RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
- To: "zahid@xxxxxxxxx" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
- From: Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:41:03 -0800
I have briefly reviewed the latest draft of the STI report and I am concerned
about the level of consensus that the BC is supporting on the IP Clearinghouse
in general. In Section 1.1 and 5.1 you have noted a "Rough Consensus" for
each principle. We should change the designation of our support of the IP
Clearinghouse to Unanimous Consensus. I am concerned that if we do not
support the IP Clearinghouse as it is designed for the Sunrise period we will
end up with no standard process in the new gTld rollout. A standard process
across all gTld's is vital to a company like Facebook. In my experience in
previous gTld rollouts and ccTld rollouts numerous hours and outside counsel
fees were expended to understand and participate in the Sunrise periods. I
firmly believe that the IP Clearinghouse will ease this burden going forward
In the BC meeting in Seoul I argued strenuously to extend the use of the IP
Clearinghouse to post sunrise period but did not realize that this would bring
the BC to this Rough Consensus opinion.
I will still argue for the use of the IP Clearinghouse in the post Sunrise
period but if we lose the battle to have it implemented at all we have nothing
to build upon in the future.
The IP Clearinghouse is vital to the Sunrise process and would I urge others on
the list to rethink the BC's stance on it a Unanimous Consensus is our best
protection at this point in the process.
Domain Name Manager
1601 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Phone - 650 485-6064
Cell - 650 387 3904
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is
private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.
Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the
email or its contents."
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: [bc-gnso] Fw: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Mike and me are drafting a minority report based upon existing BC positions
culminating in the consensus at the Seoul meetings and comments from the list.
Unfortunately it seems we will probably have one day to submit this. We will be
able to post the draft by tomorrow morning and look forward to comments
tomorrow and will at day end submit to the STI.
Comments today so we can use them in our draft would be appreciated and would
help speed matters up.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:30:23 -0800
To: 'GNSO STI'<gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-sti] RE: Draft STI Report - V4 for your review
Thank you for a very productive call today. Attached for your review is the
fourth draft of the STI Report, which attempts to pick up our discussions today.
I believe we are very close to a final version of this the report and would
appreciate your comments or revisions by the close of business today, so that I
can prepare the final report tomorrow morning. Also, please send your
minority reports by tomorrow morning to ensure inclusion in the version that
will be circulated to the GNSO Council. As discussed, if you need more time
to draft a minority report, you would need to send to me next week, so that it
can be forwarded to the Board after the GNSO Council vote (if successful) next
Senior Policy Counselor