Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook

Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

Steve: Good work as usual. But this legacy statement on the URS (p.14) is very much outdated-- The URS is not a rapid process and takes nearly as long as using the UDRP with a higher burden of proof. The URS provides little certainty: Even if the trademark owner wins by default, Registrant can seek de novo review up to 2 years after suspension. The suspension is temporary and only takes place for “balance of registration” period with option to extend for one year at commercial rates. The URS places brand owners in a perpetual monitoring situation with no permanent ability to transfer the domain name. With a 5,000 word limit, the URS winds up being a lengthy process with little certainty for brand owners. In fact, I think the URS process is now substantially shorter than a UDRP, as are its costs. The standard registrant response time is now 14 days; review (time for filing an appeal) has been shortened to six months. The projected filing fee will be about $300 and the complainant word limit has been cut to 500. On behalf of ICA I am not pleased with all these changes, but the BC statement should be accurate and reflect the present Guidebook. ICANN has even adopted a form of "loser pays" targeted at mass cybersquatters. As for this statement on p.1 -- RPMs are still substantially weaker than those recommended by the IRT. -- I would suggest actually going back to review what the IRT recommended and then measuring what's in the Guidebook now. Anyway, if the BC is going to cite the IRT it also should be candid that some of what it is advocating goes beyond the IRT. For example, the IRT never recommended a domain transfer option through URS in order to preserve a fundamental distinction with the UDRP (as well as to avoid the possibility of reverse domain hijacking through a low-cost, expedited process). Now the Board said in Brussels that it would acquiesce to the GAC request for a transfer option -- but that is not reflected in the new Guidebook language, and the request disappeared from the GAC's recent response on rights protection issues. Perhaps that's because many individuals (including me) spoke out in SF against departing from the IRT position and fudging that fundamental distinction between the UDRP and URS. Before reflexively reasserting a demand for a transfer option I hope BC members would seriously consider the alternative that I advocated in SF (which I did after speaking with a large number of IP advocates, all of whom reacted favorably) -- which would be to have a domain on the losing end of a URS action placed on a permanent "do not re-register" list. That would relieve complainants of both continuing monitoring burdens and registration costs for unwanted domains, while preserving a critical distinction with the UDRP and assuring registrants that the URS could not be abused for domain hijacking. I thought it was a win-win when I voiced it in SF and still do now. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Steve DelBianco [sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:57 PM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3600 - Release Date: 04/27/11

Dear all, I've expressed my opinion on this before, but I would like reject the whole Module 1: Batching of applications comment. I see that the process is designed to be self-limiting in number of ways. Trying to limit the number of applicants could result in confusion among applicants and/or lawsuits towards ICANN. See my post from not too long ago: 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 Steve DelBianco Sent: 27. huhtikuuta 2011 21:57 To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

Steve: Thanks for pulling this together. I agree with Jarkko on his point about not limiting the round to an artificial number. The round will be limited based on a number of factors, including price, duration, technology, etc. There will be a natural batching and timing deviation for the reasons Jarkko mentions as well. Also, could you confirm that the GAC (in either its scorecard or subsequent responses) does, indeed, support each of the bullet points quoted below as we imply that it does? I think that we should be sure that we are entirely factually accurate on these. Finally, I would support a shorter set of comments with just the highlights or summary points instead of another 19 page comment set. Thanks. Jon "However, many other BC comments have been disregarded without explanation, despite agreement from multiple stakeholders, including the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Notable are several previous BC recommendations to raise the integrity and availability of new gTLDs: · *The first batch should be limited to significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems. · *Applicants should be granted fee reductions for additional versions of the applied-for string in IDN scripts and other languages. · *String Similarity contention sets should not include similar strings requested by a applicant seeking linguistic variations of the applicant's other applied-for string. · *Applicants should be required to pay an objection Response Filing Fee in order to defend the rationale already included in their original application. · *Community priority evaluation should be given to applicants scoring at least 13 points, not 14. · *RPMs are still substantially weaker than those recommended by the IRT. Consumers and businesses will inevitably be harmed by cybersquatting and other fraud likely to occur in hundreds of new gTLDs, especially at the second level." On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.
This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval.
For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways:
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this.
All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1.
Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module.
Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff )
Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch )
Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )
Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff )
Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )
Other notes:
In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft.
Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination
<BC on Apr-2011 App Guidebook.docx>

