[bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Steve, All, Thanks for your work on this draft. My comments are attached. One big issue I would flag for members is the paragraph dealing with closed generics. Various BC members have grave concerns about certain closed generics and formal objections have been filed. The focus on applying for an exemption in the Final Guidebook does not fix these fundamental concerns for the reasons outlined in the attached. I'd suggest that the BC either (a) refrain from taking a position on the closed generic issue altogether or (b) support the GAC's concerns about closed generics and the need to show that an award of an exclusive right in a generic term is in the larger public interest. Sarah From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs ICANN's new gTLD Board Committee has requested public comment on how it should address GAC advice to establish safeguards for categories of new gTLDs. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm>) The BC has have held 3 conference calls on this topic (see minutes and transcripts on the BC Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home>). Several BC members provided input, including text from Ron Andruff, Marilyn Cade, and Andrew Mack. Comment period closes 4-Jun. That allows our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please REPLY ALL with your suggested edits and comments regarding this draft, before 29-May-2013. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency Attachment:
BC Comment on GAC Advice for new gTLDs DRAFT v1sd.docx
|