[bc-gnso] FOR CONSIDERATION: COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER THE BOARD'S APPROACH TO PUBLIC FORUM IS WORKING FOR THE COMMUNITY

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please give some thought to whether you think that the approach of the Board 
/staff taking notes in various forums and then taking up 40 minutes to announce 
what they heard and what they are doing about it meets your needs. I think it 
is a good idea, but they allow only 20 minutes to comment, in 2 min slots, 
which means only 10 people get to respond. 
Perhaps it is a good idea but should be a time slot of its own? This week's 
agenda has been incredibly full.  It is challenging to imagine how members of 
the community can speak. 
Also, the strange item on the Forum about community of volunteers is put 
forward by NPOC, without support from other groups and is not a clear 
intent/purposed item. It is a time slot that you may want to consider as one 
you may make points in, but you will have to try to put them into the concept 
of how participants/stakeholders interact or work, or are attracted to ICANN 
for participation and engagement. 
One thought about what I'm hearing as a strange sort of 'word' divide: 
terminology for participants:  Volunteers:
I do not consider you, or others, or myself volunteers. We are participants in 
building and creating a governance organization -- ICANN, and in developing 
polices for coordination of the unique identifiers, and these decisions are 
affecting both social and economic, and political issues externally. :-) It's 
hard work, isn't it? But vital. 
For some, using the term 'volunteer' may sound trivilizing; for others, it is a 
badge of honor. BUT, it is a word that is creating a 'thought' divide -- 
between civil society and contracted parties. Contracted parties are also 
building and contributing to ICANN and many of them spend as much time on good 
work on Internet governance and ICANN governance [or more] than some of us do.  
Perhaps another word which is more broadly inclusive and respective of all may 
be needed -- how about stakeholder? 
Marilyn =================From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for 
TM Matching
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:38:35 +0000






As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has 
proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names 
entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.



ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here.   The 
Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here.



Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper:




Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&”




Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in 
the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business 
Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be 
chosen on a per-record
 basis by the trademark owner.




The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon 
the official language(s) of the trademark registry.




Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is 
problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in 
countries where there is no official language.




Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official 
language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to 
brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark 
Clearinghouse.




Initial comments closed 16-Oct.  At least one comment (link) refers to the 
language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing 
date of 7-Nov.



That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval 
period.  So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this 
draft, before 30-Oct-2012. 






Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency