTO)?**** > > **** > > Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business > models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? > The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are > preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far > less likely.**** > > **** > > Best,**** > > Mike**** > > **** > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> > *To:* "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, > Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> > *Cc:* Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco < > sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM > *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > I don’t know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but > perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that:**** > > **** > > - Consists of a generic term/phrase which **** > - Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and**** > - The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second > level domains to the (general?) public **** > > **** > > Laura Covington**** > > VP, Intellectual Property Policy**** > > Yahoo! Inc.**** > > lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com**** > > 408.349.5187**** > > **** > > *From: *"svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com> > *Date: *Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM > *To: *"Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> > *Cc: *Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco < > sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice > on safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. **** > > **** > > I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed > generic TLD somewhere?**** > > **** > > Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being > imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its > brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own > exclusive use?**** > > **** > > Thanks,**** > > **** > > Stéphane Van Gelder > Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur > STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING > > T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053**** > > T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89**** > > Skype: SVANGELDER > www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> > ---------------- > Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: > www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant**** > > LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/**** > > **** > > Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> > a écrit :**** > > ** ** > > All,**** > > > To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing > draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the > Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve > had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen > to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia’s earlier > GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain > silent on this issue. **** > > **** > > Our proposed language is attached for Members’ consideration.**** > > **** > > > Sarah**** > > **** > > **** > > > Sarah B. Deutsch > Vice President & Deputy General Counsel > Verizon Communications > Phone: 703-351-3044 > Fax: 703-351-3670**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > ] *On Behalf Of *Elisa Cooper > *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM > *To:* Steve DelBianco > *Cc:* bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on > safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Steve,**** > > **** > > Thank you so much for all of your work on this.**** > > **** > > Please find attached my edits to Sarah’s draft.**** > > **** > > As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed > Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this > draft may be at odds with our earlier position: > http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Closed%20G… > .**** > > **** > > Thank you again.**** > > **** > > Best,**** > > Elisa**** > > **** > > Elisa Cooper**** > > Director of Product Marketing**** > > MarkMonitor**** > > **** > > Elisa Cooper**** > > Chair**** > > ICANN Business Constituency**** > > **** > > 208 389-5779 PH**** > > **** > > *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > ] *On Behalf Of *Deutsch, Sarah B > *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM > *To:* Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on > safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > Steve, All,**** > > > Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big > issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed > generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed > generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for > an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns > for the reasons outlined in the attached.**** > > **** > > I’d suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the > closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC’s concerns about > closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in > a generic term is in the larger public interest. **** > > **** > > Sarah**** > > **** > > *From:* owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > ] *On Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM > *To:* bc-gnso(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on > safeguards for new gTLDs**** > > **** > > ICANN’s new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it > should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new > gTLDs. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> > )**** > > **** > > The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and > transcripts on the BC Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home>). > Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, > Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. **** > > **** > > Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and > approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and > comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013.**** > > **** > > Steve DelBianco**** > > Vice chair for policy coordination**** > > Business Constituency**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel > *G**o**o**g**l**e* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043*** > * > > (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>**** > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

