[bc-gnso] .Feedback re questions regarding list of imporovements to the new gTLD program
- To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] .Feedback re questions regarding list of imporovements to the new gTLD program
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:58:35 -0500
Mike, I am sorry you had to miss the call today, but there will be a
transcript. Thanks for the follow up inquiry.
Let me summarize what took place: as you know from the agenda,we had a robust
set of other topics to address, and did that. I am sorry that you missed those
discussions as well, but again, refer you to the transcript and if there is
something specific in the rest of the call, let me or Steve or Chris know about
On the specific questions you asked about the work on the 'list": we discussed
the list on the call.
Steve provided information on items when there has been a BC previous position
The next step is for a further circulation of the items in a format that shows
where there has been prior BC position of relevance [due to Steve's great work,
much of that is done], and identifying key concerns, or agreement or
disagreement. I am working with our Secretariat to turn around that document
and it will be reviewed with the Executive Committee for checking on its
'understandability', and then posted to the BC list for further input and
You will be able to comment, as will all other BC members on all of the topics.
Some are newer than others, but there has been interest in these from more than
one BC member, just as there is disagreement from more than one BC member on
some. Again, most of them are existing BC positions and do not break new
However, we are discussing some new items in this process. As you know, the
Charter does provide a process for dealing with areas of agreement, and
disagreement when we are taking up a new position.
While some members may end up disagreeing with some of the items, others are
supporting the need for this work. We are trying to serve the full BC
So, I am not removing any of the items at this time, as other members are
expressing interest in discussing them. Though this process we will find the
areas of broadest agreement on any new items. For those already documented,
this is a restatement of that support and organizing and prioritizing. As Ron
Andruff noted, it may be that we will remove some items, if they are
addressed, or if in the end, they don't gain broad BC support. [e.g. the
multiple script example].
I had earlier thought that we should work on this inside the BC, but as you
and Mikey have asked to have the list made public, the next version will be
posted on the BC-GNSO list, as you have requested.
The transcript will be available in a day or two, and Bene will both post it to
the BC and put it up on the BC wiki. For any members who missed the call, that
will give them a good update both on the other topics for the BC call,
including activities at the GNSO Council.
If anyone missed the call and wants a quick update from me via email on any
topic on the BC agenda, just send a private email and I'll do a quick paragraph
for you on the particular topic you want more detail on.
I do want to thank all the members for their participation in the BC calls. We
are typically 19-23 participants, which is an excellent turn out for the BC
Thanks as well to the other officers anc Councilors and to our Secretariat for
their active leadership and work! And, I also want to thank Mikey for his great
work on DSSA.
[I changed the thread in the subject as it is getting a little confusing to
follow. Perhaps for future discussions on this topic, we might use the subject
I provided, or suggest a clearer one. ]
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bc-private] URGENT -- attachment for one of our
discussion topics on BC Call
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:05:25 -0800
Marilyn, thanks for compiling this list. Can you or other proponents of these
proposals please provide more clarity re items 5, 6 and 8?
Re no. 5, is this referring to our past position, calling for lowering of a
successful score in the Community Priority Evaluation from 14 points to 13 or
12 points? If so, we should just state that again. If not, then please
explain what exactly you hope to review and for what purpose.
Re no. 6, what specific harm do you seek to address, and what suggestions for
improvement are proposed? Nearly every dictionary word is someone’s trademark.
Re no. 8, who actually supports this proposal? How would you propose it would
work in practice, where nearly every dictionary word is someone’s trademark?
Interesting inclusion of the phrase “or include the identical trademark match
name”, that would give extremely powerful rights to anyone with a dictionary
word, or an acronym, as a trademark. ING comes to mind immediately… Also
interesting to mention ‘reserve names which meet certain criteria’, could you
elaborate as to what sorts of criteria you are considering, in order for a
trademark owner to achieve this new blocking right, as opposed to all other
trademark owners who might want the same right?
Until there is some further clarity and specific agreement of the BC per our
Charter, those “proposals” should be removed from the list of suggested
improvements. Otherwise the recommendations are consistent with prior agreed
From: bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:17 AM
To: bc-private icann.org
Subject: [Bc-private] URGENT -- attachment for one of our discussion topics on
As noted in the agenda that our Secretariat distributed, and committed in
earlier emails, I compiled a list of the various improvements to the new gTLD
program -- some are taken from the earlier draft letter that was the topic of
discussion from mid Dec into January; and others are from conversations and
inputs from some members.
On today's call, we will discuss these items, and add any new ones that members
want to also discuss.
We will then circulate the list in a format that allows insert of individual
views per topic from members via email.
We have a good amount of work ahead of us. We are working together in good
faith, and I trust, in a calm and professional tone.