RE: [bc-gnso] result of review period on BC suggested implementation improvements

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

These look good.  I particularly like the way we have dealt with underserved
strings in 2.1/2.2 and the RPMs.

 

Seems the hard work has paid off.  Thanks to all.  Looks good to go.

 

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 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025

Fax: +92 21 35655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged
information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction,
publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part
or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic
means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this
communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is
prohibited.

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: 27 February 2012 22:37
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] result of review period on BC suggested implementation
improvements

 

This is a follow-up regarding BC suggestions for implementation improvements
to the new gTLD program.

 

In late December, Marilyn and I circulated a draft improvements letter from
the BC drawing on prior BC positions.  My records show that we received
email objections to that letter from 4 BC members:

 

Mikey O'Connor     29-Dec

Bill Smith (Paypal)   29-Dec

Mike Rodenbaugh  29-Dec

Mike Palage     30-Dec

 

I concluded that this showed "initial significant disagreement" per our
charter: 

7.3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement.     Members
who seek changes to a draft should submit proposed language in writing. If
there are at least 10% of members who oppose a position a mechanism to
discuss the issue will be provided by the Vice Chair for policy
coordination. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or
discussion at a physical meeting. 

 

So we opened a formal review & comment period from Feb 3 thru Feb 17 on the
two detailed tables of improvements and prior positions. (attached)    My
records show we received written comments from 9 members (listed at bottom).
To summarize:

Mike Rodenbaugh registered his objection, as he did in December.

Phil Corwin disagreed with some of the improvements.

We also recorded written Support from 7 members, many with additional
comments.

 

Sec 7.4 of our Charter guides us on "Approval where there is continued
disagreement":

7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement.     Where the
discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more than 15%
of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by e-mail) on
the position. 

 

During the formal comment period, we recorded 2 objections.  Combined with
the December comments, we had 5 members objecting (Mike Rodenbaugh was in
both counts).

 

5 member objections do not meet the 15% threshold that would trigger a
formal ballot. ( 46 x .15 = 6.9 )

 

We therefore do not need to conduct formal voting, and the list of
implementation improvements are now considered an official BC position.

 

The attached letter to the ICANN Board was created by extracting the first
column of the two tables, plus some additional context.  It will be sent to
Crocker and Beckstrom, with cc to GAC Chair.   

 

It will also be posted today to the ICANN Public Comment on defensive
applications at the top level, citing our first recommendation on TLD
applications and attaching the full list. 

 

Just let me know if members have questions about process or substance on
this.

 

--Steve

 

 

-----

 

Mike Rodenbaugh:  

No comments on section 1.   

Mike objects to Section 2, saying recommendations are not clearly described
and are missing essential details and justifications (e.g. "Do Not
Register")

 

Yvette Miller (CADNA):  

no comments on section 1.   

No objections in section 2, but offered comments:  

Supports suggestion that Non-profit applicants should not be sent to
auction.  Also says non-profits should get Applicant Support.

Strongly supports "Do Not Register" and endorsed the ICM method of permanent
blocking. 

Strongly supports date-certain for next round. 

 

Ron Andruff supported CADNA comments. 

 

Phil Corwin (ICA):  

Section 1, comment on URS: concerned that Transfer option makes URS a
substitute for UDRP.  Okay with TM Claims notice for any name previously
suspended in URS.   

Section 2, regarding CADNA's point (5): ICA disagrees with special treatment
of all non-profits.  Phil disagrees with JAS, on principle that subsidies
are resource transfers that go beyond ICANN's mandate.  

Phil is checking with ICA members on "Do Not Register" 

Unrealistic to expect Board to set a date-certain for next round.

 

Marilyn Cade:

Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 

Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

 

Sarah Deutsch (Verizon):

Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 

Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

 

Martin Sutton (HSBC):

Yes on all Section 2 improvements, with explanatory comments

 

Jeff Brueggeman (ATT):

Yes on all Section 2 improvements

 

Lane Mortenson (Wells Fargo)

Section 1 agreement, with explanatory comments 

Yes on all Section 2 improvements