RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jon and Tero.  The idea of limiting the number of TLDs in this
next round has been raised repeatedly since 2007, and always rejected
because there is no equitable way to determine who should go next.  To try
to determine such a way forward would take many months if not years of
further community debate.  Also, the root scaling studies have indicated
there is no technical reason to limit the number of new TLDs.  It is time to
resolve the policy issues that have been discussed since 2007, rather than
create huge new issues such as how to prioritize new gTLD applications.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:19 PM
To: ext Jon Nevett; Phil Corwin
Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx;
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC
statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

 

I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see
that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.

 

regards

 

Tero

 

Tero Mustala 
Principal Consultant, 
CTO/Industry Environment 
Nokia Siemens Networks 
tero.mustala@xxxxxxx 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ext Jon Nevett
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx;
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC
statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide
which ones to move forward on?  For example, why RPMs in generics would be
more important than in .nyc?  Do you do it randomly?  Not sure the equity in
that -- and would it be a problematic lottery? 

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

 

 

On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:





Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. 
 

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC
statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues 
 

Marilyn and all, 

In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment
session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC
members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give
some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to
mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to
apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string,
which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII
scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the
impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a
limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as
suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently
revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO
without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet
in the meeting rooms and halls.... 

Kind regards, 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

  _____  

From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400

To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement
regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues

 

During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the
GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements
from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on
Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b,
and 2].  

 

I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't
have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs
within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I
intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure
that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the
statement.

 

Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have
Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the
discussions  so far. ]

 

I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with
you all/stay closely tuned.