urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list < bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
I support Ron's suggestion too, in part because there are so many outstanding issues. If the Board realistically cannot respond to all of these substantive issues at this point in the process, then a general remedy to address the concerns is to limit the initial round and allow a fact-based review of that round to inform the process. And I think that is in the interest of the business community too as a way to provide a path forward, recognizing that all of our concerns have not been addressed. Jon, you raise good points about the practical concerns, but can't the starting point be a numerical limit based on the timing of when applications make it through the process. I would think that would reward applicants that are ready to move quickly and do not trigger the objection or conflict process. Jeff Sent from my iPad On Mar 13, 2011, at 5:36 PM, "Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <tero.mustala@nsn.com> wrote:
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
regards
Tero
Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
Thanks.
Jon
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
<Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf>
I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications. 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 Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com _____ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming. I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won't be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds. Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown. BR, -jr From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications. 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 Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process continues to stretch out. mikey On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> wrote:
I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.
I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds.
Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown.
BR,
-jr
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications.
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] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
regards
Tero
Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
Thanks.
Jon
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
I also oppose the limiting the pool concept. Such an action could just delay this process even further. Best, Chuck Warren Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:57 To: <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> Cc: <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; <tero.mustala@nsn.com>; <jon@nevett.net>; <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; <randruff@rnapartners.com>; <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process continues to stretch out. mikey On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> wrote:
I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.
I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds.
Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown.
BR,
-jr
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications.
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] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
regards
Tero
Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
Thanks.
Jon
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
For the reasons put forth by Ron and Jeff as well as the GAC and ICANN's own economic studies, News Corp supports the approach of a limited round introduction of new gTLDs. From: warren65@gmail.com [mailto:warren65@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:11 PM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; tero.mustala@nsn.com <tero.mustala@nsn.com>; jon@nevett.net <jon@nevett.net>; psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I also oppose the limiting the pool concept. Such an action could just delay this process even further. Best, Chuck Warren Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ________________________________ From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:57 -0700 To: <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> Cc: <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; <tero.mustala@nsn.com>; <jon@nevett.net>; <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; <randruff@rnapartners.com>; <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process continues to stretch out. mikey On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com>> wrote: I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming. I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds. Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown. BR, -jr From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications. 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> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com<mailto:tero.mustala@nsn.com> ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) 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.
Janet - agreed. MM and our clients are hoping for a more orderly release of tld's. - Fred Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM, "O'Callaghan, Janet" <JOCallaghan@newscorp.com> wrote:
For the reasons put forth by Ron and Jeff as well as the GAC and ICANN's own economic studies, News Corp supports the approach of a limited round introduction of new gTLDs.
From: warren65@gmail.com [mailto:warren65@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:11 PM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; tero.mustala@nsn.com <tero.mustala@nsn.com>; jon@nevett.net <jon@nevett.net>; psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I also oppose the limiting the pool concept. Such an action could just delay this process even further.
Best,
Chuck Warren Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:57 -0700 To: <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> Cc: <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; <tero.mustala@nsn.com>; <jon@nevett.net>; <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; <randruff@rnapartners.com>; <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process continues to stretch out.
mikey
On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> wrote:
I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.
I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds.
Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown.
BR,
-jr
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications.
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] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
regards
Tero
Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
Thanks.
Jon
On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support.
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
Marilyn and all,
In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls....
Kind regards,
RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2].
I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement.
Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ]
I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
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.
I agree with Fred and Janet that Ron’s suggestion of a limited round has merit. Lane Lane Mortensen VP / Operational Risk Manager ISG Risk Management, Compliance & Web Governance Wells Fargo Internet Services Group | 333 Market Street, 27th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 MAC A0119-271 Tel 415-371-5884 Cell 925-642-8223 mortenla@wellsfargo.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Felman Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:03 AM To: O'Callaghan, Janet Cc: warren65@gmail.com; mike@haven2.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; tero.mustala@nsn.com; jon@nevett.net; psc@vlaw-dc.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Janet - agreed. MM and our clients are hoping for a more orderly release of tld's. - Fred Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM, "O'Callaghan, Janet" <JOCallaghan@newscorp.com<mailto:JOCallaghan@newscorp.com>> wrote: For the reasons put forth by Ron and Jeff as well as the GAC and ICANN's own economic studies, News Corp supports the approach of a limited round introduction of new gTLDs. From: warren65@gmail.com<mailto:warren65@gmail.com> [mailto:warren65@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:11 PM To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com> <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com>> Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com> <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; tero.mustala@nsn.com<mailto:tero.mustala@nsn.com> <tero.mustala@nsn.com<mailto:tero.mustala@nsn.com>>; jon@nevett.net<mailto:jon@nevett.net> <jon@nevett.net<mailto:jon@nevett.net>>; psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>; Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I also oppose the limiting the pool concept. Such an action could just delay this process even further. Best, Chuck Warren Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ________________________________ From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:57 -0700 To: <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com>> Cc: <icann@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com>>; <tero.mustala@nsn.com<mailto:tero.mustala@nsn.com>>; <jon@nevett.net<mailto:jon@nevett.net>>; <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; <randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>>; <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process continues to stretch out. mikey On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com<mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com>> wrote: I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming. I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds. Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown. BR, -jr From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications. 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] On Behalf Of Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com<mailto:tero.mustala@nsn.com> ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com>; marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com<mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned. - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) 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.
What if we were to recommend limiting the round to geographical names only? Since, letters of support or non-objection are required for these; the GAC may also be amenable to this approach? ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:03 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; tero.mustala@nsn.com; jon@nevett.net; psc@vlaw-dc.com Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming. I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won't be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds. Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN. Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons. I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown. BR, -jr From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39 To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin' Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I agree with Jon and Tero. The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next. To try to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further community debate. Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs. It is time to resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications. 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 Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns. regards Tero Tero Mustala Principal Consultant, CTO/Industry Environment Nokia Siemens Networks tero.mustala@nsn.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Jon Nevett Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: randruff@rnapartners.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide which ones to move forward on? For example, why RPMs in generics would be more important than in .nyc? Do you do it randomly? Not sure the equity in that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? Thanks. Jon On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote: Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues Marilyn and all, In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and halls.... Kind regards, RA ________________________________________ Ron Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. randruff@rnapartners.com www.rnapartners.com ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400 To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 2]. I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the statement. Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the discussions so far. ] I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with you all/stay closely tuned.
participants (14)
-
BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI) -
Elisa Cooper -
Frederick Felman -
jarkko.ruuska＠nokia.com -
Jon Nevett -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike O'Connor -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
mortenla＠wellsfargo.com -
Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo) -
O'Callaghan, Janet -
Phil Corwin -
Ron Andruff -
warren65＠gmail.com