[bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

While not taking any firm position on batching until ICANN actually reduces its 
proposal to writing in a comprehensible form (if that is possible) and ICA's 
members have a chance to review it and weigh in, I do feel a need to make a 
cautionary statement -- There should not be an assumption that new generic 
gTLDs will not add value and innovation to the DNS, and it would be problematic 
to have a position which relegated all generic bids to a second or later batch 
based on such an assumption.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell



"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Bryce 
Coughlin [Bryce.Coughlin@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:08 AM
To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn and 
Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers.

I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her 
comments in general.  An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got the 
impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both IDNs and 
community-based applications.  However, upon reading the position statement in 
the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls for 
prioritization of community-based applications.  If that is indeed the case, I 
would offer that this is actually a good thing:  As implied in the comments 
today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for 
prioritization per se.  Instead, as we continue the discussion and calibration 
of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we might eventually 
tweak the position to read that we support the prioritization of 
community-based applications--including and especially IDNS that are community 
based.  That is very different from wholesale endorsement of IDN prioritization 
because it removes types of IDNs (e.g., .brand IDNs) that would not carry the 
same rationale for prioritization.

Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application window 
closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the topic.

Best,
Bryce


________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Hansen, 
Anjali [AHansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

Steve,

Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers.  I agree with the BC’s 
recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant 
Guidebook in the link you sent.  Great job by the BC. I especially appreciate 
the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List which was 
unfortunately not taken by ICANN.  I’d like to keep pushing for this list in 
the future.  I strongly believe that rights holders should pay to protect their 
brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to defensively register.  
This creates high costs to brandholders and undeserved revenue to registries 
and registrars.  I think what occurred in .xxx and the profits raised by 
blocking and defensive registrations is indefensible and should not be allowed 
to occur again.

My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at the 
NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order should 
be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands.  I worry about 
allowing all IDN’s to go first since many of those could fall under brands or 
generics.

I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications.  I 
like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general, e.g., 
that:  “name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is 
added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive 
registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global 
public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation 
from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.”   This should 
apply to any first batch IDNs as well.

Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date.  I look forward 
to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and your patience 
while I get up to speed.

Anjali

Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel

Tel: 703-247-9340
Fax: 703-276-0634
Email: ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ahansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust

Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA  22201

For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog
<http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | 
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | 
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> 
| YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | 
Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us>


[Description: Description: Description: 
BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year>


This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please 
notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system 
without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching

In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation 
issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching:

See below and on Page 3 of the document at
 
http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2011+v3.pdf

As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include a 
substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a long-standing 
position of the BC that name space expansion should create added-value. Where 
there is added-value there will be genuine user demand – not just defensive 
registrations—and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the global 
public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means differentiation 
from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing gTLDs.