I agree with Jon and Jarkko's points. Also I think we might want to focus on the "Single-Registrant" carveout in the Code of Conduct, to clarify that the latest Guidebook has made some progress in recognizing this category of registry operators, but still has left the definition murky. I think the BC provided a clear definition, and I have not seen how it was considered by Staff. I am happy to help with that portion of the comments, and others if needed. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:56 PM To: Steve DelBianco Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook Steve: Thanks for pulling this together. I agree with Jarkko on his point about not limiting the round to an artificial number. The round will be limited based on a number of factors, including price, duration, technology, etc. There will be a natural batching and timing deviation for the reasons Jarkko mentions as well. Also, could you confirm that the GAC (in either its scorecard or subsequent responses) does, indeed, support each of the bullet points quoted below as we imply that it does? I think that we should be sure that we are entirely factually accurate on these. Finally, I would support a shorter set of comments with just the highlights or summary points instead of another 19 page comment set. Thanks. Jon "However, many other BC comments have been disregarded without explanation, despite agreement from multiple stakeholders, including the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Notable are several previous BC recommendations to raise the integrity and availability of new gTLDs: . *The first batch should be limited to significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems. . *Applicants should be granted fee reductions for additional versions of the applied-for string in IDN scripts and other languages. . *String Similarity contention sets should not include similar strings requested by a applicant seeking linguistic variations of the applicant's other applied-for string. . *Applicants should be required to pay an objection Response Filing Fee in order to defend the rationale already included in their original application. . *Community priority evaluation should be given to applicants scoring at least 13 points, not 14. . *RPMs are still substantially weaker than those recommended by the IRT. Consumers and businesses will inevitably be harmed by cybersquatting and other fraud likely to occur in hundreds of new gTLDs, especially at the second level." On Apr 27, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote: Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination <BC on Apr-2011 App Guidebook.docx>

On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom) Since then, here are comments and edits received: - Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse. - 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove that comment. - Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns. - Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view? These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely: - p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this. - p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition requests? - p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the TLD. Any objections? - pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. - p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections? - p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process? Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed. Regards, Steve --- On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

Dear Steve, Per the existing BC position mention of the Reserve/GPML as recently mentioned in the GAC board discussions should also find mention. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:39:09 To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom) Since then, here are comments and edits received: - Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse. - 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove that comment. - Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns. - Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view? These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely: - p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this. - p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition requests? - p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the TLD. Any objections? - pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. - p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections? - p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process? Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed. Regards, Steve --- On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

Thanks Steve for all the hard work on this. Re batching of applications, even if the premise is accepted that ICANN may be unready for volume at 500 applications (though I do not accept that premise), how does the BC propose that ICANN implement the recommendation to limit the first batch to "significantly fewer" than 500? Is there a specific number or specific criteria as to which applications get into the first batch? Without answers to those questions, the BC recommendation is less than helpful. Also, hasn't the GAC letter of Sept 2010 been superceded by recent GAC and ICANN consultations re the new TLD program? So that reference should be removed from bottom of page 3. Also would be helpful to cite to the other report mentioned there. Agree we should drop the request for further economic studies. Re Module 3, we should continue to push for more detail from ICANN re definitions and process for Limited Public Interest Objections. Re Single Registrant TLDs, our position is very well stated and I support the definition, but we could further emphasize the full definition, including all three bullet points. The latest Specification 9 (Code of Conduct) does not have a very clear definition, though it is a step in the right direction. Also the language in blue in Module 5, Section 2.9 is not sufficient to carveout Single Registrant TLDs from the 'non-discriminatory access' provision of the base contract. They are specifically accepted out of the Code of Conduct, which is a Specification of the base contract that also includes a non-discriminatory access provision, but section 2.9 within the contract itself has not caught up with the drafting. We should call this out to be fixed. Similarly wrt section 4.5, as that language should be consistent, it should mention single-registrant TLDs which are already properly defined (if our advice is accepted), rather than introduce a different definition. Staff has the concept right, but again the drafting needs to be tightened. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:39 AM To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom) Since then, here are comments and edits received: - Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse. - 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove that comment. - Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns. - Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view? These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely: - p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this. - p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John - do we still need these definition requests? - p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the TLD. Any objections? - pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. - p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections? - p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process? Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed. Regards, Steve --- On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote: Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination

On 11-May I circulated draft v2 of BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (see email below). Since then, here are changes made per requests from members to the final version filed with ICANN today (attached): - Deleted request for further economic studies. - Edited the section on initial batch size for application processing. Retained our recommendation for initial batch to be fewer than 500, but omitted previous point about discrete limited rounds. (p.3) - Per John Berard's answer, we dropped the definition request he had written for the limited public interest process. - Per Mike Rodenbaugh, we recommend that Registry Agreement sections 2.9 and 4.5 refer to our proposed definition of a Single-registrant TLD and include flexibility to have selective criteria for eligible registrars. (pp. 9 and 10) - Per Zahid Jamil, Marilyn Cade, and Philip Sheppard, we noted previous BC support for GPML, but did not add a specific recommendation to the guidebook. (p.1-2) - Per Marilyn Cade and our GAC Scorecard comments, we noted focus for Communications and outreach program. (p.2) Thanks to all the BC members who contributed to this comment process. --Steve On 5/11/11 11:39 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom) Since then, here are comments and edits received: - Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse. - 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove that comment. - Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns. - Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view? These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely: - p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this. - p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition requests? - p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the TLD. Any objections? - pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. - p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections? - p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process? Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed. Regards, Steve --- On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook. This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval. For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways: - Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations. - Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5 - Asked several questions for BC members (in red) - Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff ) Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch ) Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff ) Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff ) Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs ( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch ) Other notes: In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS. But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination
participants (6)
-
jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com
-
Jon Nevett
-
Mike Rodenbaugh
-
Phil Corwin
-
Steve DelBianco
-
Zahid Jamil