[bc-gnso] .Feedback re questions regarding list of imporovements to the new gTLD program

[Smith, Bill]

I think item #9 should be reconsidered as one where the train has already left the station, perhaps with bloodied passengers and baggage trailing behind. Do we really believe that submitting a suggestion to improve communications regarding the new gTLD process, even if accepted, will have any impact on a program due to launch in about 24 hours?

I'm certain improvements to the program could be made but have doubts that any improvements developed in ICANN time would have significant impact. Developing a new plan, even in the best of circumstances, takes time and effort. In addition, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that any ICANN staff that would work on the development of such a plan have been tasked with responding to media and other queries once the program doors are opened. Given the media attention of the past few weeks, I would be surprised if this was a quiet launch.

If we submit suggestions, I think they should be specific,  well-considered, timely, and  implementable. In my opinion, item 9 fails several of those tests.


On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:


Mike, I am sorry you had to miss the call today, but there will be a transcript. Thanks for the follow up inquiry.

Let me summarize what took place: as you know from the agenda,we had a robust set of other topics to address, and did that. I am sorry that you missed those discussions as well, but again, refer you to the transcript and if there is something specific in the rest of the call, let me or Steve or Chris know about any questions.

On the specific questions you asked about the work on the 'list":  we discussed the list on the call.

Steve provided information on items when there has been a BC previous position of relevance.

The next step is for a further circulation of the items in a format that shows where there has been prior BC position of relevance [due to Steve's great work, much of that is done], and identifying key concerns, or agreement or disagreement.  I am working with our Secretariat to turn around that document and it will be reviewed with the Executive Committee for checking on its 'understandability', and then posted to the BC list for further input and discussion.

You will be able to comment, as will all other BC members on all of the topics.
Some are newer than others, but there has been interest in these from more than one BC member, just as there is disagreement from more than one BC member on some.  Again, most of them are existing BC positions and do not break new ground.

However, we are discussing  some new items in this process.  As you know, the Charter does provide a process for dealing with areas of agreement, and disagreement when we are taking up a new position.

While some members may end up disagreeing with some of the items, others are supporting the need for this work. We are trying to serve the full BC membership.

So, I am not removing any of the items at this time, as other members are expressing interest in discussing them. Though this process we will find the areas of broadest agreement on any new items. For those already documented, this is a restatement of that support and organizing and prioritizing. As Ron Andruff  noted, it may be that we will remove some items, if they are addressed, or if in the end, they don't gain broad BC support. [e.g. the multiple script example].

 I had earlier thought that we should work on this inside the BC, but as you and Mikey have asked to have the list made public, the next version will be posted on the BC-GNSO list, as you have requested.

The transcript will be available in a day or two, and Bene will both post it to the BC and put it up on the BC wiki. For any members who missed the call, that will give them a good update both on the other topics for the BC call, including activities at the GNSO Council.

If anyone missed the call and wants a quick update from me via email on any topic on the BC agenda, just send a private email and I'll do a quick paragraph for you on the particular topic you want more detail on.

I do want to thank all the members for their participation in the BC calls. We are typically 19-23 participants, which is an excellent turn out for the BC discussions.

Thanks as well to the other officers anc Councilors and to our Secretariat for their active leadership and work! And, I also want to thank Mikey for his great work on DSSA.
[I changed the thread in the subject as it is getting a little confusing to follow. Perhaps for future discussions on this topic, we might use the subject I provided, or suggest a clearer one. ]



Marilyn Cade
.
________________________________
From: icann at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:icann at rodenbaugh.com>
To: bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bc-private] URGENT -- attachment for one of our discussion topics on BC Call
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:05:25 -0800

Marilyn, thanks for compiling this list.  Can you or other proponents of these proposals please provide more clarity re items 5, 6 and 8?



Re no. 5, is this referring to our past position, calling for lowering of a successful score in the Community Priority Evaluation from 14 points to 13 or 12 points?  If so, we should just state that again.  If not, then please explain what exactly you hope to review and for what purpose.



Re no. 6, what specific harm do you seek to address, and what suggestions for improvement are proposed?  Nearly every dictionary word is someone’s trademark.



Re no. 8, who actually supports this proposal?  How would you propose it would work in practice, where nearly every dictionary word is someone’s trademark?  Interesting inclusion of the phrase “or include the identical trademark match name”, that would give extremely powerful rights to anyone with a dictionary word, or an acronym, as a trademark.  ING comes to mind immediately…  Also interesting to mention ‘reserve names which meet certain criteria’, could you elaborate as to what sorts of criteria you are considering, in order for a trademark owner to achieve this new blocking right, as opposed to all other trademark owners who might want the same right?



Until there is some further clarity and specific agreement of the BC per our Charter, those “proposals” should be removed from the list of suggested improvements.  Otherwise the recommendations are consistent with prior agreed BC positions.



Thanks,
Mike



Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>



From: bc-private-bounces at icann.org<mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:17 AM
To: bc-private icann.org<http://icann.org>
Subject: [Bc-private] URGENT -- attachment for one of our discussion topics on BC Call



DEAR MEMBERS



As noted in the agenda that our Secretariat distributed, and committed in earlier emails, I compiled a list of the various improvements to the new gTLD program -- some are taken from the earlier draft letter that was the topic of discussion from mid Dec into January; and others are from conversations and inputs from some members.



On today's call, we will discuss these items, and add any new ones that members want to also discuss.
We will then circulate the list in a format that allows insert of individual views per topic from members via email.



We have a good amount of work ahead of us.   We are working together in good faith, and I trust, in a calm and professional tone.



Marilyn Cade
BC Chair