- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
by Marilyn Cade Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

I support posting individual comments. Mine will say: no fees/no preferential treatment, and that there are "insider" issues with ICANN declaring the ad hoc "rump" group a formal process. But there is a precedent that can be followed. Without prejudice to whether ICANN has addressed the 4 overarching issues, and the implications of the root scaling study, which are serious. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:32:01 To: <michael(a)palage.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum Dear colleagues, In response to Mike Palage's email below and EOI article, I believe that he has put forward some good critical thinking for us all. However, contrary to his assertion that his comments are at the polar opposite of my EOI posting, I am of like mind with regard to much that Mike has said. I take issue with the use of the terms "front runners" and "insiders" for the simple reason that using such names are a cheap shot. They are insulting to many of us who put in the hours and hours of volunteer work within ICANN (in my case, participating on the GNSO Operations Work Team and the OSC, along with responding to BC issues). It poses the question: Does the fact that a regular participant in the debates and dialogues within the BC and/or the greater ICANN community for the last decade earn one such titles simply because they are also party to the new gTLD process? If so, I fear Mike may have tarred himself with his own brush. But, at the end of the day, all of that is of no relevance. The bigger issue is this: With ICANN having belabored the issue of introducing new TLDs for years on end - virtually from its inception until now - is it possible that anyone, any company, or any other entity interested in this process doesn't know about it? For my part, I find that hard to believe. I believe that those who choose to hide behind this strawman argument rather than engaging in a dialogue on ways forward, e.g., running processes in parallel, as is suggested by the very existence of the EOI, are being obstructionist. In closing, I would like to reiterate two things. First, I am in agreement with Mike that a principled way forward vis-à-vis the EOI is the ONLY way to go. I fully support that in whatever shape or form it should take. Second, I, too, am recommending that you post your comments! Comments need to be posted on both the EOI and DAG v3 changes/amendments. I sense people are tiring of the process and thus are becoming more willing to let things go that they may have held strong feelings about. This is tantamount to abandoning our bottom up process, so I, like Mike, strongly encourage you to post your positions to make sure that staff hears enough voices to draw appropriate conclusions from, rather than having them make judgment calls. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: 2009-11-18 20:03 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum Hello All, Listed below is an article that I wrote in connection with ICANN's proposed new gTLD Expression of Interest initiative. While I think there is some good that could come of this proposal, as I have tried to articulate in this article there is potentially a lot of bad, especially when you look at the public forum which has basically been flooded by prospective TLD applicants. There is less than 10 days before ICANN staff summarizes the public forum input for consideration by the ICANN Board at its early December meeting. As Mike Rodenbaugh previously noted there is probably not enough time for the constituency to reach an opinion, and Ron Andruff has already taken a position in line with the prospective TLD applicants which is kind of the polar opposite to the position advocated in my paper. This is kind of a big issue which appears to be getting lost in the DAG 3.0 comment period and the upcoming holiday season. I really do believe individual BC members should weigh in on this important issue one way or another. Best regards, Michael FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 18, 2009 New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution Palage Offers Suggestions to Ensure Useful Insight is Gathered in Process WASHINGTON D.C. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) should look to precedents if it chooses to move forward with soliciting Expressions of Interests for new Generic Top Level Domains, states Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage in "New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> ," released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Previous EOIs were successful in helping ICANN gather pertinent data to judge likely gTLD demand and make fact-based decisions. In the paper <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> , Palage, a former ICANN board member, states that the Expression of Interest, if well executed, could help to address a number of the remaining issues with implementation of new gTLDs. If executed improperly, however, the initiative will likely erode confidence in the new gTLD process and negatively impact ICANN's evaluation in the upcoming reviews under ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments. Palage warns against proposals to make participation in the EOI a condition for participating in the first new gTLD round. He also warns against instituting substantial fees to file, stating that both proposals deviate from established precedent. Palage explains that such actions would transform a fact-based gathering EOI into a "front-running scheme for insiders to reserve their space at the front of the new gTLD line." The proposal would fail to create a level playing field for potential applicants. Moreover, this proposed front-running approach would likely only increase ICANN's litigation risks by appearing to grant a license or privilege in a process which may ultimately diverge from present expectations. "The path forward for ICANN is a road that it has previously traveled - and one which has served it well," concludes Palage. "There is little benefit to deviating from these established precedents to benefit the narrow interests of a small number of TLD applicants whose business plans have been jeopardized because of ICANN's decision to listen to the global community by slowing down and getting things right." "New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> " is available on the PFF website <http://www.pff.org/> . The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a 501(c)(3) research & educational organization.

