Re: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
- To: "Steve Del Bianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx, "BC Secretariat" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
- From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:50:00 +0000
Per the existing BC position mention of the Reserve/GPML as recently mentioned
in the GAC board discussions should also find mention.
Jamil & Jamil
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
- 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
- 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- Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much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
- p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest
process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition
- 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
- p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any
- 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.
On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco"
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
These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and
For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC
- 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 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 )
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.
vice chair for policy coordination