[bc-gnso] Re: for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
Rapporteur Jon Nevett incorporated Marilyn's edits into the attached DRAFT 2. I also adjusted the opening section to address a concern expressed by Phil Corwin today: The BC notes this new approach to considering potential improvements in implementation details for the new gTLD Program and provides comments on this topic. Also attached is a redline comparing draft 1 and 2. If any BC member objects to the BC filing this Draft 2 comment , please REPLY ALL and explain your objections. If any member objections are noted by midnight UTC on 7-Dec, we will ask the membership to vote on the comments. If no objections are noted, we will post the attached draft to ICANN on 9-Dec. Thanks to Marilyn and Jon for their work on these comments. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 22:43:19 -0500 To: 'Bc GNSO list ' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: FW: for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI) Last night, Marilyn Cade submitted extensive edits to our draft comments on the Continuity of Operations Fund proposal from the Registries. See second attachment and Marilyn's summary of her comments below. Per the plan I sent this week, we will now allow 7 additional days of review time, with a target date to submit by next Friday 9-Dec. That would make us just one week late for ICANN's comment deadline. Rapporteur Jon Nevett will take first look at Marilyn's edits and will circulate a new version over the weekend. From: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: bcprivate@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bcprivate@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: IMPORTANT: SEE PROPOSED CHANGES/EDITS IN THE BC DRAFT: for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:49:10 -0500 I propose several changes and an enhancement about why the BC cares about this topic, and also note that we would like similar opportunity to achieve changes in the new gTLD program -- regarding IPR protections. I will send a separate email about that topic, based on discussions with Steve, Sarah, and others about the existing call for improvements in that area. [Separate email]. My comments are as an individual member of the BC on this BC position statement. The changes I propose to this draft are consistent with BC's positions regarding priority of protecting registrants and users. See 2, where I added ICANN's responsibiilty to act in the public interest. 3. I explicitly stated that we do not support the Regy proposal. That was missing from our statement. I also said that improvements could be made in the COI. See 4. 5. I also added in that the BC fears a high risk of failure of some of the new gTLDs. 6. I added that we expect there to be appropriate legal agreements in the contracts that would allow for the protection of registered names. I deleted the old 7, which seemed to say on the one hand, and then on the other hand. The purpose of this statement is to either support the Registry proposal, or oppose it. I oppose it, for the reasons I noted in my edits. I do think that COI can be improved, especially as it regards 'brands' gTLDs. I was also concerned in reading the transcript of the actual panel in Dakar -- I was not able to attend in person -- the panel looked heavily stacked toward supporters of the new gTLD program. However, the important news may be that if ICANN will accept suggested changes form a single constituency, we should be aggressively be addressing our call for changes in Trademark protection. Marilyn Cade From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:29:48 -0500 To: 'Bc GNSO list ' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: FW: for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI) Thanks to all for engaging in the email discussion over these comments. However, I don't think we've seen any specific edits on the draft circulated last Tuesday 22-Nov. Ron and Phil proposed a more extensive critique of the Guidebook's COI plan, but the scope of this comment is reacting to the Registry proposal for an alternative mechanism (COF). I would strongly suggest that Ron and Phil individually submit their concerns to ICANN, of course. Mike Palage advised us to be careful about conflicts of interest, so I propose a simple way to do this quickly and transparently: If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. If any member objections are noted by midnight UTC on 1-Dec, we will extend the process and ask the membership to vote on alternate versions of BC comments. This would mean our comments are submitted late, but might still be considered. If no objections are noted we will post the attached draft to ICANN on the closing date of 2-Dec. Thanks again for engaging in this discussion. --Steve (vice chair for policy coordination) From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:04:17 -0500 To: "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI) Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations Instrument in the new gTLD Program. Jon Nevett prepared this draft. This comment period and docs are described here<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm>. These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval. This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am requesting an expedited review period. If any member has substantive objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our comments after the ICANN due date. All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this. Steve DelBianco vice chair for policy coordination, BC Attachment:
bin0AmVTs4FD2.bin Attachment:
BC on COI proposal [draft 2].doc Attachment:
BC on COI proposal [draft 2 redline].docx
|