FW: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Dear colleagues My apologies for not getting my attachment on the LAST email. Thanks to several of you who emailed me and called me to let me know. I appreciate the work that all have done on this. For anyone who has trouble finding the GAC advice I mention, just so a search on the names of the relevant documents. :-) I have now integratied my comments into the latest version. Some of my concerns were captured by others. I will note, however, that we have a keen responsibility to take note of the GAC advice of 2007 -- WHICH we strongly supported; and the Brussels Scorecard -- which we STRONGLY supported, and so on and so forth. The GAC accepted our own scorecard -- which we developed jointly with IPC and ISPs endorsed in general as areas of concern. On many of the items of concern to BC, if you go through GAC advice in detail looking for what we have seen before, and often raised and supported as areas of concern as business user constituency, show significant consistency between the GAC advice in the Communique from Beijing, and in the BC's longstanding concerns. I did note that someone cut out a comment from Sarah Deutsch regarding compliance with applicable law, which I agree with. I had added in some language, and cut out the statement that was proposed that the ICANN GC /legal do work on behalf of the applicants. That statement was very strange to me and I couldn't see in the comments/discussion where it would have come from. IF any members want to debate that within the BC, I am happy to, but frankly, I don't think that the BC ever thought that ICANN would take on research about applicable laws to any applicant.I am sure no responsible applicant from a regulated industry would entrust an ICANN legal doc on such critical issues anyway, and I would doubt that any regulator who heard that was the 'plan' would burst into derisive laughter about whether that applicant was credible in any way. Thinking about risks to ICANN and therefore risks to those who want to avoid governments taking over ICANN's functions or 'adding in more governmental intervention: During the recent WTPF meeting in Geneva, many governments -- Latim and African and European -- raised the concern that ICANN and 'parts' of the ICANN community deny that governments are responsible for public interest. Questions were raised by many governments about how the GAC advice has been consistently ignored, or denied. Several BC members -- AT&T, Verizon, PayPal; myself, Ayesha, Amazon, Google were present in the WTPF. Ayesha and I stayed for the WSIS action line Forum on Friday. Strong statements were made about concerns about geo names; and some governments are skeptical that we in the ICANN community are working in good faith with governments in their fulfilling their role within ICANN. It is not lost on the governments that we, the BC, have come to them over and over to discuss areas of concern. Please note that the concerns about geo/territorial names is NOT new. And, it is not a matter of trademark protection in any way. Geo/Territorial names are highly sensitive geo political issues to governments. I can't imagine how that was every NOT understood. What the governments asked for is more discussion on such names. I know that all of us are committed to respecting the role and mission of the BC as representing business users. It may be that some members are having to recuse themselves, and that is a positive and responsible decision, which I want to acknowledge and applaud. It is this kind of respect for our role in representing business users that makes the BC possible to respect for its integrity. I made a lot of edits, and I am happy to discuss them. I do not propose to do that on the Members call, as there is a robust agenda already. Marilyn Cade From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: marilynscade@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:57:41 +0000 No attachment, Marilyn From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM To: Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial draft implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, and several other spots. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31 To: <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en....> ) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
Thanks everyone for their work on these comments. Keeping this to the perspective of a business user, I suggest either going back to the original language on Restricted Registration Policies or as has been suggested earlier - refrain from taking a position altogether. The most recent statements regarding this section appear to suggest that the BC change its position on this subject (note the BC comments earlier this year on the Board's question of whether to create a new classification for "closed generic" TLDs). I respect everyone's views on the underlying issues and suggest the BC keep the original language or refrain from commenting in this section. Regards, Emmett From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:01 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Dear colleagues My apologies for not getting my attachment on the LAST email. Thanks to several of you who emailed me and called me to let me know. I appreciate the work that all have done on this. For anyone who has trouble finding the GAC advice I mention, just so a search on the names of the relevant documents. :-) I have now integratied my comments into the latest version. Some of my concerns were captured by others. I will note, however, that we have a keen responsibility to take note of the GAC advice of 2007 -- WHICH we strongly supported; and the Brussels Scorecard -- which we STRONGLY supported, and so on and so forth. The GAC accepted our own scorecard -- which we developed jointly with IPC and ISPs endorsed in general as areas of concern. On many of the items of concern to BC, if you go through GAC advice in detail looking for what we have seen before, and often raised and supported as areas of concern as business user constituency, show significant consistency between the GAC advice in the Communique from Beijing, and in the BC's longstanding concerns. I did note that someone cut out a comment from Sarah Deutsch regarding compliance with applicable law, which I agree with. I had added in some language, and cut out the statement that was proposed that the ICANN GC /legal do work on behalf of the applicants. That statement was very strange to me and I couldn't see in the comments/discussion where it would have come from. IF any members want to debate that within the BC, I am happy to, but frankly, I don't think that the BC ever thought that ICANN would take on research about applicable laws to any applicant. I am sure no responsible applicant from a regulated industry would entrust an ICANN legal doc on such critical issues anyway, and I would doubt that any regulator who heard that was the 'plan' would burst into derisive laughter about whether that applicant was credible in any way. Thinking about risks to ICANN and therefore risks to those who want to avoid governments taking over ICANN's functions or 'adding in more governmental intervention: During the recent WTPF meeting in Geneva, many governments -- Latim and African and European -- raised the concern that ICANN and 'parts' of the ICANN community deny that governments are responsible for public interest. Questions were raised by many governments about how the GAC advice has been consistently ignored, or denied. Several BC members -- AT&T, Verizon, PayPal; myself, Ayesha, Amazon, Google were present in the WTPF. Ayesha and I stayed for the WSIS action line Forum on Friday. Strong statements were made about concerns about geo names; and some governments are skeptical that we in the ICANN community are working in good faith with governments in their fulfilling their role within ICANN. It is not lost on the governments that we, the BC, have come to them over and over to discuss areas of concern. Please note that the concerns about geo/territorial names is NOT new. And, it is not a matter of trademark protection in any way. Geo/Territorial names are highly sensitive geo political issues to governments. I can't imagine how that was every NOT understood. What the governments asked for is more discussion on such names. I know that all of us are committed to respecting the role and mission of the BC as representing business users. It may be that some members are having to recuse themselves, and that is a positive and responsible decision, which I want to acknowledge and applaud. It is this kind of respect for our role in representing business users that makes the BC possible to respect for its integrity. I made a lot of edits, and I am happy to discuss them. I do not propose to do that on the Members call, as there is a robust agenda already. Marilyn Cade ________________________________ From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:57:41 +0000 No attachment, Marilyn From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM To: Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Bc GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial draft implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, and several other spots. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31 To: <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>; <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en....> ) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> ). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency
participants (2)
-
Marilyn Cade -
O'Keefe, Emmett