I do not advise or represent any client who is an applicant. Your discussion was informative, and helpful as a not conflicted discussion base. M Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:53:48 To: <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs The entity I represent on the BC (ICA) does not have a position on closed generics, so the following views are strictly personal and are provided for the purpose of contributing to this discussion -- If new gTLDs are indeed powerful new means to facilitate consumer search and to provide businesses and other potential registrants with more relevant and authoritative DNS addresses, then it is my belief that allowing a registry operator to be the exclusive registrant in a string in which it holds no trademark rights is inherently at odds with the competition and innovation goals that justified this vast expansion and reordering of the DNS. A closed generic registry is a monopoly, which is not innovative and is inherently anti-competitive. The history of the Internet is that innovation is developed at the edges, not by intermediaries, and a string that consists of a powerful dictionary word is far more likely to produce both innovation and competition if it is populated by tens of thousands of registrants rather than by just one -- especially since a primary motivation of the applicant may be to deny the availability of second level domains in the new string to its competitors. For those reasons -- as well as because I believe that the Code of Conduct in the RA already requires a closed generic to seek an exemption from ICANN based on the criteria that granting the exemption will not harm the public interest -- I believe the BC should support the GAC position that a public interest standard be developed for strings in which the applicant proposes to be the sole registrant. (While I am personally up in the air whether closed registration should be allowed for a string that is a dictionary word as well as a trademark of the applicant, a public interest standard might accommodate such a situation as protecting the trademark right at the top level of the DNS.) I am not just concerned about the first round. ICANN is a unique private sector organization imbued with a public trust. I believe that if ICANN permits non-trademark generic strings to go forward in the first round we will inevitably see a rush by applicants in the second round to secure dictionary word strings for their own permanent exclusive use and to deny such use to competitors. I think that would be an unseemly development and one that is detrimental to ICANN's reputation and long-term independence, and to the interests of those who favor ICANN's multi-stakeholder model (imperfect as it is) over potential replacements for DNS management. I hope that input is helpful. Regards, Philip 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 Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:24 PM To: J. Scott Evans ; Mike Rodenbaugh ; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com ; Stéphane Van Gelder ; Sarah Deutsch Cc: P0 Elisa Cooper ; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org ; Bc GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I certainly have concerns about closed generics, and do think there are issues of consumer confusion - .cloud was a big concern of mine. .mobile is an example of another concern, if it were closed. .Hospital .Bank .Search I can list many that raise questions to my mind. I know some think that because .car.com might be registered by an auto manufacturer, that is equivalent to a GTLD. Not the case in my mind. Otherwise, why even bother w gTLDs? Recently I did a webinar with businesses in Africa. They were highly skeptical about fairness in closed generics operated by an industry player and excluding competitors. I also spoke to a number of governments this week. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:32 To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: My new CMO, some marketers I know through my husband and some INTA members. I was bit surprised by their negative reactions. That said, most people could live with them with the appropriate safeguards in place. I think the language proposed by Sarah and Laura strikes the correct balance here. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ---------------- From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry. Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here? Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ---------------- From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know. The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hey, Mike, I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose. As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else? Laura Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant. Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hi Laura, Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)? Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely. Best, Mike ---------------- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that: * Consists of a generic term/phrase which * Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and * The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere? Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.StephaneVanGelder.com> <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit : All, To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue. Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, Thank you so much for all of your work on this. Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft. As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C…. Thank you again. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> ) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

I certainly have concerns about closed generics, and do think there are issues of consumer confusion - .cloud was a big concern of mine. .mobile is an example of another concern, if it were closed. .Hospital .Bank .Search I can list many that raise questions to my mind. I know some think that because .car.com might be registered by an auto manufacturer, that is equivalent to a GTLD. Not the case in my mind. Otherwise, why even bother w gTLDs? Recently I did a webinar with businesses in Africa. They were highly skeptical about fairness in closed generics operated by an industry player and excluding competitors. I also spoke to a number of governments this week. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:46:32 To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: My new CMO, some marketers I know through my husband and some INTA members. I was bit surprised by their negative reactions. That said, most people could live with them with the appropriate safeguards in place. I think the language proposed by Sarah and Laura strikes the correct balance here. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ---------------- From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; To: <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>; <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry. Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:10 PM To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com Cc: Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com; sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here? Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ---------------- From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know. The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hey, Mike, I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose. As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else? Laura Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant. Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hi Laura, Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)? Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely. Best, Mike ---------------- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that: * Consists of a generic term/phrase which * Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and * The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere? Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit : All, To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue. Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, Thank you so much for all of your work on this. Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft. As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C…. Thank you again. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> ) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: jscottevans(a)yahoo.com Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 20:10:28 To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Mike: We appreciate your pov. However, there are many of us in this constituency that have business interests broader than the domain industry. In my discussions with these non-ICANNers, they have voiced grave concerns and want assurances similar to those put forward by Sarah and Laura in the latest draft. Do others gave perspective here? Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ---------------- From: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>; To: 'Laura Covington' <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>; <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>; Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:21:46 PM We went through exercise of trying to define categories like this, in 2006. Then in the Vertical Integration WG. Then again recently in the IPC. It can't be done, as far as I know. The GAC didn't bother to provide a definition either. Making any response problematic as we don't really know what we are responding to. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:05 PM To: mike(a)rodenbaugh.com; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; 'Deutsch, Sarah B' Cc: 'Elisa Cooper'; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hey, Mike, I'm totally open to considering other definitions/terminology for "closed generics" if you have ideas to propose. As to the separate issue of responding to the GAC's advice, participants on the call the other day seemed interested in including - or at least considering - language on closed generics rather than being silent. It seems clear - and understandable - what your point of view is. Anybody else? Laura Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "icann(a)rodenbaugh.com" <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Organization: Rodenbaugh Law Reply-To: "mike(a)rodenbaugh.com" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:13 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "'Deutsch, Sarah B'" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: 'Elisa Cooper' <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, 'Steve DelBianco' <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs It seems that every dictionary word is a 'pre-existing trademark' at least insofar as it is registered as such somewhere (e.g. Benelux, in advance of the EU land rush). My examples are all registered at the USPTO. Any of those registrations could be purchased or even be previously registered by any so-called 'closed generic' TLD applicant. Why is it legitimate for Apple to operate .apple to the exclusion of everyone else in the world that may have a legitimate use for a .apple domain name? (Maybe better examples are other new TLD applicants Abbott, Active, AFamilyCompany, Amazon, AmericanFamily. and the list goes on past Apple..) Yet it would not be legitimate for Weather.com to operate .weather that way? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: Laura Covington [mailto:lhc@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; svg(a)stephanevangelder.com; Deutsch, Sarah B Cc: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Sticking with the definition piece first, doesn't second bullet cover your question? Pre-existing trademark? Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Reply-To: Mike Rodenbaugh <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:42 AM To: "Yahoo! Inc." <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com>, "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Hi Laura, Then what about all the trademarks that exist for 'generic words'. Not just Apple, but also Sex, Drugs and even Rock 'n Roll (all registered at the USPTO)? Beyond that, what about the broader notion that closed generic business models are more in the public interest than open copycat business models? The BC is on record with the position that restricted registries are preferred over open registries, because abuse and consumer harm are far less likely. Best, Mike ---------------- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> To: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com>; "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>; Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I don't know of any official definition of a closed generic TLD, but perhaps a starting place would be to say that it is a TLD that: * Consists of a generic term/phrase which * Is not intended to represent a pre-existing trademark, and * The registry operator does not intend to sell/grant/give second level domains to the (general?) public Laura Covington VP, Intellectual Property Policy Yahoo! Inc. lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com 408.349.5187 From: "svg(a)stephanevangelder.com" <svg(a)stephanevangelder.com> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:49 AM To: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Cc: Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Thanks Sarah, J. Scott and Laura for this work. I am wondering if there is a clear definition of what constitutes a closed generic TLD somewhere? Failing that, what is to stop the criteria suggested in this text being imposed on, say, a brand that has a term resembling a generic term as its brand name and that would understandably like to operate it for its own exclusive use? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 Skype: SVANGELDER www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> ---------------- Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> Le 22 mai 2013 à 22:58, "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> a écrit : All, To follow up on our BC call this morning, we discussed why the existing draft asking ICANN to develop a non-specific public policy exemption in the Registry Code of Conduct for closed generics was not a good idea. Steve had encouraged me, J. Scott Evans and Laura Covington from Yahoo to put pen to paper and propose specific ideas (building on the Australia's earlier GAC recommendations on closed generics) rather than for the BC to remain silent on this issue. Our proposed language is attached for Members' consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Deputy General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, Thank you so much for all of your work on this. Please find attached my edits to Sarah's draft. As previously stated, I will recuse myself from comments related to Closed Generics. That said, I am concerned that the proposed comments in this draft may be at odds with our earlier position:http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20C…. Thank you again. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en…> ) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency <BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd2 (2).docx>

1 0