1 0

FW: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 17, 2009

Nov. 17, 2009

Fyi from the Operations Steering Committee. Philip has been representing on this, so he may have some comments, and of course comments are welcome from anyone interested. Apparently these will come to a Council vote in December. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:10 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] OSC CSG Toolkit of Services Recommendations Please find attached the first set of recommendations for GNSO improvements from the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) related to Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations. Please forward these recommendations to your respective groups for review and comment ASAP with the tentative goal of Council action in our December meeting. In the meantime, questions and comments are encouraged on this list and a brief opportunity will be provided for discussion of this in our meeting on 23 Nov. I encourage all groups (SGs, constituencies and ACs to consult with your representative(s) on the OSC; the OSC members are provided here: Primary Team Members * Olga Cavalli - Alternate Chair (NomCom Appointee) * Chuck Gomes - Chair (GNSO Council Vice-Chair) * Robin Gross (Non Commercial Users Constituency) * Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * Vanda Scartezini (ALAC) * Philip Sheppard (Business Constituency) * Ken Stubbs (Registries Constituency) * Steve Metalitz (Intellectual Property Constituency) * Stéphane Van Gelder (Registrar Constituency) * Robert Hoggarth (ICANN Policy Staff) * Julie Hedland (ICANN Policy Staff) * Glen De Saint Géry (GNSO Secretariat) Alternate Team Members * Ron Andruff (Business Constituency) * Mason Cole (Registrar Constituency) * Tony Holmes (Internet Service Providers Constituency) * David Maher (Registries Constituency) Thanks, Chuck (OSC Chair)

2 1

Final BC Position on RPMs & Update on STI
by Zahid Jamil Nov. 17, 2009

Nov. 17, 2009

Dear All, Had been holding out for comments or approvals to be received from many who wished time to add their support or comments. Here is the final draft. Please let me know if I have left any important inclusion that may have reached consensus out. I plan to post this by midday EST. Here are a few highlights of the Special Trademark Issues working group set up by the GNSO to respond to the Board's letter: Registrar and Registry are vehemently against: Post Launch IP Claims: (Registrar and Registry are vehemently against, IPC probably don't want to rock the boat with Ry/Rr, NCSG want to ensure that doesn't lead to 'chilling effect' for individual registrants) - looking tough! Domain Name Transfer in case of successful URS by complainant: Ry/Rr dislike Domain Name Suspension/Block especially without fee in case of a successful URS complaint. They would rather just agree to a simple transfer since it doesn't 'mess' with their protocols. NCSG against Transfer - they want a mechanism where even though a name is subject to a URS, a registrant who can demonstrate legitimate interest should be able to get that domain name. IPC agree to transfer but willing to agree to suspension subject to fee based renewal by Complainant (TM holder) URS-Mandatory?: NCSG the only ones against making it mandatory but seem to be open to it if the URS process incorporates more due process protections. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

2 2

BC Charter Ballot
by BC Secretariat Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

Dear Members Voting for the new BC Charter closed at midnight on Sunday. With weighted voting, the results are: 23 approved 2 not approved 14 members voted which represents a 34% turn out. The Officers will be in contact regarding a timetable for the Executive Committee elections. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Proposed draft for IRTP-B working group
by Mike O'Connor Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

hi all, Chris Chaplow, Berry Cobb and i have come up with this draft Constituency Statement for the IRTP-B working group. could you please give this a review and get any comments to me by next Wednesday? i know, not much time. but we're late on this one. that will give me time to fold your comments into the draft and recirculate it for final comments (if needed) before we submit it to the working group the following Monday. thanks! mikey On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Berry Cobb wrote: > Guys, > > I'm happy with the draft thus far, with just a few short comments. > > 1. Question c)....It seems the 60 day hold policy after transfer is > adopted > by some registrars and not all. I would certainly support > consistency where > possible. However on the call the other day, if there is a legitimate > domain owner wanting to transfer his domain, there should be manual > effort > driven path to support that. Case in point, is if I win a domain > through > auction or acquire a domain with a very small registrar, I may wish to > immediately transfer the domain with an organization I trust. Just a > thought. > > 1. Question d)... I am happy with this statement, the RySG > statement to > this questions does not thrill me. There should be standards applied > specifically for all registrars. > > 2. Answer to e)...shouldn't that say CBUC instead of ..... > Answer: No additions to the suggestions proposed by the IPC and the > Registries comments. > > Thank you Mikey! > > Berry A. Cobb > Infinity Portals LLC > 866.921.8891 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:55 > To: Chris Chaplow; Berry Cobb > Subject: proposed draft > > hi guys, > > for now, we'll do this the old-fashioned way. :-) > > i've banged out a draft for you to review. have a look at it and > i'll take > another pass through it, based on your comments, tomorrow. > > thanks! > > mikey > > - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

