ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] FINAL: BC comment on New gTLD Registry Agreement

  • To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] FINAL: BC comment on New gTLD Registry Agreement
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:05:26 +0000

Attached is a the final comment from the BC regarding ICANN's call for comments 
on New gTLD Registry Agreement 
(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm>link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>).
   This comment period closes today, 20-Mar.

As discussed on our member call last week , this comment does not propose any 
changes to previous BC positions.   Instead, the comment applies prior BC 
positions to the proposed new Ry agreement.

After circulating to members on 15-Mar, I received comments and made these 
edits:

Marilyn Cade offered several comments.  First, I added BC mission statement on 
page 1 (citing the Charter).

In the section on Ry Agreement amendments by ICANN, Marilyn suggested amending 
the 2010 position repeated on page 5, changing wording and deleting several 
sentences.  There was no other Member support for amending our prior position, 
and I did not feel it was right to selectively omit previous and relevant 
positions.  However, I did change the concluding sentence of this section to 
reflect the tone that Marilyn suggested: "…and therefore has concerns with the 
amendment process as proposed in Section 7.6(c). "

Elisa Cooper noted her support.

Chris Chaplow noted support and suggested emphasizing our "request" for 
regional names exception/centralized process.  I changed the first sentence 
under this section.

Chris suggested asking for 2 and 3-letter country codes, but this is part of 
reserved status and not subject to the release mechanism in Specification 5.  
No change.

Chris noted that we called these "regional" instead of territory since that was 
the vocabulary at the time of that BC comment (2011).  No change.

John Berard noted his support

Angie Graves noted her agreement.

Bill Smith noted support, except for the section on Ry Agreement amendments by 
ICANN.  Bill reiterated his view that the current process does not allow public 
interest to take precedence over contracted parties.   He suggested that 
contract parties are "free to exit an agreement of the new terms required by 
the public prove unacceptable".     Lacking significant member concurrence with 
Bill's changes I did not alter the comment based on prior positions.    Bill 
noted that he looks forward to future discussions in the BC where we might 
change our position on unilaterally amending contracts.

The FINAL BC comment is attached, and I will post to ICANN today.

--
Steve

Attachment: BC Comment on new gTLD Registry Agreement [FINAL].docx
Description: BC Comment on new gTLD Registry Agreement [FINAL].docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy