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

[<jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. 
The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable 
timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.

I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won't be 
any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will 
progress with different speeds.

Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be 
quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement 
negotiations with ICANN.  Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will 
get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new 
gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately 
delegated because of business of other reasons.  I hope that this example 
illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the 
ones that are currently unknown.

BR,

-jr






From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext 
Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: 13. maaliskuuta 2011 21:39
To: 'Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; '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 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<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>; bc - GNSO list 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com>
________________________________
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400
To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.