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

["Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What if we were to recommend limiting the round to geographical names
only? Since, letters of support or non-objection are required for these;
the GAC may also be amenable to this approach?

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:03 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tero.mustala@xxxxxxx; jon@xxxxxxxxxx;
psc@xxxxxxxxxxx
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 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 <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.