RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, David, you are correct in your statement and the annex in my attachment
was indeed a lift from the BC position.  We will need postings on this topic
from the BC, but I truly believe it will require many individual postings as
well to force the senior staff to relent on this issue.  We welcome you
posting directly in this regard.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Fares, David
Sent: 2009-10-27 05:50
To: Ron Andruff; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs

 

Thanks Ron.  If I am not mistaken, the concept of differentiation for new
gTLDs is a position the BC endorsed in previous rounds of new gTLDs.  I
think it is a good idea to pursue.  Thanks.

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:26 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
Importance: High

 

Sorry for the double posting should this email pop up twice.  Important
information noted below.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
Importance: High

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly introduction of
domain names prior to the Seoul meeting for the benefit of membership
review.  While here, we have had many discussions with the leadership and
membership of the IP, ISP, ALAC, and GAC and we are finding significant
support for our argument.  The GAC are moving toward 'categorization', which
would be a much too narrow approach, so concerned ICANN community members
appear to be coalescing around our argument for 'differentiation'.  This
morning at the CSG meeting, I recommended that we start the process with
differentiation and then, if found to be not necessary, we could then remove
such a restriction.  We cannot do this the other way around because once the
genie is out of the bottle there is no getting her back in.

 

Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to the gathering
support for what they call 'categorization', is "not necessary" or "too
late".   This is extremely discomfiting.  On the other hand, Board member
Thomas Narten stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure
which way to go on this.  I read this to mean that senior staff is standing
at the barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community's
input.

 

Our argument is based completely on existing 'policy'.  That is to say, we
are noting (1) that the GNSO Final Report is not being properly implemented;
(2) the Scaling the Root Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC's
long-standing (9-years) position on the introduction of new gTLDs.

 

Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has now been
circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP
leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers
in the community.  In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the
new gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet.  We can
be certain that there are those within our ICANN community - let alone those
outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can
be gamed - who will take advantage of a 'no rules' names introduction.  As
such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue serious consideration
and post comments in support of 'differentiation' language being added to
the DAG v4.  We are not married to the language suggested in the document,
so any amendments you have in that regard are also welcome.

 

If I can be of further assistance please contact me.

 

Thank you,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

dotSport LLC

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

 <mailto:ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  

 <http://www.dotsportllc.com> www.dotsportllc.com  

 


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.