[bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

Thu Mar 15 20:01:18 UTC 2012

Agreed.

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com 

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Phil Corwin
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Bryce Coughlin; Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

While not taking any firm position on batching until ICANN actually reduces
its proposal to writing in a comprehensible form (if that is possible) and
ICA's members have a chance to review it and weigh in, I do feel a need to
make a cautionary statement -- There should not be an assumption that new
generic gTLDs will not add value and innovation to the DNS, and it would be
problematic to have a position which relegated all generic bids to a second
or later batch based on such an assumption.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] on behalf of Bryce
Coughlin [Bryce.Coughlin at fox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 3:08 AM
To: Hansen, Anjali; 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

I would like to echo Anjali's thanks to the BC in general--and to Marilyn
and Steve in particular--for a very warm welcome to us newcomers. 

I also second Anjali's thanks to Steve for this circulation, and also her
comments in general.  An issue of clarification: in our huddle today, I got
the impression that the current BC position was the prioritization of both
IDNs and community-based applications.  However, upon reading the position
statement in the below email, it seems that the position actually only calls
for prioritization of community-based applications.  If that is indeed the
case, I would offer that this is actually a good thing:  As implied in the
comments today, IDNs as a group may be too broad a category to advocate for
prioritization per se.  Instead, as we continue the discussion and
calibration of the BC position on this issue in the future, I wonder if we
might eventually tweak the position to read that we support the
prioritization of community-based applications--including and especially
IDNS that are community based.  That is very different from wholesale
endorsement of IDN prioritization because it removes types of IDNs (e.g.,
.brand IDNs) that would not carry the same rationale for prioritization.

Of course, as the issue is unlikely to be resolved until the application
window closes, I look forward to further development and discussion on the
topic.  

Best,

Bryce

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] on behalf of Hansen,
Anjali [AHansen at council.bbb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:42 PM
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: existing BC position on batching

Steve,

Thanks for sending this around for us newcomers.  I agree with the BC's
recommendations on batching and the other positions taken on the Applicant
Guidebook in the link you sent.  Great job by the BC. I especially
appreciate the proposal that was made for a Globally Protected Rights List
which was unfortunately not taken by ICANN.  I'd like to keep pushing for
this list in the future.  I strongly believe that rights holders should pay
to protect their brands one time in the TM Clearinghouse and not have to
defensively register.  This creates high costs to brandholders and
undeserved revenue to registries and registrars.  I think what occurred in
.xxx and the profits raised by blocking and defensive registrations is
indefensible and should not be allowed to occur again.    

My comment today about the batching order, came from the proposal raised at
the NTIA meeting many of us attended in Washington that the batching order
should be: (1) IDNs, (2) community, (3) generic, and (4) brands.  I worry
about allowing all IDN's to go first since many of those could fall under
brands or generics. 

I do think the first batch should prioritize IDNs but with qualifications.
I like the standards set forth in the BC position on batching in general,
e.g., that:  "name space expansion should create added-value. Where there is
added-value there will be genuine user demand - not just defensive
registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and competition in the
global public interest. In a global market economy, added-value means
differentiation from other gTLDs while providing competition for existing
gTLDs."   This should apply to any first batch IDNs as well.

Thanks to the BC for all your hard work and progress to date.  I look
forward to being more involved in your policy positions in the future and
your patience while I get up to speed.

Anjali

Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel

Tel: 703-247-9340

Fax: 703-276-0634

Email:  <mailto:ahansen at council.bbb.org> ahansen at council.bbb.org

 <http://www.bbb.org/> www.bbb.org | Start With Trust

Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600

Arlington, VA  22201

For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog
<http://www.bbb.org/blog/> 
Find us on:  <http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> Twitter |
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403>
Facebook |
<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro>
LinkedIn |  <http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> YouTube |
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> Flickr

 <http://www.bbb.org/100-year> Description: Description: Description:
BBBAnniversarycolor

This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please
notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your
system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you.

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:47 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] existing BC position on batching

In our preparation for tomorrow's public forum topic on gTLD Implementation
issues, here's the BC's existing position on batching:

See below and on Page 3 of the document at

http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC+on+Final+App+Guidebook+May+2
011+v3.pdf 

As to the composition of the first batch, the BC recommends that it include
a substantial proportion of community-based applications. It is a
long-standing position of the BC that name space expansion should create
added-value. Where there is added-value there will be genuine user demand -
not just defensive registrations-and expansion will enhance choice and
competition in the global public interest. In a global market economy,
added-value means differentiation from other gTLDs while providing
competition for existing gTLDs.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20120315/dad7364b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6302 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20120315/dad7364b/image001.jpg>