Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'd like to chime in opposing the limit-the-pool idea as well -- the word i'm 
getting is that the applicant pool is melting away as this long process 
continues to stretch out.  

mikey


On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:03 AM, <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this 
> round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any 
> reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.
>  
> I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won’t be 
> any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will 
> progress with different speeds.
>  
> Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will 
> be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry 
> agreement negotiations with ICANN.  Of those who clear the negotiations a 
> portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many 
> of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not 
> immediately delegated because of business of other reasons.  I hope that this 
> example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let 
> alone the ones that are currently unknown.
>  
> BR,
>  
> -jr
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> ext Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39
> To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; 'ext Jon Nevett'; 'Phil Corwin'
> Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
>  
> I agree with Jon and Tero.  The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this 
> next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected because 
> there is no equitable way to determine who should go next.  To try to 
> determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of further 
> community debate.  Also, the root scaling studies have indicated there is no 
> technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs.  It is time to resolve the 
> policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than create huge 
> new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications.
>  
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM
> To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin
> Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
>  
> I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see 
> that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
>  
> regards
>  
> Tero
>  
> Tero Mustala 
> Principal Consultant, 
> CTO/Industry Environment 
> Nokia Siemens Networks 
> tero.mustala@xxxxxxx
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> ext Jon Nevett
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
> 
> Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide 
> which ones to move forward on?  For example, why RPMs in generics would be 
> more important than in .nyc?  Do you do it randomly?  Not sure the equity in 
> that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Jon
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
>  
> 
> Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. 
>  
> From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM
> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues 
>  
> Marilyn and all, 
> 
> In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment 
> session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC 
> members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give some 
> serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to mind 
> are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to apply 
> simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, which 
> would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII scripts 
> (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the impass of 
> too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a limited round to 
> start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as suggested by the Board) 
> is functional or needs the modifications currently revcommended by the GAC. 
> In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO without resolution. IMHO, 
> that must be the message we share with all we meet in the meeting rooms and 
> halls.... 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> RA 
> ________________________________________
> Ron Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
> randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.rnapartners.com
> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400
> To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement 
> regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
>  
> During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the 
> GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements 
> from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on 
> Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, and 
> 2]. 
>  
> I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't 
> have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs 
> within the CSG is that  we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I 
> intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure 
> that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the 
> statement.
>  
> Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have 
> Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the 
> discussions  so far. ]
>  
> I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with 
> you all/stay closely tuned.
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)