Steve,
Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC’s recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook
in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I’d like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe
that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the
profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again.
My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should
be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN’s to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics.
I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g.,
that: “name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will
enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.”
This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well.
Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience
while I get up to speed.
Anjali
Anjali Karina Hansen |
Associate General Counsel
Tel: 703-247-9340
Fax: 703-276-0634
Email:
ahansen@council.bbb.org
www.bbb.org
| Start With Trust
Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22201
For consumer tips, scams and alerts:
Read our blog
Find us on:
Twitter |
Facebook
|
LinkedIn |
YouTube |
Flickr
This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify
the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching
In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching:
See below and on Page 3 of the document at
As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.