RE: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in Charter

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz, thanks a lot for your response. Can you also clarify that you are now 
advising a registry and whether you have updated your interest statement for 
the BC. 
I fully understand that other members may have the same need in the future. As 
to your description of how a global brand would be treated -- I really question 
that is the right approach. 
If a company -- and I'd prefer not to use any name brand company, since I am 
not speaking for any one in raising this question -- a company that holds a 
brand that is highly visible in all five regions, and does business, say in 50 
countries around the globe - - decided to apply for a .brand for internal use 
purposes only, I am not at all clear that company would want to, or would fit 
into a GTLD registry constituency.  
That was what I was suggesting needed to be discussed. 
I see that Philip Sheppard has suggested that need not be addressed before 
voting on the charter and that he thought that there was a reasonable and 
reasoned approach to how to deal with such instances. 




CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
From: lizawilliams@xxxxxxx
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working 
Group/clarification of 'interest' statement/implications for global brands in 
Charter
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:08:27 +0000

Hi
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 that work.
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 David Maher.
Liz

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 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 
member. 
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... 
Three requests:
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 
up/follow on? 
 




CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
From: lizawilliams@xxxxxxx
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:06:57 +0000

Hello everyone
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.
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
BR,
-jr
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 
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 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. 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-06nov09-en.pdf (Doc 
#1)http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-draft-charter-06nov09-en.pdf
 (Doc 
#2)http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-proposed-outputs-06nov09-en.pdf
 (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 
JARKKO RUUSKA
Nokia Corporation
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration,  Tampere, Finland
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx