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

["Frederick Felman" <Frederick.Felman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Janet - agreed. MM and our clients are hoping for a more orderly release of 
tld's. - Fred 

Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733

(please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical 
autocorrect  including but not limited to typos)

On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM, "O'Callaghan, Janet" <JOCallaghan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> For the reasons put forth by Ron and Jeff as well as the GAC and ICANN's own 
> economic studies, News Corp supports the approach of a limited round 
> introduction of new gTLDs.
>  
> From: warren65@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:warren65@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
> <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; tero.mustala@xxxxxxx 
> <tero.mustala@xxxxxxx>; jon@xxxxxxxxxx <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>; psc@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Marilyn Cade 
> <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues 
>  
> I also oppose the limiting the pool concept. Such an action could just delay 
> this process even further. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chuck Warren
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:06:57 -0700
> To: <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tero.mustala@xxxxxxx>; <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
> <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <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'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.)
> 
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or 
> confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If 
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for 
> delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this 
> message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete 
> this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply 
> e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate 
> to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries 
> must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No 
> representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.