result of review period on BC suggested implementation improvements
This is a follow-up regarding BC suggestions for implementation improvements to the new gTLD program. In late December, Marilyn and I circulated a draft improvements letter from the BC drawing on prior BC positions. My records show that we received email objections to that letter from 4 BC members: Mikey O'Connor 29-Dec Bill Smith (Paypal) 29-Dec Mike Rodenbaugh 29-Dec Mike Palage 30-Dec I concluded that this showed "initial significant disagreement" per our charter: 7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement. Members who seek changes to a draft should submit proposed language in writing. If there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or discussion at a physical meeting. So we opened a formal review & comment period from Feb 3 thru Feb 17 on the two detailed tables of improvements and prior positions. (attached) My records show we received written comments from 9 members (listed at bottom). To summarize: Mike Rodenbaugh registered his objection, as he did in December. Phil Corwin disagreed with some of the improvements. We also recorded written Support from 7 members, many with additional comments. Sec 7.4 of our Charter guides us on "Approval where there is continued disagreement": 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement. Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. During the formal comment period, we recorded 2 objections. Combined with the December comments, we had 5 members objecting (Mike Rodenbaugh was in both counts). 5 member objections do not meet the 15% threshold that would trigger a formal ballot. ( 46 x .15 = 6.9 ) We therefore do not need to conduct formal voting, and the list of implementation improvements are now considered an official BC position. The attached letter to the ICANN Board was created by extracting the first column of the two tables, plus some additional context. It will be sent to Crocker and Beckstrom, with cc to GAC Chair. It will also be posted today to the ICANN Public Comment on defensive applications at the top level, citing our first recommendation on TLD applications and attaching the full list. Just let me know if members have questions about process or substance on this. --Steve ----- Mike Rodenbaugh: No comments on section 1. Mike objects to Section 2, saying recommendations are not clearly described and are missing essential details and justifications (e.g. "Do Not Register") Yvette Miller (CADNA): no comments on section 1. No objections in section 2, but offered comments: Supports suggestion that Non-profit applicants should not be sent to auction. Also says non-profits should get Applicant Support. Strongly supports "Do Not Register" and endorsed the ICM method of permanent blocking. Strongly supports date-certain for next round. Ron Andruff supported CADNA comments. Phil Corwin (ICA): Section 1, comment on URS: concerned that Transfer option makes URS a substitute for UDRP. Okay with TM Claims notice for any name previously suspended in URS. Section 2, regarding CADNA's point (5): ICA disagrees with special treatment of all non-profits. Phil disagrees with JAS, on principle that subsidies are resource transfers that go beyond ICANN's mandate. Phil is checking with ICA members on "Do Not Register" Unrealistic to expect Board to set a date-certain for next round. Marilyn Cade: Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Sarah Deutsch (Verizon): Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Martin Sutton (HSBC): Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Jeff Brueggeman (ATT): Yes on all Section 2 improvements Lane Mortenson (Wells Fargo) Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements
These look good. I particularly like the way we have dealt with underserved strings in 2.1/2.2 and the RPMs. Seems the hard work has paid off. Thanks to all. Looks good to go. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: 27 February 2012 22:37 To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] result of review period on BC suggested implementation improvements This is a follow-up regarding BC suggestions for implementation improvements to the new gTLD program. In late December, Marilyn and I circulated a draft improvements letter from the BC drawing on prior BC positions. My records show that we received email objections to that letter from 4 BC members: Mikey O'Connor 29-Dec Bill Smith (Paypal) 29-Dec Mike Rodenbaugh 29-Dec Mike Palage 30-Dec I concluded that this showed "initial significant disagreement" per our charter: 7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement. Members who seek changes to a draft should submit proposed language in writing. If there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or discussion at a physical meeting. So we opened a formal review & comment period from Feb 3 thru Feb 17 on the two detailed tables of improvements and prior positions. (attached) My records show we received written comments from 9 members (listed at bottom). To summarize: Mike Rodenbaugh registered his objection, as he did in December. Phil Corwin disagreed with some of the improvements. We also recorded written Support from 7 members, many with additional comments. Sec 7.4 of our Charter guides us on "Approval where there is continued disagreement": 7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement. Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on the position. During the formal comment period, we recorded 2 objections. Combined with the December comments, we had 5 members objecting (Mike Rodenbaugh was in both counts). 5 member objections do not meet the 15% threshold that would trigger a formal ballot. ( 46 x .15 = 6.9 ) We therefore do not need to conduct formal voting, and the list of implementation improvements are now considered an official BC position. The attached letter to the ICANN Board was created by extracting the first column of the two tables, plus some additional context. It will be sent to Crocker and Beckstrom, with cc to GAC Chair. It will also be posted today to the ICANN Public Comment on defensive applications at the top level, citing our first recommendation on TLD applications and attaching the full list. Just let me know if members have questions about process or substance on this. --Steve ----- Mike Rodenbaugh: No comments on section 1. Mike objects to Section 2, saying recommendations are not clearly described and are missing essential details and justifications (e.g. "Do Not Register") Yvette Miller (CADNA): no comments on section 1. No objections in section 2, but offered comments: Supports suggestion that Non-profit applicants should not be sent to auction. Also says non-profits should get Applicant Support. Strongly supports "Do Not Register" and endorsed the ICM method of permanent blocking. Strongly supports date-certain for next round. Ron Andruff supported CADNA comments. Phil Corwin (ICA): Section 1, comment on URS: concerned that Transfer option makes URS a substitute for UDRP. Okay with TM Claims notice for any name previously suspended in URS. Section 2, regarding CADNA's point (5): ICA disagrees with special treatment of all non-profits. Phil disagrees with JAS, on principle that subsidies are resource transfers that go beyond ICANN's mandate. Phil is checking with ICA members on "Do Not Register" Unrealistic to expect Board to set a date-certain for next round. Marilyn Cade: Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Sarah Deutsch (Verizon): Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Martin Sutton (HSBC): Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments Jeff Brueggeman (ATT): Yes on all Section 2 improvements Lane Mortenson (Wells Fargo) Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments Yes on all Section 2 improvements
participants (2)
-
Steve DelBianco -
Zahid Jamil