[bc-gnso] FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs

[Fares, David]

Thanks Ron.  If I am not mistaken, the concept of differentiation for new gTLDs is a position the BC endorsed in previous rounds of new gTLDs.  I think it is a good idea to pursue.  Thanks.

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:26 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
Importance: High

Sorry for the double posting should this email pop up twice.  Important information noted below.

Kind regards,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001



www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com>

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859

________________________________
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com]
Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
Importance: High

Dear Colleagues,

I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly introduction of domain names prior to the Seoul meeting for the benefit of membership review.  While here, we have had many discussions with the leadership and membership of the IP, ISP, ALAC, and GAC and we are finding significant support for our argument.  The GAC are moving toward 'categorization', which would be a much too narrow approach, so concerned ICANN community members appear to be coalescing around our argument for 'differentiation'.  This morning at the CSG meeting, I recommended that we start the process with differentiation and then, if found to be not necessary, we could then remove such a restriction.  We cannot do this the other way around because once the genie is out of the bottle there is no getting her back in.

Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to the gathering support for what they call 'categorization', is "not necessary" or "too late".   This is extremely discomfiting.  On the other hand, Board member Thomas Narten stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure which way to go on this.  I read this to mean that senior staff is standing at the barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community's input.

Our argument is based completely on existing 'policy'.  That is to say, we are noting (1) that the GNSO Final Report is not being properly implemented; (2) the Scaling the Root Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC's long-standing (9-years) position on the introduction of new gTLDs.

Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has now been circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers in the community.  In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the new gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet.  We can be certain that there are those within our ICANN community - let alone those outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can be gamed - who will take advantage of a 'no rules' names introduction.  As such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue serious consideration and post comments in support of 'differentiation' language being added to the DAG v4.  We are not married to the language suggested in the document, so any amendments you have in that regard are also welcome.

If I can be of further assistance please contact me.

Thank you,

RA


Ronald N. Andruff

dotSport LLC

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001



V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859
ra at dotSportLLC.com<mailto:ra at dotSportLLC.com>
www.dotsportllc.com<http://www.dotsportllc.com>



This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone.
Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to
the official business of News America Incorporated or its
subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any
of them. No representation is made that this email or its
attachments are without defect.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091027/1b0ccedb/attachment.html>