existing BC position on batching
In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2... As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
Steve, Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC's recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I'd like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again. My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN's to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics. I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., that: "name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs." This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well. Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience while I get up to speed. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2... As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn and Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers. I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her comments in general. An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got the impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both IDNs and community-based applications. However, upon reading the position statement in the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls for prioritization of community-based applications. If that is indeed the case, I would offer that this is actually a good thing: As implied in the comments today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for prioritization per se. Instead, as we continue the discussion and calibration of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we might eventually tweak the position to read that we support the prioritization of community-based applications--including and especially IDNS that are community based. That is very different from wholesale endorsement of IDN prioritization because it removes types of IDNs (e.g., .brand IDNs) that would not carry the same rationale for prioritization. Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application window closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the topic. Best, Bryce ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Hansen, Anjali [AHansen@council.bbb.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching Steve, Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC’s recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I’d like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again. My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN’s to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics. I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., that: “name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.” This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well. Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience while I get up to speed. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2... As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
While not taking any firm position on batching until ICANN actually reduces its proposal to writing in a comprehensible form (if that is possible) and ICA's members have a chance to review it and weigh in, I do feel a need to make a cautionary statement -- There should not be an assumption that new generic gTLDs will not add value and innovation to the DNS, and it would be problematic to have a position which relegated all generic bids to a second or later batch based on such an assumption. 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 Bryce Coughlin [Bryce.Coughlin@fox.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:08 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn and Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers. I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her comments in general. An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got the impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both IDNs and community-based applications. However, upon reading the position statement in the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls for prioritization of community-based applications. If that is indeed the case, I would offer that this is actually a good thing: As implied in the comments today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for prioritization per se. Instead, as we continue the discussion and calibration of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we might eventually tweak the position to read that we support the prioritization of community-based applications--including and especially IDNS that are community based. That is very different from wholesale endorsement of IDN prioritization because it removes types of IDNs (e.g., .brand IDNs) that would not carry the same rationale for prioritization. Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application window closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the topic. Best, Bryce ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Hansen, Anjali [AHansen@council.bbb.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching Steve, Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC’s recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I’d like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again. My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN’s to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics. I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., that: “name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.” This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well. Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience while I get up to speed. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2... As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
Agreed. 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 Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:49 AM To: Bryce Coughlin; Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching While not taking any firm position on batching until ICANN actually reduces its proposal to writing in a comprehensible form (if that is possible) and ICA's members have a chance to review it and weigh in, I do feel a need to make a cautionary statement -- There should not be an assumption that new generic gTLDs will not add value and innovation to the DNS, and it would be problematic to have a position which relegated all generic bids to a second or later batch based on such an assumption. 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 Bryce Coughlin [Bryce.Coughlin@fox.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:08 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn and Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers. I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her comments in general. An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got the impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both IDNs and community-based applications. However, upon reading the position statement in the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls for prioritization of community-based applications. If that is indeed the case, I would offer that this is actually a good thing: As implied in the comments today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for prioritization per se. Instead, as we continue the discussion and calibration of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we might eventually tweak the position to read that we support the prioritization of community-based applications--including and especially IDNS that are community based. That is very different from wholesale endorsement of IDN prioritization because it removes types of IDNs (e.g., .brand IDNs) that would not carry the same rationale for prioritization. Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application window closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the topic. Best, Bryce _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Hansen, Anjali [AHansen@council.bbb.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching Steve, Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC's recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I'd like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again. My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN's to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics. I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., that: "name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs." This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well. Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience while I get up to speed. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: <mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> ahansen@council.bbb.org <http://www.bbb.org/> www.bbb.org | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/> Find us on: <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> Twitter | <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> Facebook | <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> LinkedIn | <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> YouTube | <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> Flickr <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2 011+v3.pdf As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
Yes, I agree as well. That was not my position, but rather one put forth by IPC members I believe. I was just restating the position. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:01 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching Agreed. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:49 AM To: Bryce Coughlin; Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching While not taking any firm position on batching until ICANN actually reduces its proposal to writing in a comprehensible form (if that is possible) and ICA's members have a chance to review it and weigh in, I do feel a need to make a cautionary statement -- There should not be an assumption that new generic gTLDs will not add value and innovation to the DNS, and it would be problematic to have a position which relegated all generic bids to a second or later batch based on such an assumption. 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<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Bryce Coughlin [Bryce.Coughlin@fox.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:08 AM To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn and Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers. I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her comments in general. An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got the impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both IDNs and community-based applications. However, upon reading the position statement in the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls for prioritization of community-based applications. If that is indeed the case, I would offer that this is actually a good thing: As implied in the comments today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for prioritization per se. Instead, as we continue the discussion and calibration of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we might eventually tweak the position to read that we support the prioritization of community-based applications--including and especially IDNS that are community based. That is very different from wholesale endorsement of IDN prioritization because it removes types of IDNs (e.g., .brand IDNs) that would not carry the same rationale for prioritization. Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application window closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the topic. Best, Bryce ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Hansen, Anjali [AHansen@council.bbb.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching Steve, Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers. I agree with the BC's recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant Guidebook in the link you sent. Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN. I'd like to keep pushing for this list in the future. I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register. This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries and registrars. I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again. My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands. I worry about allowing all IDN's to go first since many of those could fall under brands or generics. I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications. I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., that: "name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs." This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well. Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date. I look forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience while I get up to speed. Anjali Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching: See below and on Page 3 of the document at http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2... As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.
participants (5)
-
Bryce Coughlin -
Hansen, Anjali -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com -
Phil Corwin -
Steve DelBianco