What if we were to recommend limiting the
round to geographical names only? Since, letters of support or non-objection
are required for these; the GAC may also be amenable to this approach?
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:03
AM
To: icann@rodenbaugh.com;
tero.mustala@nsn.com; jon@nevett.net; psc@vlaw-dc.com
Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com;
marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent
update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard
issues
I would also advise
against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that
would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there
would always be room for gaming.
I see that the new
gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass
delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with
different speeds.
Some of them will
get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved
by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with
ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in
the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will
actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of
business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many
bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently
unknown.
BR,
-jr
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39
To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)';
'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin'
Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com;
marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent
update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard
issues
I agree with Jon and
Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been
raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable
way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward
would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also,
the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit
the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have
been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to
prioritize new gTLD applications.
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19
PM
To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin
Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com;
marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent
update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard
issues
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read
the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with
some of their concerns.
regards
Tero
Tero Mustala
Principal
Consultant,
CTO/Industry
Environment
Nokia
Siemens Networks
tero.mustala@nsn.com
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06
AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com;
marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent
update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard
issues
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you
decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics
would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not
sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
Thanks.
Jon
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions,
Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff
[mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53
PM
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc -
GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent
update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard
issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment
session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC
members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some
serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are
(1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously
for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each
nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a
"win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many
"2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to
start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is
functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any
case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must
be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA
________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@rnapartners.com
www.rnapartners.com
From: Marilyn
Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
Date: Sun, 13
Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400
To: bc - GNSO
list<bc-gnso@icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso]
urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC
Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with
the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have
short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the
session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing
1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from
the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given
to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our
Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at
risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in
the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this
-- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in
the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement
and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.