[bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook
icann at rodenbaugh.com
Wed May 11 16:27:30 UTC 2011
Thanks Steve for all the hard work on this.
Re batching of applications, even if the premise is accepted that ICANN may
be unready for volume at 500 applications (though I do not accept that
premise), how does the BC propose that ICANN implement the recommendation to
limit the first batch to "significantly fewer" than 500? Is there a
specific number or specific criteria as to which applications get into the
first batch? Without answers to those questions, the BC recommendation is
less than helpful. Also, hasn't the GAC letter of Sept 2010 been superceded
by recent GAC and ICANN consultations re the new TLD program? So that
reference should be removed from bottom of page 3. Also would be helpful to
cite to the other report mentioned there.
Agree we should drop the request for further economic studies.
Re Module 3, we should continue to push for more detail from ICANN re
definitions and process for Limited Public Interest Objections.
Re Single Registrant TLDs, our position is very well stated and I support
the definition, but we could further emphasize the full definition,
including all three bullet points. The latest Specification 9 (Code of
Conduct) does not have a very clear definition, though it is a step in the
Also the language in blue in Module 5, Section 2.9 is not sufficient to
carveout Single Registrant TLDs from the 'non-discriminatory access'
provision of the base contract. They are specifically accepted out of the
Code of Conduct, which is a Specification of the base contract that also
includes a non-discriminatory access provision, but section 2.9 within the
contract itself has not caught up with the drafting. We should call this
out to be fixed.
Similarly wrt section 4.5, as that language should be consistent, it should
mention single-registrant TLDs which are already properly defined (if our
advice is accepted), rather than introduce a different definition. Staff
has the concept right, but again the drafting needs to be tightened.
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:39 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD
On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook
(original email at bottom)
Since then, here are comments and edits received:
- Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM
- 3 members (Jarkko, Jon Nevett, Mike Rodenbaugh) want to remove the BC
recommendation for an initial batch smaller than the 500 application batch
planned by ICANN. Note that the batch size does not limit the applications
in the upcoming UNLIMITED round of new gTLDs. This batch is an operational
concept introduced by ICANN to recognize capacity limitations in application
processing. The BC recommendation is: "The BC believes this first batch
should be significantly fewer than 500 applications, in order to test the
operational readiness of newly designed application processing and objection
/ contention systems." With that understanding, I do not see why the BC
should remove that comment.
- Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard
agrees with all remaining BC concerns.
- Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is
much improved. Phil also objects to the BC recommendation for transfer of
domains through a URS process. Is there more support for Phil's view?
These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining
questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely:
- p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest
we delete this.
- p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public
interest process, proposed by John Berard. John - do we still need these
- p. 9 includes a suggested definition for single-registrant TLD: a TLD
where the Registry Operator is the registrant of record for all domain names
in the TLD. Any objections?
- pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for
single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any
- p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any
- p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific
recommendations given the latest PDDRP process?
Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new
issues -- the time for that has passed.
On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC
comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.
This comment period and docs are described at
These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and
For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC
- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5
- Asked several questions for BC members (in red)
- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a
separate call on this.
All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes
and circulate to BC list.
I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1.
Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by
Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry
Cobb, Ron Andruff )
Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam
Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch )
Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )
Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff )
Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct,
( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )
In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should
help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS.
But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications
Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft.
vice chair for policy coordination
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso