Sorry Zahid, can you kindly repost the RPM you were looking for comment on? So much going on, I don't know if I saw it, and not sure what RPM means. (still a little braindead post Seoul). Thanks, 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 Zahid Jamil Sent: 2009-11-04 12:38 To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank you Mikey. Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don't hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:58 PM To: Zahid Jamil; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper great work Zahid! mikey On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Zahid Jamil wrote: Dear All, Please see email forwarded below. Much discussion between ALAC, NCSG reps and myself has led to some attempts at reaching common ground and the document posted. As you will see the BC position for domain transfer for a fee and the URS substantive grounds seem to have been the greatest successes. Let's see how we move ahead. IP Claims post launch is still a challenge with all other constituencies. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-gnso-sti@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:23 PM To: gnso-sti@icann.org Cc: 'Margie Milam' Subject: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Dear All, With great appreciation for many of those who took part in many hours of off-line discussions and work to try and reach some common ground in anticipation of the calls this week, this Table has been prepared which outlines the areas where various parties 'seem' to agree. I have not had a chance to discuss these with Ry, Rar or IPC. This document only represents much common ground being attempted to be reached between NCSG, ALAC and BC positions based on initial discussions. The document only represents initial thinking as to ideas for reaching common ground and does not attempt to crystallize positions and has been prepared just to start discussions. Since some of us who have been working on the document in various time zones over long hours, please allow room for a few errors and feel free to point out corrections - apologies in advance. Hope this helps to drive discussion over the coming weeks. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. <Common Ground Paper v1.4-clean.docx> - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

I did not know what RPM meant either, so I looked in the Acronym buster and found out. http://www.andalucia.com/icann Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucía.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris@andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. Please think of the Environment before you print this email De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Ron Andruff Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de noviembre de 2009 19:07 Para: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'Mike O'Connor'; 'bc - GNSO list' Asunto: RE: [bc-gnso] RPM Sorry Zahid, can you kindly repost the RPM you were looking for comment on? So much going on, I don’t know if I saw it, and not sure what RPM means… (still a little braindead post Seoul). Thanks, 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 Zahid Jamil Sent: 2009-11-04 12:38 To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank you Mikey. Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don’t hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:58 PM To: Zahid Jamil; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper great work Zahid! mikey On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Zahid Jamil wrote: Dear All, Please see email forwarded below. Much discussion between ALAC, NCSG reps and myself has led to some attempts at reaching common ground and the document posted. As you will see the BC position for domain transfer for a fee and the URS substantive grounds seem to have been the greatest successes. Let’s see how we move ahead. IP Claims post launch is still a challenge with all other constituencies. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. From: owner-gnso-sti@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:23 PM To: gnso-sti@icann.org Cc: 'Margie Milam' Subject: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Dear All, With great appreciation for many of those who took part in many hours of off-line discussions and work to try and reach some common ground in anticipation of the calls this week, this Table has been prepared which outlines the areas where various parties ‘seem’ to agree. I have not had a chance to discuss these with Ry, Rar or IPC. This document only represents much common ground being attempted to be reached between NCSG, ALAC and BC positions based on initial discussions. The document only represents initial thinking as to ideas for reaching common ground and does not attempt to crystallize positions and has been prepared just to start discussions. Since some of us who have been working on the document in various time zones over long hours, please allow room for a few errors and feel free to point out corrections – apologies in advance. Hope this helps to drive discussion over the coming weeks. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. <Common Ground Paper v1.4-clean.docx> - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

While I have no problem toning down the "blind eye" references, the proposed language below goes in the other direction by suggesting that highly automated functions somehow protect registrars and registries from liability. Courts, however, have found registrars in bad faith even when they raise the argument that they used an automated process. See, for example: http://www.ilrweb.com/pfdocuments/ilrpdfs/verizoncal_v_navigation.pdf <http://www.ilrweb.com/pfdocuments/ilrpdfs/verizoncal_v_navigation.pdf> Bad faith can and should be triggered by any number of factors (including those listed in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and UDRP) and should not be limited to situations where the registry fails to perform specific RPMs. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] O n Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:25 PM To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here's one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a "blind eye" to infringements. I'm a fan of clever phrases such as "turn a blind eye", but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human "eye" looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two "blind eye" concerns in the BC comments with this statement: Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Again, thanks for working this on our behalf. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote: Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don't hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI.

I don't disagree with either Sarah's or Mike's comments on Steve's proposal. But in terms of getting something through that will work for all parties down the road, do we want to consider perhaps softening the language a bit? Perhaps change Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Understand that may still not be close enough to other positions on the committee, so just throwing out ideas. USCIB does not have an official position on this. Chris From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:57 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Hi Steve, BC members might disagree with most of your first sentence. Specifically, the BC appears to have reached consensus that registry operators and/or registrars should do lookups against the Clearinghouse database, and provide appropriate notices to all domain registration applicants. ALAC and other constituencies are of the same view, though some registrars and registries appear to resist. Those registries and/or registrars that choose to ignore this lookup and notice capability (for whatever reason) ought not be relieved from liability for that choice, and might be considered a bad faith contributor to systemic infringement, if not a direct infringer. I support your second sentence though! Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=...> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:25 AM To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here's one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a "blind eye" to infringements. I'm a fan of clever phrases such as "turn a blind eye", but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human "eye" looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two "blind eye" concerns in the BC comments with this statement: Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Again, thanks for working this on our behalf. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote: Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don't hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI.

Thanks Mike. Would your edited version still impose an affirmative obligation on registries to cross-reference the clearinghouse? From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:56 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thanks Chris, how about this? Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function [DELETE, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement.] However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=...> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Martin Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:35 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper I don't disagree with either Sarah's or Mike's comments on Steve's proposal. But in terms of getting something through that will work for all parties down the road, do we want to consider perhaps softening the language a bit? Perhaps change Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Understand that may still not be close enough to other positions on the committee, so just throwing out ideas. USCIB does not have an official position on this. Chris From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:57 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Hi Steve, BC members might disagree with most of your first sentence. Specifically, the BC appears to have reached consensus that registry operators and/or registrars should do lookups against the Clearinghouse database, and provide appropriate notices to all domain registration applicants. ALAC and other constituencies are of the same view, though some registrars and registries appear to resist. Those registries and/or registrars that choose to ignore this lookup and notice capability (for whatever reason) ought not be relieved from liability for that choice, and might be considered a bad faith contributor to systemic infringement, if not a direct infringer. I support your second sentence though! Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer=...> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:25 AM To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here's one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a "blind eye" to infringements. I'm a fan of clever phrases such as "turn a blind eye", but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human "eye" looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two "blind eye" concerns in the BC comments with this statement: Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Again, thanks for working this on our behalf. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote: Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don't hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI. 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.

Mike, Since this stakeholder groups is suppose to represent the interests of "businesses" perhaps we might step back for a minute and ask if we have acted like a business centric stakeholder group in proposing this solution. Given that it will be businesses and trademark owners that will have to self fund this service through their annual fees, would it not make sense for the business centric stakeholder group to conduct even a rudimentary technical and financial feasibility study in connection with your proposal. Your actions appear to remind me more of an overzealous legislature imposing complex regulatory obligations on small business operators without really appreciating 1) its financial impact 2) it technical feasibility and 3) the actual viability to solve the root problem. Now aside from these common sense questions, this proposal kind of totally ignore the additional facts: (1) this proposal goes above and beyond the original IRT recommendations which there reached through a rough consensus approach involving a diverse range of working group members (both contracting and non-contracting) and (2) kind of violates the spirit of the ICANN Board request, since this proposal does not appear aimed at a broad consensus solution but attempting to reopen the process and move the goal posts. I would ask that this dissent be attached in connection with any Commercial Stakeholder Group submission in connection with the STI submission, and I would hope that other members would be able to join me. Best regards, Michael Palage From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:58 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Hi David, I think yes, based on the concepts and language previously sent around to the List on 10/28, copied below, as there has not been a lot of specific opposition: TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed "IP claims") must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fares, David Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:59 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thanks Mike. Would your edited version still impose an affirmative obligation on registries to cross-reference the clearinghouse? From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:56 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thanks Chris, how about this? Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function [DELETE, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement.] However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Martin Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:35 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper I don't disagree with either Sarah's or Mike's comments on Steve's proposal. But in terms of getting something through that will work for all parties down the road, do we want to consider perhaps softening the language a bit? Perhaps change Registry operations for adding new names [DEL should be] ARE OFTEN a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws [DEL should not] MAY NOT ALWAYS in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Understand that may still not be close enough to other positions on the committee, so just throwing out ideas. USCIB does not have an official position on this. Chris From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:57 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Hi Steve, BC members might disagree with most of your first sentence. Specifically, the BC appears to have reached consensus that registry operators and/or registrars should do lookups against the Clearinghouse database, and provide appropriate notices to all domain registration applicants. ALAC and other constituencies are of the same view, though some registrars and registries appear to resist. Those registries and/or registrars that choose to ignore this lookup and notice capability (for whatever reason) ought not be relieved from liability for that choice, and might be considered a bad faith contributor to systemic infringement, if not a direct infringer. I support your second sentence though! Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 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: Thursday, November 05, 2009 11:25 AM To: Zahid Jamil; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper Thank-you, Zahid, for your exhaustive efforts on the rights protection mechanisms. As you requested, here's one comment on the draft BC position on Post Delegation Dispute Mechanism (PDDM): Twice in your draft you express concern about Registry Operators turning a "blind eye" to infringements. I'm a fan of clever phrases such as "turn a blind eye", but in this case I think the rhetoric may go too far. One of my registry members reminded me in Seoul that registry operations are highly automated processes. There is no human "eye" looking at registration Add records as they come in from registrars. Accordingly, I suggest replacing the two "blind eye" concerns in the BC comments with this statement: Registry operations for adding new names should be a highly-automated function, and the failure of a registry to take affirmative steps to assess whether a domain name violates trademark laws should not in itself constitute bad faith or systemic infringement. However, a registry operator who fails to perform the specific rights protection mechanisms enumerated in its Registry Operator's Agreement should be subject to PDDM claims, as set forth in the IRT Final Report. Again, thanks for working this on our behalf. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 11/4/09 12:37 PM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@dndrc.com> wrote: Would like to ask members that if there are any comments on the draft BC position on RPMs that was sent out earlier? If I don't hear anything on whether there will be comments and that I should hold sending this out to the GNSO, I will send it out by tomorrow to both the GNSO and the STI. 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.

Marilyn S. Cade 202 360 1196 or 202 251 6787 mscade@att.net or marilynscade@hotmail.com I am reading the "expression of Interest' materials, that Mike Palage thoughtfully forwarded to the BC list. While in general, I can see the merit of such a working group, it needs to be open to participation by representatives of the CSG -- and those representatives need to be carefully chosen from members who are not engaged in, consulting with, nor representing parties with an interest in applying for a new gTLD. When a member develops a change in status and becomes affiliated with registry applicants, that change then becomes a significant change and creates a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed to the BC members. Frankly, I fully appreciate that it is getting very difficult to find business representatives who are indeed business users -- and not either consulting with registry applicants, or considering the issue of becoming a 'brands' registry if they are a global brand. I am interested in identifying a few global brands representatives within the BC to develop a paragraph for the Charter that might be shared with members to see if we can carefully craft a category/'guidance' on when a global brand holder becomes a registry, and how they might still quality to be a BC member. Since most global brands -- IF they become a registry--will do so as an internally focused service -- their needs and roles will be very different from a market facing registry. We don't want to blow the BC up over the evolution of change in the development of new gTLDs; but we need to have some respect for the unique role of business users, or we really aren't adhering to the purpose, and intent of the existence of the BC. Still, for now, our charter [and the DRAFT Charter ] has certain requirements. So, three requests: 1) all BC members who are now in a different status need to declare their interests, and that needs to be disclosed to the BC members. 2) This group needs to be open to BC members who are not applicants, or consulting or advising applicants, beyond a single member3) The changes in the Charter that I proposed, and others supported are still pending. Many of our members -- Ayesha, Zahid, David Fares, Liesyl/Anders, Heather, myself, Steve, and possibly more -- will be leaving early to mid week for the IGF, which will take us totally out of commission for work on the Charter for several days. Mikey and I had offered to work with Philip to complete drafting. That offer stands, with the realistic perspective that I'm one of the IGF'ers. Marilyn From: michael@palage.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:12:49 -0500 Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [gnso-sti] Common Grounds Paper 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

