[bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2

Ron Andruff randruff at rnapartners.com
Thu Feb 25 17:05:47 UTC 2010



While RNA Partners is on record for supporting the
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/eoi-new-gtlds/msg00004.html>  EOI process for
a number of reasons, we are not wholly opposed to your draft BC position on
this topic.  There are, however, three things that jumped out at me when I
read your draft.  


I am not sure that the following statement is true and believe that it
should be verified before inclusion: "The EOI process is diverting ICANN
staff and the community from focusing on the completion of the DAG itself"
My understanding is that the EOI process is simply identifying cornerstone
elements earlier on in the overall process.  In this way it establishes a
manageable way forward when the process gets underway by avoiding inevitable
bottlenecks and/or massive confusion that a "shotgun start" would
undoubtedly lead to. 


The second questionable comment (noted below) is incorrect, in my view.
While RNA strongly supports an IP Clearinghouse (or some such mechanism)
being in place prior to the new gTLD application period opens, in lieu of
having that finalized prior to the EOI opening brand, owners still have the
right to oppose any and all speculators in their names as is outlined in the
current DAG.  As I read it, the current challenge language - an organization
of standing - ensures that brand holders rights are protected by allowing
them to oppose so that their names/marks cannot fall into the hands of an
unauthorized applicant.  "brand owners may feel compelled to enter into an
EOI purely for defensive reasons, so that they do not suffer when a
speculator is given rights in their brand."


Finally, we also do not agree that the EOI violates the AoC.  In this
regard, we agree entirely with Marilyn's comments submitted to this list.


Kind regards,





From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:56 PM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2


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 appropriate.




From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard at aim.be] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:19 AM
To: 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
Subject: Draft BC position EOI

For 14 day comment


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 process.


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.


Comments, 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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100225/f30bafa1/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list