Dear all,

As we are soon closing the final comments on the GAC Advice, I gave the document (which I hope is the latest iteration) one more read and noticed some redundancy and conflicting statements on ‘applicable law’ as referenced several times throughout the BC response. The attached edits are an attempt to harmonize that language in a more uniform approach.

I would also like to note that I support the edits proposed by Sarah et al with regard to closed generics that is also found in this iteration of the BC response.

With respect to one of Andy’s comments (email from yesterday, Tuesday) to wit:

"Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs": To the extent new safeguards are implemented for all new gTLDs, we respectfully believe there is merit to discussing a PDP in order to apply such safeguards to all gTLDs. As set forth in this section, we agree that wide discrepancies in implementation of safeguards are not ideal for registrants and Internet users - we believe that this statement should apply to gTLDs generally, not simply to new gTLDs.

Asking the community for a PDP related to GAC Advice on safeguards – at this late stage in the game – holds the potential to throw the whole gTLD program into disarray. While I agree in principle that safeguards should apply to all gTLDs, I also agree that all gTLDs should all be thick registries… We all know where that PDP went. .COM remains a thin registry. In my view, such a call would put the safeguards in standstill and the BC would effectively be seen as poking the GAC in the eye. While I believe that many in the BC agree that all gTLDs should be operating on the same basic principles, the timing for this is just not right at the moment.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards,

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:58 PM
To: Elisa Cooper; Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs

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@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@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%20Generic%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@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@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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: 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)

The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC 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