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

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<http://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> [mailto: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<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com>

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 exclusion3) 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. LizOn 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 groups2) 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. AndruffRNA Partners, Inc.220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floorNew York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.comV: +1 212 481 2820 x 11F: +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. LizOn 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

Philip, I may be overlooking it, but can you point out where in the new Charter it explicitly notes that the BC representatives to the Council will vote according to the wishes of the constituency? As we experienced in Seoul, one of our representatives declared he is not bound by the view of the constituency and has a right to vote from his personal perspective. I think everyone in the BC is of like mind on this matter, i.e., our representative MUST vote the constituencies position. Thank you, 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 Philip Sheppard Sent: 2009-11-10 08:50 To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Charter On Marilyn's comment re the Charter. the present wording about prime interest should cover it. If it leads to any problems in the future lets address it with a real case in front of us not a speculative one. Any individual piece of the charter can be amended if it proves unfit for purpose. In the meantime dear BC members please VOTE ! Philip

I support Marilyn's request, as there appear to be some fundamental issues still unresolved. If we have to do this revision (and we must), then we have to do it correctly. 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 Marilyn Cade Sent: 2009-11-11 13:11 To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Inquiry: why are we voting in a 7 day voting period? instead of the normal 14 day? Can we please extend it to 14? Like several other BC members -- Heather, Ayesha, Liesyl/Anders, myself, David Fares, Zahid -- we are all traveling to Sharm El Sheikh for the IGF, and I for one cannot focus on the Charter to see if the changes were incorporated. A red line would be helpful but at this late date, as I am dashing for an airplane for an almost 24 hour flight due to layovers, I simply cannot do justice to the review of the Charter. I thought we had agreed to have one more redlined version/quick look before posting to a vote. I can't tell whether the changes that I had proposed are incorporated easily, as I could with a redlined version. Can that be posted as well? However, of equal concern is that this is an accelerated voting period of only 7 days. That makes little sense, especially with so many of the BC members occupied in a critical international meeting. Would other BC members join me in asking for the normal 14 day voting period? I am not sure when that would close, but it would increase the odds of my having the time to read the charter and decide whether to vote no or yes -- not just have to forgo my membership rights to vote. I am seeing questions from other members still. While I know we need to nail this down and get a vote, and move to elections, it would be unfortunate to have potentially six or so of our members away during the shortened voting period and unable to participate in the decision, _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 2009-11-10 08:50 To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Charter On Marilyn's comment re the Charter. the present wording about prime interest should cover it. If it leads to any problems in the future lets address it with a real case in front of us not a speculative one. Any individual piece of the charter can be amended if it proves unfit for purpose. In the meantime dear BC members please VOTE ! Philip

hm. my recollection was that we were going to go through one more round of revisions after Seoul to arrive at V20, and *then* vote. but the meeting minutes are a little vague on this and allow the interpretation that the officers would *draft* version 20 and put it out for a vote. looks like we have a couple of possible outcomes; - do one more rigorous review/redraft of the charter, and then put it to a vote (my recollection of the sense of the meeting) - vote this one up, get new officers installed, and fix the charter after they're in place either outcome is fine with me. mikey On Nov 12, 2009, at 1:19 AM, philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:

To my knowledge the last 10 years practise has been for a 7 day vote period for all BC votes. Policy paper discussions have been 14 days.

