Yes, David, you are correct in your
statement and the annex in my attachment was indeed a lift from the BC
position. We will need postings on this topic from the BC, but I truly
believe it will require many individual postings as well to force the senior
staff to relent on this issue. We welcome you posting directly in this
regard.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From:
Sent: 2009-10-27 05:50
To: Ron Andruff;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New
'Differentiated' gTLDs
Thanks Ron. If
I am not mistaken, the concept of differentiation for new gTLDs is a position
the BC endorsed in previous rounds of new gTLDs. I think it is a good
idea to pursue. Thanks.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009
3:26 AM
To:
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: New
'Differentiated' gTLDs
Importance: High
Sorry for the double posting should this
email pop up twice. Important information noted below.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From: Ron Andruff
[mailto:ra@dotsportllc.com]
Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: New 'Differentiated'
gTLDs
Importance: High
Dear Colleagues,
I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly
introduction of domain names prior to the
Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to
the gathering support for what they call ‘categorization’, is
“not necessary” or “too late”. This is
extremely discomfiting. On the other hand, Board member Thomas Narten
stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure which way to go
on this. I read this to mean that senior staff is standing at the
barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community’s input.
Our argument is based completely on existing
‘policy’. That is to say, we are noting (1) that the GNSO
Final Report is not being properly implemented; (2) the Scaling the Root
Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC’s long-standing (9-years)
position on the introduction of new gTLDs.
Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has
now been circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP
leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers in
the community. In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the new
gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet. We can be
certain that there are those within our ICANN community – let alone those
outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can be
gamed – who will take advantage of a ‘no rules’ names
introduction. As such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue
serious consideration and post comments in support of
‘differentiation’ language being added to the DAG v4. We are
not married to the language suggested in the document, so any amendments you have
in that regard are also welcome.
If I can be of further assistance please contact me.
Thank you,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
dotSport LLC
220
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the
addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments
to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this
message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of
News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been
sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or
its attachments are without defect.