RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs

["O'Keefe, Emmett" <eokeefe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks everyone for their work on these comments.

Keeping this to the perspective of a business user, I suggest either going back 
to the original language on Restricted Registration Policies or as has been 
suggested earlier - refrain from taking a position altogether.

The most recent statements regarding this section appear to suggest that the BC 
change its position on this subject (note the BC comments earlier this year on 
the Board's question of whether to create a new classification for "closed 
generic" TLDs).  I respect everyone's views on the underlying issues and 
suggest the BC keep the original language or refrain from commenting in this 
section.

Regards,

Emmett




From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:01 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs

Dear colleagues

My apologies for not getting my attachment on the LAST email. Thanks to several 
of you who emailed me and called me to let me know.

I appreciate the work that all have done on this.  For anyone who has trouble 
finding the GAC advice I mention, just so a search on the names of the relevant 
documents.  :-)

I have now integratied my comments into the latest version.

Some of my concerns were captured by others.

I will note, however, that we have a keen responsibility to take note of the 
GAC advice of 2007 -- WHICH we strongly supported; and the Brussels Scorecard 
-- which we STRONGLY supported, and so on and so forth. The GAC accepted our 
own scorecard -- which we developed jointly with IPC and ISPs endorsed in 
general as areas of concern.

On many of the items of concern to BC, if you go through GAC advice in detail 
looking for what we have seen before, and often raised and supported as areas 
of concern as business user constituency,  show significant consistency between 
the GAC advice in the Communique from Beijing, and in the BC's longstanding 
concerns.

I did note that someone cut out a comment from Sarah Deutsch regarding 
compliance with applicable law, which I agree with. I had added in some 
language, and cut out the statement that was proposed that the ICANN GC /legal 
do work on behalf of the applicants. That statement was very strange to me and 
I couldn't see in the comments/discussion where it would have come from.

IF any members want to debate that within the BC, I am happy to, but frankly, I 
don't think that the BC ever thought that ICANN would take on research about 
applicable laws to any applicant.
I am sure no responsible applicant from a regulated industry would entrust an 
ICANN legal doc on such critical issues anyway, and I would doubt that any 
regulator who heard that was the 'plan' would burst into derisive laughter 
about whether that applicant was credible in any way.

Thinking about risks to ICANN and therefore risks to those who want to avoid 
governments taking over ICANN's functions or 'adding in more governmental 
intervention:

During the recent WTPF meeting in Geneva, many governments -- Latim and African 
and European -- raised the concern that ICANN and 'parts' of the ICANN 
community deny that governments are responsible for public interest. Questions 
were raised by many governments about how the GAC advice has been consistently 
ignored, or denied.   Several BC members -- AT&T, Verizon, PayPal; myself, 
Ayesha, Amazon, Google were present in the WTPF.  Ayesha and I stayed for the 
WSIS action line Forum on Friday.

Strong statements were made about concerns about geo names; and some 
governments are skeptical that we in the ICANN community are working in good 
faith with governments in their fulfilling their role within ICANN. It is not 
lost on the governments that we, the BC, have come to them over and over to 
discuss areas of concern.  Please note that the concerns about geo/territorial 
names is NOT new.  And, it is not a matter of trademark protection in any way.  
Geo/Territorial names are highly sensitive geo political issues to governments. 
I can't imagine how that was every NOT understood.

What the governments asked for is more discussion on such names.

I know that all of us are committed to respecting the role and mission of the 
BC as representing business users.  It may be that some members are having to 
recuse themselves, and that is a positive and responsible decision, which I 
want to acknowledge and applaud. It is this kind of respect  for our role in 
representing business users  that makes the BC possible to respect for its 
integrity.

I made a lot of edits, and I am happy to discuss them. I do not propose to do 
that on the Members call, as there is a robust agenda already.

Marilyn Cade

________________________________
From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 00:57:41 +0000
No attachment, Marilyn


From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:08 PM
To: Sarah Deutsch 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Steve 
DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Bc GNSO 
list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on 
safeguards for new gTLDs

I have some serious concerns with some of the positions that the BC initial 
draft  implied. The GAC principles of 2007, and several subsequent positions, 
which we supported led to the GAC advice. See my edits on both introduction, 
and several other spots.


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Deutsch  Sarah B 
<sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:28:31
To: <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [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> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:40 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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