DRAFT BC Comments re New gTLD DAG v.3
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

Hi all, With many thanks to Ron Andruff, David Fares and Zahid Jamil for their inputs thus far, here is a DRAFT of BC comments to be submitted by the comment deadline of Nov. 22 if possible. Please indicate any objections, questions, suggested edits or adds, etc. ASAP. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>

2 1

Charter Ballot
by BC Secretariat Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

Dear Members As it's the last working day of the week, I would like to remind you that voting for the new Charter closes at midnight on Sunday. Many thanks to those members who have already voted Gary

2 1

FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper
by Zahid Jamil Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

Dear All, Please see email forwarded below. Much discussion between ALAC, NCSG reps and myself has led to some attempts at reaching common ground and the document posted. As you will see the BC position for domain transfer for a fee and the URS substantive grounds seem to have been the greatest successes. Let's see how we move ahead. IP Claims post launch is still a challenge with all other constituencies. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-gnso-sti(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:23 PM To: gnso-sti(a)icann.org Cc: 'Margie Milam' Subject: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Dear All, With great appreciation for many of those who took part in many hours of off-line discussions and work to try and reach some common ground in anticipation of the calls this week, this Table has been prepared which outlines the areas where various parties 'seem' to agree. I have not had a chance to discuss these with Ry, Rar or IPC. This document only represents much common ground being attempted to be reached between NCSG, ALAC and BC positions based on initial discussions. The document only represents initial thinking as to ideas for reaching common ground and does not attempt to crystallize positions and has been prepared just to start discussions. Since some of us who have been working on the document in various time zones over long hours, please allow room for a few errors and feel free to point out corrections - apologies in advance. Hope this helps to drive discussion over the coming weeks. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

15 33

FW: [council] Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs: ICANN seeks input and advice
by Mike Rodenbaugh Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

Fyi a public comment period is not open on this issue, with detailed questions from Staff listed below. Given the timeline and likely differences of opinion, I am doubtful we could get consensus BC comments done in time, but if anyone cares to lead such an effort, please advise. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:04 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs: ICANN seeks input and advice Expressions of Interest in new gTLDs: ICANN seeks input and advice http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11nov09-en.htm 11 November 2009 ICANN is soliciting information, advice and proposed models as it considers soliciting expressions of interest in new gTLDs. The public comment forum will be open until December 11, 2009 however, community members that wish to have their input considered by the Board during its December meeting, should submit comments no later than November 27, 2009. You can access this Expressions of Interest Public Comment Forum here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200912.htm#eoi-new-gtl ds A call for expressions of interest in new gTLDs could provide ICANN and potential applicants important information about the level of interest in the program, which could assist in the resolution of the remaining issues and the planning for the coming new gTLD round. Receiving expressions of interest (possibly with some financial deposit) will likely contribute to a better understanding of: 1) the economic demand for new gTLDs; 2) the number of gTLDs that are likely to be requested; and 3) inform the program's operational readiness plan. The EOI path presents also some challenges as outlined below. The ICANN Board has instructed the staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal expressions of interest (EOI), and provide a plan for Board consideration at ICANN's next Board meeting, 9 December 2009. The plan should include possible options and a risk analysis relating to the proposed action. This step was the result of public forum comment in ICANN's Seoul meeting. The discussion indicates significant community interest in the potential for an EOI and that formulation of the model would benefit from expertise that can be found in the community. Comments may: .propose EOI models, and .offer support or criticism for the concept overall. The most helpful comments will provide rationale along with opinions on the following issues: 1.How do we ensure that participation in the EOI accurately represents the level of interest? 2.Should only those who participate in the EOI be eligible to participate in the first round when the program officially launches? 3.Should a deposit be required for participation in the EOI? 4.If there is a fee, under what circumstances should there be refund? 5.What information should be collected from EOI participants? 5.1 What subset of applicant questions found in the Applicant Guidebook at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-criteria-clean-04o ct09-en.pdf should be answered? 5.2 Including applied-for strings? 5.3 Should information be made public? 6.Must the responder commit to go live within a certain time of delegation? 7.What are the implications for potential changes to the Applicant Guidebook after the EOI participation period closes? 8.What are the potential risks associated with the EOI? Related Resources: For Program details, go to: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

BC Position on Staff Proposals for Rights Protection Mechanism for New gTLDs
by Zahid Jamil Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

Dear All, Please find attached the BC Position on Staff Proposals for Rights Protection Mechanism for New gTLDs. Staff may also deem this to constitute part of the comments with respect to the RPMs up for public comment. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

1 0