Re: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Steve,

Per the existing BC position mention of the Reserve/GPML as recently mentioned 
in the GAC board discussions should also find mention.




                                       
Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:39:09 
To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook

On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook 
(original email at bottom)
Since then, here are comments and edits received:

- Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM 
Clearinghouse.

- 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC 
recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch 
planned by ICANN.  Note that the batch size does not limit the applications in 
the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs.   This batch is an operational 
concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application 
processing.  The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch should 
be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the operational 
readiness of newly designed application processing and objection / contention 
systems."     With that understanding, I do not see why the BC should remove 
that comment.

- Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard 
agrees with all remaining BC concerns.

-  Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much 
improved.  Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of domains 
through a URS process.   Is there more support for Phil's view?

These comments are due 15-May.  Members are invited to address remaining 
questions (in red) in the attached draft.  Namely:

- p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies.  I suggest we 
delete this.

- p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest 
process, proposed by John Berard.   John — do we still need these definition 
requests?

- p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD where 
the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names in the 
TLD.   Any objections?

- pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for 
single-registrant TLDs.  I do not think these comments are still needed any 
longer.

- p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs.   Any 
objections?

-  p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP.  What are our specific 
recommendations given the latest PDDRP process?

Please reply to list with specific answers.  However, please don't add new 
issues  -- the time for that has passed.

Regards,
Steve

---

On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC 
comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.

This comment period and docs are described at 
http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm
These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and 
approval.

For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several 
ways:
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC 
recommendations.
- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5
- Asked several questions for BC members (in red)
- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD".   We may hold a 
separate call on this.

All BC members are invited to suggest edits.     Please use track changes and 
circulate to BC list.
I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1.

Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by 
module.

Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees.  (Berry Cobb, 
Ron Andruff )

Module 2: Evaluation Procedures.    (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett,  Adam Palmer, 
 Zahid Jamil,  Sarah Deutsch )

Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )

Module 4: String Contention.   ( Ron Andruff )

Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs
( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman,  Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )


Other notes:
In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help 
the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS.  But I 
didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So 
that comment was not reflected in the attached draft.

Steve DelBianco
vice chair for policy coordination