RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip, thanks very much for your very prompt drafting and circulating the 
draft. The second version with new inputs from members have added in several 
important elements and clarifications.  I have some further suggestions and 
comments, in, of course, my individual capacity as a member.   One overarching 
comment: The BC has had a very measured approach to its statements about 
support for the new gTLD program, carefully balancing the measured, responsible 
acceptance of a new gTLD program that introduces names in a responsible, 
measured and accountable manner, without an outright endorsement of the new 
gTLD program.   Thus, I was wondering if there was a need to just reference 
existing policy positions as a background? NOT to repeat, but perhaps just 
reference?  
General comment: I would prefer to see the document have full sentences for the 
headings. That isn't a change in the document, but would strengthen it as a 
document to be used in interactions with Board and community and GAC during 
Nairobi. Some examples of full sentence headings are shown below for 
consideration: 
1. The EOI as presently crafted has an unclear objective
2. The EOO, as presently crafted is diverting ICANN and the broader community 
from addressing Critical unresolved Issues:
3. The EIO is not a substitute for an economic study
4. The present EOI approach requires applicants to make a significant payment 
of one third of the full registration fee, but without a complete DAG, creating 
liability for ICANN and unclear risks for registry applicants
5. The EOI as crafted pressures potential applicants, including Brand Holders 
to enter into the EOI process for defensive reasons
6. The present EOI may encourage secondary market speculation at the top level, 
introducing risks and uncertainty that can add risks to the stability of the 
global Internet and DNS
7. this item needs a clearer title.Comment: I am not sure I fully understand 
this point. Is it that by publishing the list of strings, different applicants 
may then begin to take legal or other action to oppose others applying for a 
particular string? 
8.  I don't agree with this suggestion that the EOI in and of itself violates 
the AoC.  The definition of what the 'public interst' means in the AoC is still 
unclear. I played a very strong role in getting that language included in the 
PSC documents, and many  PSC elements were later incorporated then by ICANN and 
the NTIA into the AoC, and in the longer term, this area may be a useful area 
to explore further.  Many individual BC members provided comments into the PSC 
process that supported the recognition of ICANN's need to act in the public 
interest in many of its decisions.  However, this element is still very much a 
matter of exploration and discussion. 
However, for this particular discussion, I do not believe that the Board or 
staff or others in the stakeholder community will find it persuasive.  Perhaps 
the real point for a new/revised 8. is:  
new text:  Consistency with previous ICANN practice on new gTLD applicationsIn 
earlier processes to introduce new gTLDs, ICANN did undertake assessing a 
'sense' of the interest, undertaken without a binding fee, and respecting 
anoniminity.  If the purpose is merely to help staff to assess volumes, two 
thresholds should be met  before undertaking an 'assessment of interest from 
potential applicants:  1) Completion of the overarching issues and 2) A fully 
completed DAG.
ICANN should not be pursuing an EOI that creates possible liability to the 
organization for implied or other forms of commitment to potential registry 
applicants, and should address all of the overarching issues including 
completing a full economic analysis and completing the DAG.  Any surveys about 
'interests' should be non binding and avoid creating expectations that ICANN 
will move forward with a particular list of strings in any application cycle. 





From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:55:47 +0100








Thanks to BC members for their comments to date.
I attach a revised version 2.
Comments / expressions of support please now on 
this version referencing line tracking as 
appropriate.
Philip
 


From: Philip Sheppard 
[mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 
10:19 AM
To: 'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Draft BC position 
EOI



For 14 day 
comment
 
I have been asked by 
the new VP policy coordination Steve DelBianco to act as rapporteur for the 
issue of Expressions of Interest in the context of the new gTLDS 
process.
 
I attach a proposed 
draft for the Constituency. Its argumentation and consequent conclusion is 
based 
on the submissions of Bc members in their individual capacity to the public 
comments process. These comment were significant in their commonality. In short 
all commentators believed that:
- the EOI is a poor 
substitute for data gathering and an economic study
- the EOI is bad 
business practice as it requires investors to invest in ignorance of issues 
that 
ICANN is obliged to solve.
 
Comments, 
improvements are most welcome ideally by e-mail bullet points referencing the 
line numbers rather than Word tracked changes.
This makes the job 
of the poor rapporteur much easier !
 
 
Philip