RE: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter
- To: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>, Jarkko Ruuska <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:42:03 -0500
Liz, I am puzzled.. you are representing the BC, or acting for a registry in
this discussion on the BC list?
The materials that have forwarded to the BC list are showing you as
representing CORE. I have no problems with BC members representing their
clients interests as long as they disclose the change in status to the BC list,
but would like to have clarification of what role you are playing, and your
I am still puzzled even more by the creation of a group on this topic. Was that
chartered by the Board resolution, or is this simply a well meaning set of
players who are working together in an ad hoc manner to try to develop a 'straw
Is there indeed a staff development underway that the BC should be following?
Finally, this actually raises to the level of visibility a concern about how
the BC is affected by the changing role of individual members, and 'brands'
representatives. I think that we may have some other members who also may have
some challenges with the present draft of the Charter; for instance:
As I said in an earlier email, the questions of whether global brands will need
some kind of 'dispensation' if they become an applicant, but that is a very
small part of their business and they remain focused on being a business user
needs addressing in the Charter that is presently posted for a 'vote'. It
appears that a global brand who becomes a registry could be ineligible as a BC
Are we going to have an exclusion for consulting services who represent
registries? Does there need to be a 'firewall' regarding broader BC business
interests? Or are we at a stage where there is no clarity about the
distinctiveness,between registry applicants, or potential applicants when they
are brands holders who may have to, or want to apply for a .brands?
All of this is unclear in the Charter, and it looks like a global brand could
be excluded when they become a registry. Not sure that was the intent...
1) As a BC member, I would ask that anyone who is actively engaging with
registry applications that has not yet declared that to the BC list, do so.
Simply saying that you have advised the secretariat isn't really fair to the BC
membership who may not be aware of your change in status. This can happen to
any of us, and may. We just need to be committed to declaring interests, so
that we protect the integrity of the unique identify of the BC as a Business
user focused entity.
2) The charter needs to be reviewed by the global brands members to see if they
are comfortable with the potential exclusion3) The separate 'working group'
needs clarification -- is it an ad hoc effort, however well meaning, or is it
chartered by ICANN? If the former, how will it fit into the ICANN staff follow
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:06:57 +0000
Just to be clear there is no self appointed group with limited participation.
Anyone is free to participate, either representing just themselves or a broader
group. The Board made a resolution which was a completely open process. The
full resolution is on the Board minutes page.
A very wide ranging group attended the first call (in no order and just from my
memory) Bret Fausett, Tony Harris, Susan Kawaguchi, Johannes Lenz, Paul
McGrady, Antony Van Couvering, Stephane Van Gelder, Nick Wood, Bolei Zhan and a
few others). It is not "pre-limited" to any "group of possible TLD applicants".
The MP3 recording is here
Patrick Van der Walle has set up an email list which anyone can join by
sending a note to [Eoi-wg@xxxxxx].
The next call is on Friday.
LizOn 10 Nov 2009, at 07:39, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:Hello,
I have say that I agree with Ron in this one. Intentions might be good but I
share the following concerns:
1) Self-appointed group to grab the process for themselves with limited
participation from stakeholder groups2) It seems unfair to pre-limit the group
of possible TLD applicants
On 9.11.2009, at 19.30, ext Ron Andruff wrote:Liz, I think you may be putting
the cart before the horse. I have it on good authority that staff is going to
be putting forward a plan in the next days for the community to comment on
prior to a more synthesized plan going before the board on December 7th. For
my part, I don’t see the wisdom in independently selecting a hand picked team
under a self-developed Working Group charter, particularly when the new GNSO
and Chair are just getting their heads around new operating procedures. It’s
confusing. I applaud the effort, but am concerned about the confusing messages
being pushed to, or received by, the community. Everyone is anxious to seize
on an opening, but let’s not rush the process. Kind regards, RA Ronald N.
AndruffRNA Partners, Inc.220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floorNew York, New York 10001
www.rnapartners.comV: +1 212 481 2820 x 11F: +1 212 481 2859 From:
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz
Sent: 2009-11-08 09:43
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group Hello Mike
The small "points of contact" group is designed to reach out to everyone who
may have an interest. You'll see that the indicative slate has "names" from
each of the GNSO groups, the GAC, ALAC, ccNSO. The Board resolution requires a
plan by the end of November for submission to the Dec 7 Board meeting. Anyone
is welcome to participate but use the point of contact in the first instance so
that the group can work efficiently. A publicly archived mail list, posting of
documents and full disclosure of the document trail has already been requested
as support from ICANN. Anyone can request to be an observer of the group.
LizOn 7 Nov 2009, at 20:12, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Hello All: Could the BC leadership please update the membership on this
proposed Working Group for Expressions of Interests in connection with new
gTLDs. It appears that Minds + Machines and other “TLD promoters” have proposed
a Working Group for new gTLD Expressions of Interest. While I have no
objection to the creation of such a working group, the proposal to limit
participation to an apparent self-interested group is rather concerning.
Hopefully the new Council, and our elected representatives will make sure that
this Working Group is open to all that wish to participate.
(Doc #3) I am concerned that the BC will only have one representative (See Doc
#2), and this self-selected group appears to have reached out unilaterally to
Susan Kawaguchi. While I think Susan would provide an excellent participant I
think all interested members from the Commercial Stakeholder Group should be
able to participate. Best regards, Michael Palage
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland
Tel: +358 50 324 7507