[bc-gnso] Comments from Marilyn Cade: Another Last Call: BC Position - Baseline Registry Operations Report

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry, Steve,
Thanks Barry, for your work on this.  I have a couple of suggestions, and point 
out a couple of editorial changes that you will want to make.  I provide 
several suggestions ,and put into bold some of the key words/and new proposed 
language to try to make this easier to understand and follow. 
Overall great job. A few critical changes proposed. 
For the longer term, I know that there are other discussions to be had about a 
'template'  or 'templates' for BC policy positions and, I do hope that you will 
play a leadership role in that process.
On the substance of this comment, I would suggest that you change the legend on 
some of the elements to !. For instance, although the category: "Reserves" says 
no comment, actually the BC does have a comment. Capital Expenditures: says no 
comments, but does offer a very important comment. Continuity Planning, legend 
says no comment, but we do have a comment.  I'd just suggest changing the 
legend to "!", and editing out the /NO comment on those issues.
Finally, I wanted to call your attention and others to the need to have a 
category that is 'brands related gTLD registry'.  Youcould add a footnote to 
'registry population', noting that there may be a category of registries that 
are operated by a brand holder, for their subscribers, or employees, and that 
this category is not addressed, to date, in ICANN's work. 


In the Survey Demographics section. The first bullet point needs to have an 
edit in the last reference to the ccTLDs. it should read "..... under different 
contractual obligations to ICANN than ccTLDs.   I think you mean ... "than 
gTLDs".
Discussion Point:  I spent a good deal of time studying ccTLDs when I was 
chairing the first WHOIS Task Force. The working methods of the cc's are indeed 
a good barometer for learning. Sometimes this is not well understood by 
business users who primarily register in cc's defensively.  And, there are 
other factors that limit the exposure of business users to the ccTLD managers 
-- e.g. while we once held dialogues with the cc's that has gone by the wayside 
and the primary focus is on the gTLDs.   And, then the reality is that the 
gTLDs registries often believe that they are the 'rightful choice' for back 
engines for future gTLDs and even for ccTLDs.  As BC, we need to agnostic about 
business preferences. Business uses can register in either gTLDs or ccTLDs and 
need to have a broadened understanding of the role and activities of the ccTLDs 
for many reasons.  I'd propose that we soften the comments about the cc's.  
For instance, I disagree with the proposal that the review of cc's be limited 
to those  ccTLDs that mimic gTLDs -- I do not agree. That would eliminate .de; 
.uk, and .ca, and .cn, for example, all of which are large and complex ccTLDS, 
often more complex and technically sophisticated than many of the smaller 
gTLDs.  A few cc's are marketed as 'global' TLDs, and that has disconcerted, or 
annoyed some gTLD registries.  That is a perspective of gTLD registries that 
may not not actually serve the broader global business user communities' 
interest. For instance, if you are a small Kenyan business, you may both prefer 
to register in .ky and find advantage in doing so. You may also want to 
register in a gTLD as well, however. Global business users are registering in 
ccTLDs in many cases to have identity in the country they are doing business 
in.  Understanding cc's practices is a 'good thing'.  
I'd prefer to strike the statement "Perhaps ccTLDs that mimic a gTLD should be 
chosen'.  Instead, I'd propose that the BC statement read:  The CBUC supports 
the inclusion of ccTLDs in this study and is interested in ensuring that the 
sample is fully representative of different practices and models, including 
analyzing different 'sizes" of cc TLD registries. 
In your bullet about slide 4, the language seems to need some editing.  
Finally, I do not support ICANN's outsourcing of compliance, and I suggest that 
the BC should not support that.  The present position offered could be 
strengthened by changing the statement to proposed new statement: 
"Enforcement and compliance should remain a primary function of ICANN itself.  
Outsourcing of such functions may create vulnerabilities for ICANN to fulfull 
its core responsibilities and any proposed outsourcing should be carefully 
studied, and the subject of further public comment before proceeding with any 
such initiatives. ICANN may be proposing an initial cost savings approach that 
will ultimately harm the registrants and limit ICANN's ability to fulfill its 
core responsibilities. "
Technical and Network Architecture:  This BC statement could use the same 
footnore reference mentioned above regarding brands registries. 




> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:57:58 -0400
> Subject: [bc-gnso] Another Last Call:   BC Position - Baseline Registry 
> Operations Report
> From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Another Last Call before closing on a BC comment.
> 
> Attached is the draft BC position regarding the report on Baseline Registry
> Operations.
> 
> Berry Cobb circulated the draft back on 23-Mar (see below).  I¹ve signaled
> my agreement.
> 
> Absent objections by COB tomorrow, we will file as consensus BC comments on
> 1-Apr-2010. 
> 
> --Steve
> 
> On 3/23/10 3:16 AM, "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> BC,
> 
> Attached is the first draft of the CBUC position statement for the Baseline
> Registry Operation report released by ICANN.  Overall, I feel KPMG performed
> well and provided meaningful views of the data. It is ashamed that more
> participants were not a part of the sample data.
> 
> My Registry operations experience is limited, so I ask the BC team to take a
> strong look at the report and the initial comments I provided.  I especially
> invite our members that have direct Registry operations experience
> to enhance our position about this study and its future use by the gTLD
> Evaluation teams.
> 
> This material is sure to have a direct impact to the next Draft Applicant
> Guidebook version 4 to be released just prior to Brussels.  In a
> quick review, the following are what I believe to be sections of the DAGv3
> where  this study could influence the Application Evaluation Criteria, or
> the Application Process both of which will be used by the gTLD Evaluation
> teams.
> 
> 1.2.2 Required Documents for Application
> 1.4.2 Application Form
> 2.1.2 Applicant Reviews
> 2.1.3 Registry Services Review
> 2.2.1 Technical/Operational or Financial Extended Evaluation
> 2.2.2 DNS Stability Extended Evaluation
> 2.2.3 Registry Services Extended Evaluation
> 
> The comment period closes April 1st, so I ask for your quick
> turn-around.  As Steve DelBianco eluded to in our last BC call, there are a
> large number of comment period closings converging at once.  I thank you for
> your quick response.  I will compile all feedback and incorporate changes on
> 3/30/2010.
> 
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> San Jose, CA
> mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://infinityportals.com <http://infinityportals.com/>
> 866.921.8891
> 
>