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

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 would like the BC to do our best to reach a position. I will have to read the transcript for details. My own position is that where the BC, as the user constituency, can shed light it is our responsibility as part of the process at ICANN to strive to do so. Sometimes we can't. Let's try in this case. I will promise to read on flight back from Geneva IGF consultation, Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Laura Covington <lhc(a)yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:05:21 To: <mike(a)rodenbaugh.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 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 <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 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 <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 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 <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 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 <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 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> [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 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> [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. 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> [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 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

FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget
by Chris Chaplow May 23, 2013

May 23, 2013

Dear Members Here are some notes on the FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget was published a few days early on May 10. Comments close 31 May and reply 21 June ahead of special Board meeting to approve on 28th June. FY14 starts 1 July. Link to document. <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/op-budget-fy14-10may13-en.htm This year has been very different from previous as the new CEO has implemented a new project management system called ATASK. Finance Staff have been busy setting this up and inputting data. As a result there was no Framework Budget in February so the info in the draft Budget is new to the community. The format this year is different, instead of 80 pages of document it is more 12 pages of glossy introduction and the rest tables. Highlights – High level Revenue FY13 General revenue forecast is 76m$ slightly down on budget of 78m$ (71m$ in FY12 Forcast) Plus gTLD at 174m$ up from an original 61m$ (this is loading for non batching) FY14 General revenue budget is 88m$ ( historic transaction vols are -1% this is up due to 2.5 million .com contract change, 4 meeting sponships, New gTLD domain sales income in 7m). Plus gTLD at applications 98 m$ Operating Expenses FY13 Operating Expenses forecast 68m$ against 74m$ in FY13 Budget from 71m$ in FY12 Budget and 63m$ in FY12 Forcast ie FY13 expenses are again significant under budget large 30m to reserves FY14 84 m$ plus 57$ for new gTLD Staff levels Last year I reported Staff levels up from 149 to 189 FY13 forcast is average 179 and end of year 233 FY14 Budget is average 259 and end of year 284 Highlights – Low Level Here diving into ATASK Take information descriptive from myicann.org - ‘projects’ tag Projects Structure of Objectives – Goals – Portfolios – Programs at the lowest level we have 160 ‘programmes’ which replaced the old projects There is information of expenses in this xls http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-sp… Where you can see the 160 programmes (same as those in (myicann.org) with all expenses broken down into Personnel, Travel, Prof Services, Admin Problem for us now is that programmes are different from projects, so any year on year comparison is impossible. I struggle a bit with the programme titles which read to me more like job descriptions than projects. I think the work ahead in the BC comment is to go through the 160 programmes and ask ourselves what is this? If we don’t understand pose the question. As an example: FY13 Compliance - 60% up to 6.1 m$ in FY13 from 4.8 m$ in FY12 Budget and 3.8 m$ in FY12 Forecast FY14 - 11 programes CC meeting updates 157k$ CC Monthly updates 0 CC Other programmes 571 k$ CC Complaint Processing and Monitoring Activities 1473 k$ CC Audit Programme 1115 k$ CC Contract and policy driven iniciatives 103 k$ CC New gTLD programme readiness 162 k$ CC Outreach 0$ Improve CC programme 0$ CC Annaul report 0$ Total 3.5 m$ To answer Ron’s question again, looking at the historical perspective. I looks more like the large increase in compliance that we celebrated last year did not happen. FY12 Budget was 4.8m FY12 Forecast was 3.8m (need to research actual) FY13 Budget was 6.9 m FY13 Forecast was not reported? FY14 Budget 3.5m To point Andrew in the right direction for progress on Regional initiatives. (and as a great example for all to try): In myICANN.org projects Select “Internationalization” In Fadi’s Goals select “Engage Stakeholders globally” In Sally’s Portfolios select “Engage Stakeholders Globally” and Tarik’s program “Implement Regional Strategies” In Sally’s Portfolios select “Regional initiatives, Including centres of Excellence” and Sally’s program “Development and implement standard office infrastructure” Turning to the xls http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-projects-sp… for each program we can see the expenditure breakdown. Using the above example program “Implement Regional Strategies” 5.5m$ program “Development and implement standard office infrastructure” 99.340$ (in xls programme “Other Programs for Regional Initiatives, including Centers of Excellence” So it looks loke 5,5m$ which probably was not in last year but who knows? And Andrews second Outreach question. One would best go through the xls searching on the word Outreach for all the occurrences and investigate them one by one. Hope this is helpful Any comment or request for more elaboration in a particular area most welcome. Any volunteers to review the 160 programms and either Ask question what it is? Opinion on high or low figure from BC perspective, comparing to previous years where possible. There has not been much interest from the CSG work group this time around. Angie and Gabi had been interested in this subject last year so I am hoping that it might continue. Best Chris Chaplow

5 4

Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN FY14 Draft Budget
by gabrielaszlak＠gmail.com May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

The thanks sentence was intended for Chris! :) Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar) -----Original Message----- From: gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:54:26 To: Chris Chaplow<chris(a)andalucia.com>; <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Reply-To: gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN FY14 Draft Budget Dear all! I join everyone in thanking you so much for your work. We are sorry that we won't be able to make it for the call. Celia and I are in an event with Vanda Scarterzini as speaker (for those who know her) organized by eInstituto and Mercosur Digital for cross border ecommerce -with Governments-. We will read transcripts and share our views through email. Thank you Gabi and Celia eInstituto Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar) -----Original Message----- From: "Chris Chaplow" <chris(a)andalucia.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:21 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN FY14 Draft Budget Dear Members, Thanks Elisa, Ayesha, Ron, Stephane and Excom for the supportive comments. On this afternoons member’s call I will do a very brief overview of the ICANN FY14 Draft Budget just published. Although not necessary for the call you might want to download a copy of the budget here. http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-fy14-16may13 -en.pdf best 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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

ICANN FY14 Draft Budget
by Chris Chaplow May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

Dear Members, Thanks Elisa, Ayesha, Ron, Stephane and Excom for the supportive comments. On this afternoons members call I will do a very brief overview of the ICANN FY14 Draft Budget just published. Although not necessary for the call you might want to download a copy of the budget here. http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-fy14-16may13 -en.pdf best 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: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

2 1

FW: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 22, 2013

May 22, 2013

Dear colleagues My apologies for not getting my attachment on the LAST email. Thanks to several of you who emailed me and called me to let me know. I appreciate the work that all have done on this. For anyone who has trouble finding the GAC advice I mention, just so a search on the names of the relevant documents. :-) I have now integratied my comments into the latest version. Some of my concerns were captured by others. I will note, however, that we have a keen responsibility to take note of the GAC advice of 2007 -- WHICH we strongly supported; and the Brussels Scorecard -- which we STRONGLY supported, and so on and so forth. The GAC accepted our own scorecard -- which we developed jointly with IPC and ISPs endorsed in general as areas of concern. On many of the items of concern to BC, if you go through GAC advice in detail looking for what we have seen before, and often raised and supported as areas of concern as business user constituency, show significant consistency between the GAC advice in the Communique from Beijing, and in the BC's longstanding concerns. I did note that someone cut out a comment from Sarah Deutsch regarding compliance with applicable law, which I agree with. I had added in some language, and cut out the statement that was proposed that the ICANN GC /legal do work on behalf of the applicants. That statement was very strange to me and I couldn't see in the comments/discussion where it would have come from. IF any members want to debate that within the BC, I am happy to, but frankly, I don't think that the BC ever thought that ICANN would take on research about applicable laws to any applicant.I am sure no responsible applicant from a regulated industry would entrust an ICANN legal doc on such critical issues anyway, and I would doubt that any regulator who heard that was the 'plan' would burst into derisive laughter about whether that applicant was credible in any way. Thinking about risks to ICANN and therefore risks to those who want to avoid governments taking over ICANN's functions or 'adding in more governmental intervention: During the recent WTPF meeting in Geneva, many governments -- Latim and African and European -- raised the concern that ICANN and 'parts' of the ICANN community deny that governments are responsible for public interest. Questions were raised by many governments about how the GAC advice has been consistently ignored, or denied. Several BC members -- AT&T, Verizon, PayPal; myself, Ayesha, Amazon, Google were present in the WTPF. Ayesha and I stayed for the WSIS action line Forum on Friday. Strong statements were made about concerns about geo names; and some governments are skeptical that we in the ICANN community are working in good faith with governments in their fulfilling their role within ICANN. It is not lost on the governments that we, the BC, have come to them over and over to discuss areas of concern. Please note that the concerns about geo/territorial names is NOT new. And, it is not a matter of trademark protection in any way. Geo/Territorial names are highly sensitive geo political issues to governments. I can't imagine how that was every NOT understood. What the governments asked for is more discussion on such names. I know that all of us are committed to respecting the role and mission of the BC as representing business users. It may be that some members are having to recuse themselves, and that is a positive and responsible decision, which I want to acknowledge and applaud. It is this kind of respect for our role in representing business users that makes the BC possible to respect for its integrity. I made a lot of edits, and I am happy to discuss them. I do not propose to do that on the Members call, as there is a robust agenda already. Marilyn Cade From: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:57:41 +0000 No attachment, Marilyn From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM To: Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.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 I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial draft implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, and several other spots. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <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

