Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter
- To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:08:27 +0000
Thanks for the questions.
I am not representing the BC -- I have no authority to do that. If I
did, I would say so. You'll note that Susan Kawaguchi participated
(in her own capacity) and not representing Facebook.
The loose group was formed in response to the Board resolution -- I
suspect it will dissolve in effect on Friday after a draft proposal is
submitted to the staff who then have to work to meet the December 7
date. I am unsure of the appointed staff person who will take over
As to your point of the brands, given that the group is open to anyone
to participate (and there were several global brand people/
representatives on the call) then it's up to the brand people to
follow the debate and participate where they want? IPC people were
there -- Paul McGrady, Nick Wood et al (again representing themselves
not the IPC).
To address your question about whether a brand would become a registry
-- using AT & T as an example. If AT & T had a registry contract with
ICANN, then it would become a registry and be entitled to be a member
of the GNSO Registry Constituency. I think that observer status has
already been provided by the RyC for that to happen to enable
potential new registries to participate. You could confirm that with
On 10 Nov 2009, at 13:42, Marilyn Cade wrote:
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 interests.
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 proposal'?
Is there indeed a staff development underway that the BC should be
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
2) The charter needs to be reviewed by the global brands members to
see if they are comfortable with the potential exclusion
3) 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 up/follow on?
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 http://www.freeconference.com/Recordings/ConferenceRecording-7960097-440828.mp3
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.
On 10 Nov 2009, at 07:39, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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 groups
2) It seems unfair to pre-limit the group of possible TLD applicants
On 9.11.2009, at 19.30, ext Ron Andruff wrote:
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.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
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 Liz Williams
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
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
On 7 Nov 2009, at 20:12, Michael D. Palage wrote:
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.
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.
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland
Tel: +358 50 324 7507