[bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 25 15:28:16 UTC 2010
Philip, thanks very much for your very prompt drafting and circulating the draft. The second version with new inputs from members have added in several important elements and clarifications. I have some further suggestions and comments, in, of course, my individual capacity as a member. One overarching comment: The BC has had a very measured approach to its statements about support for the new gTLD program, carefully balancing the measured, responsible acceptance of a new gTLD program that introduces names in a responsible, measured and accountable manner, without an outright endorsement of the new gTLD program. Thus, I was wondering if there was a need to just reference existing policy positions as a background? NOT to repeat, but perhaps just reference?
General comment: I would prefer to see the document have full sentences for the headings. That isn't a change in the document, but would strengthen it as a document to be used in interactions with Board and community and GAC during Nairobi. Some examples of full sentence headings are shown below for consideration:
1. The EOI as presently crafted has an unclear objective
2. The EOO, as presently crafted is diverting ICANN and the broader community from addressing Critical unresolved Issues:
3. The EIO is not a substitute for an economic study
4. The present EOI approach requires applicants to make a significant payment of one third of the full registration fee, but without a complete DAG, creating liability for ICANN and unclear risks for registry applicants
5. The EOI as crafted pressures potential applicants, including Brand Holders to enter into the EOI process for defensive reasons
6. The present EOI may encourage secondary market speculation at the top level, introducing risks and uncertainty that can add risks to the stability of the global Internet and DNS
7. this item needs a clearer title.Comment: I am not sure I fully understand this point. Is it that by publishing the list of strings, different applicants may then begin to take legal or other action to oppose others applying for a particular string?
8. I don't agree with this suggestion that the EOI in and of itself violates the AoC. The definition of what the 'public interst' means in the AoC is still unclear. I played a very strong role in getting that language included in the PSC documents, and many PSC elements were later incorporated then by ICANN and the NTIA into the AoC, and in the longer term, this area may be a useful area to explore further. Many individual BC members provided comments into the PSC process that supported the recognition of ICANN's need to act in the public interest in many of its decisions. However, this element is still very much a matter of exploration and discussion.
However, for this particular discussion, I do not believe that the Board or staff or others in the stakeholder community will find it persuasive. Perhaps the real point for a new/revised 8. is:
new text: Consistency with previous ICANN practice on new gTLD applicationsIn earlier processes to introduce new gTLDs, ICANN did undertake assessing a 'sense' of the interest, undertaken without a binding fee, and respecting anoniminity. If the purpose is merely to help staff to assess volumes, two thresholds should be met before undertaking an 'assessment of interest from potential applicants: 1) Completion of the overarching issues and 2) A fully completed DAG.
ICANN should not be pursuing an EOI that creates possible liability to the organization for implied or other forms of commitment to potential registry applicants, and should address all of the overarching issues including completing a full economic analysis and completing the DAG. Any surveys about 'interests' should be non binding and avoid creating expectations that ICANN will move forward with a particular list of strings in any application cycle.
From: philip.sheppard at aim.be
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:55:47 +0100
Thanks to BC members for their comments to date.
I attach a revised version 2.
Comments / expressions of support please now on
this version referencing line tracking as
From: Philip Sheppard
[mailto:philip.sheppard at aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010
To: 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
Subject: Draft BC position
For 14 day
I have been asked by
the new VP policy coordination Steve DelBianco to act as rapporteur for the
issue of Expressions of Interest in the context of the new gTLDS
I attach a proposed
draft for the Constituency. Its argumentation and consequent conclusion is based
on the submissions of Bc members in their individual capacity to the public
comments process. These comment were significant in their commonality. In short
all commentators believed that:
- the EOI is a poor
substitute for data gathering and an economic study
- the EOI is bad
business practice as it requires investors to invest in ignorance of issues that
ICANN is obliged to solve.
improvements are most welcome ideally by e-mail bullet points referencing the
line numbers rather than Word tracked changes.
This makes the job
of the poor rapporteur much easier !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso