Hi Thanks for the questions. I am not representing the BC -- I have no authority to do that. If I did, I would say so. You'll note that Susan Kawaguchi participated (in her own capacity) and not representing Facebook. The loose group was formed in response to the Board resolution -- I suspect it will dissolve in effect on Friday after a draft proposal is submitted to the staff who then have to work to meet the December 7 date. I am unsure of the appointed staff person who will take over that work. As to your point of the brands, given that the group is open to anyone to participate (and there were several global brand people/ representatives on the call) then it's up to the brand people to follow the debate and participate where they want? IPC people were there -- Paul McGrady, Nick Wood et al (again representing themselves not the IPC). To address your question about whether a brand would become a registry -- using AT & T as an example. If AT & T had a registry contract with ICANN, then it would become a registry and be entitled to be a member of the GNSO Registry Constituency. I think that observer status has already been provided by the RyC for that to happen to enable potential new registries to participate. You could confirm that with David Maher. Liz On 10 Nov 2009, at 13:42, Marilyn Cade wrote:
Liz, I am puzzled.. you are representing the BC, or acting for a registry in this discussion on the BC list?
The materials that have forwarded to the BC list are showing you as representing CORE. I have no problems with BC members representing their clients interests as long as they disclose the change in status to the BC list, but would like to have clarification of what role you are playing, and your interests.
I am still puzzled even more by the creation of a group on this topic. Was that chartered by the Board resolution, or is this simply a well meaning set of players who are working together in an ad hoc manner to try to develop a 'straw proposal'?
Is there indeed a staff development underway that the BC should be following?
Finally, this actually raises to the level of visibility a concern about how the BC is affected by the changing role of individual members, and 'brands' representatives. I think that we may have some other members who also may have some challenges with the present draft of the Charter; for instance:
As I said in an earlier email, the questions of whether global brands will need some kind of 'dispensation' if they become an applicant, but that is a very small part of their business and they remain focused on being a business user needs addressing in the Charter that is presently posted for a 'vote'. It appears that a global brand who becomes a registry could be ineligible as a BC member.
Are we going to have an exclusion for consulting services who represent registries? Does there need to be a 'firewall' regarding broader BC business interests? Or are we at a stage where there is no clarity about the distinctiveness,between registry applicants, or potential applicants when they are brands holders who may have to, or want to apply for a .brands?
All of this is unclear in the Charter, and it looks like a global brand could be excluded when they become a registry. Not sure that was the intent...
Three requests:
1) As a BC member, I would ask that anyone who is actively engaging with registry applications that has not yet declared that to the BC list, do so. Simply saying that you have advised the secretariat isn't really fair to the BC membership who may not be aware of your change in status. This can happen to any of us, and may. We just need to be committed to declaring interests, so that we protect the integrity of the unique identify of the BC as a Business user focused entity.
2) The charter needs to be reviewed by the global brands members to see if they are comfortable with the potential exclusion 3) The separate 'working group' needs clarification -- is it an ad hoc effort, however well meaning, or is it chartered by ICANN? If the former, how will it fit into the ICANN staff follow up/follow on?
CC: bc-gnso@icann.org From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:06:57 +0000
Hello everyone
Just to be clear there is no self appointed group with limited participation. Anyone is free to participate, either representing just themselves or a broader group. The Board made a resolution which was a completely open process. The full resolution is on the Board minutes page.
A very wide ranging group attended the first call (in no order and just from my memory) Bret Fausett, Tony Harris, Susan Kawaguchi, Johannes Lenz, Paul McGrady, Antony Van Couvering, Stephane Van Gelder, Nick Wood, Bolei Zhan and a few others). It is not "pre- limited" to any "group of possible TLD applicants".
The MP3 recording is here http://www.freeconference.com/Recordings/ConferenceRecording-7960097-440828.... .
Patrick Van der Walle has set up an email list which anyone can join by sending a note to [Eoi-wg@pra.im].
The next call is on Friday.
Liz On 10 Nov 2009, at 07:39, jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com wrote:
Hello,
I have say that I agree with Ron in this one. Intentions might be good but I share the following concerns:
1) Self-appointed group to grab the process for themselves with limited participation from stakeholder groups 2) It seems unfair to pre-limit the group of possible TLD applicants
BR,
-jr
On 9.11.2009, at 19.30, ext Ron Andruff wrote:
Liz,
I think you may be putting the cart before the horse. I have it on good authority that staff is going to be putting forward a plan in the next days for the community to comment on prior to a more synthesized plan going before the board on December 7th. For my part, I don’t see the wisdom in independently selecting a hand picked team under a self-developed Working Group charter, particularly when the new GNSO and Chair are just getting their heads around new operating procedures. It’s confusing.
I applaud the effort, but am concerned about the confusing messages being pushed to, or received by, the community. Everyone is anxious to seize on an opening, but let’s not rush the process.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: 2009-11-08 09:43 To: Michael D. Palage Cc: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group
Hello Mike
The small "points of contact" group is designed to reach out to everyone who may have an interest. You'll see that the indicative slate has "names" from each of the GNSO groups, the GAC, ALAC, ccNSO.
The Board resolution requires a plan by the end of November for submission to the Dec 7 Board meeting.
Anyone is welcome to participate but use the point of contact in the first instance so that the group can work efficiently.
A publicly archived mail list, posting of documents and full disclosure of the document trail has already been requested as support from ICANN. Anyone can request to be an observer of the group.
Liz On 7 Nov 2009, at 20:12, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Hello All:
Could the BC leadership please update the membership on this proposed Working Group for Expressions of Interests in connection with new gTLDs.
It appears that Minds + Machines and other “TLD promoters” have proposed a Working Group for new gTLD Expressions of Interest. While I have no objection to the creation of such a working group, the proposal to limit participation to an apparent self-interested group is rather concerning. Hopefully the new Council, and our elected representatives will make sure that this Working Group is open to all that wish to participate.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-06nov09-en.pdf (Doc #1) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-draft-charter-06nov09-en.... (Doc #2) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-proposed-outputs-06nov09-... (Doc #3)
I am concerned that the BC will only have one representative (See Doc #2), and this self-selected group appears to have reached out unilaterally to Susan Kawaguchi. While I think Susan would provide an excellent participant I think all interested members from the Commercial Stakeholder Group should be able to participate.
Best regards,
Michael Palage
JARKKO RUUSKA Nokia Corporation Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland Tel: +358 50 324 7507 E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com