This vote follows more than 7 months of charter discussion and 19 drafts. The Seoul meeting outcome was to proceed directly to a final version and a vote. So members please do vote.

Philip

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

With respect to Liz and Philip, I, like Mikey, understood that we would see v20 when we finished our meeting in Seoul and vote once that was agreed upon. But that is not the real issue. The issue is why are we trying to push through a vote when we agree that we have some minor amendments to finish? Why don't we get that work done; then vote? If I am missing something, please advise. 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: 2009-11-12 09:03 To: Mike O'Connor Cc: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Inquiry: why are we voting in a 7 day voting period? Hello everyone Could I make a suggestion that may take us forward? The Charter has indeed been through many iterations. I support the move to a vote now and then hold our elections and then, for the new willing victims, they take only the very few sections that may need amending and do that as their first piece of work once they are in place. For example, we would ONLY look at section 1.x or 3.y that may need amending in the early new year. I suspect that the amendments are small and that we ought not get stuck at the last hurdle. Liz On 12 Nov 2009, at 13:20, Mike O'Connor wrote:

hm. my recollection was that we were going to go through one more round of revisions after Seoul to arrive at V20, and *then* vote. but the meeting minutes are a little vague on this and allow the interpretation that the officers would *draft* version 20 and put it out for a vote.

looks like we have a couple of possible outcomes;

- do one more rigorous review/redraft of the charter, and then put it to a vote (my recollection of the sense of the meeting)

- vote this one up, get new officers installed, and fix the charter after they're in place

either outcome is fine with me.

mikey

On Nov 12, 2009, at 1:19 AM, philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:

...

To my knowledge the last 10 years practise has been for a 7 day vote period for all BC votes. Policy paper discussions have been 14 days.

This vote follows more than 7 months of charter discussion and 19 drafts. The Seoul meeting outcome was to proceed directly to a final version and a vote. So members please do vote.

Philip

- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

Hi Ron, When did a representative say that? The BC's GNSO Councilors are bound to "remain faithful to approved positions" of the BC. I believe the existing Charter is perfectly clear and correct in this respect, and we have suggested the same text in the proposed Charter, section 7.5. Councilors should never be bound by the informal consensus of a small subgroup of members, though such input is always welcome. Hope this answers your question and concern. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:36 AM To: 'Philip Sheppard'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Charter - Councilor's vote Philip, I may be overlooking it, but can you point out where in the new Charter it explicitly notes that the BC representatives to the Council will vote according to the wishes of the constituency? As we experienced in Seoul, one of our representatives declared he is not bound by the view of the constituency and has a right to vote from his personal perspective. I think everyone in the BC is of like mind on this matter, i.e., our representative MUST vote the constituencies position. Thank you, 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 Philip Sheppard Sent: 2009-11-10 08:50 To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] Charter On Marilyn's comment re the Charter. the present wording about prime interest should cover it. If it leads to any problems in the future lets address it with a real case in front of us not a speculative one. Any individual piece of the charter can be amended if it proves unfit for purpose. In the meantime dear BC members please VOTE ! Philip

Liz, thanks a lot for your response. Can you also clarify that you are now advising a registry and whether you have updated your interest statement for the BC. I fully understand that other members may have the same need in the future. As to your description of how a global brand would be treated -- I really question that is the right approach. If a company -- and I'd prefer not to use any name brand company, since I am not speaking for any one in raising this question -- a company that holds a brand that is highly visible in all five regions, and does business, say in 50 countries around the globe - - decided to apply for a .brand for internal use purposes only, I am not at all clear that company would want to, or would fit into a GTLD registry constituency. That was what I was suggesting needed to be discussed. I see that Philip Sheppard has suggested that need not be addressed before voting on the charter and that he thought that there was a reasonable and reasoned approach to how to deal with such instances. CC: bc-gnso@icann.org From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: marilynscade@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:08:27 +0000 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 exclusion3) 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. LizOn 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 groups2) 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. AndruffRNA Partners, Inc.220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floorNew York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.comV: +1 212 481 2820 x 11F: +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. LizOn 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