2 1

Elections announcement: results of nominations for V. Chair, Finance & Operations
by Benedetta Rossi May 21, 2013

May 21, 2013

Dear BC Members, This is an election announcement for the election process for the position of V. Chair for Finance & Operations in the BC. The nomination period closed yesterday, May 20, 2013 at Midnight PST. The result of the nomination process was the following: no nominations were received. Following this result I will follow up with the BCs Executive Committee as per the BC Charter to decide how to proceed. Thank you, -- 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

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 20, 2013

May 20, 2013

I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial draft implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, and several other spots. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <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

1 0

Reminder - BC 2013 V. Chair Finance & Operations - Nomination Period closes Tomorrow, Monday, May 20th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi May 19, 2013

May 19, 2013

From: BC Secretariat Date: May 19, 2013 CC: ICANN GNSO Secretariat <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: Reminder - BC 2013 V. Chair Finance & Operations Nomination Period closes Tomorrow, Monday, May 20th, 2013 Dear BC Members, This is an election reminder for the currently open election process for the extraordinary election for the BC seat of Vice Chair of Finance & Operations. Please note that the nomination period will close tomorrow, Monday, May 20th. Eligibility: In order to be eligible to nominate, stand for office or vote, members are required to have paid their full BC dues for 2013, by the close of the nomination period on May 20th. Only paid up members will receive the ballots prior to the opening of the vote, and only paid up members can accept a nomination and vote in the elections. If you have any questions regarding eligibility to vote, please email the BC Secretariat: bc-secretariat(a)icann.org. All other election questions should be sent to the election email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. Thank you, -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
by Marilyn Cade May 15, 2013

May 15, 2013

Am traveling to Geneva. Will review over week end and provide comments. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Gabriela Szlak <gabrielaszlak(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:11:41 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Thank you Steve for all the hard work and thanks to all BC members that contributed to the calls and the draft. We will review and send our comments. Gabi eInstituto -- Dra. Gabriela Szlak Abogada & Mediadora en Estudio ROSZ Directora Regional en eInstituto Consultora en Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías www.estudiorosz.com.ar <http://www.estudiorosz.com.ar/> www.einstituto.org <http://www.einstituto.com.ar/> www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar <http://www.gabrielaszlak.com.ar/> Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2013/5/15 Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > 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

1 0

Reminder - BC 2013 V. Chair Finance & Operations - Nomination Period closes on Monday, May 20th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi May 15, 2013

May 15, 2013

From: BC Secretariat Date: May 15, 2013 CC: ICANN GNSO Secretariat <mailto:bcvotes@hotmail.com> bcvotes(a)hotmail.com Re: Reminder - BC 2013 V. Chair Finance & Operations Nomination Period closes on Monday, May 20th, 2013 Dear BC Members, This is an election reminder for the currently open election process for the extraordinary election for the BC seat of Vice Chair of Finance & Operations. Please note that the nomination period opened last week and will close on Monday, May 20th. Eligibility: In order to be eligible to nominate, stand for office or vote, members are required to have paid their full BC dues for 2013, by the close of the nomination period on May 20th. Only paid up members will receive the ballots prior to the opening of the vote, and only paid up members can accept a nomination and vote in the elections. If you have any questions regarding eligibility to vote, please email the BC Secretariat: bc-secretariat(a)icann.org. All other election questions should be sent to the election email address: bcvotes(a)hotmail.com. Thank you, -- 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

1 0