<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Steve,</div><div><br></div><div>Based on the text of the April 2011 discussion draft, our earlier comments are moot. Take 'em out. </div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: Draft v2 of BC comments on latest gTLD<br>
Guidebook<br>
From: Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 8:39 am<br>
To: "'<a href="mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org">bc-GNSO@icann.org</a> GNSO list'" <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<div><div><div>On 27-Apr I circulated draft BC comments on the latest Applicant Guidebook (original email at bottom)</div><div>Since then, here are comments and edits received:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div>- Philip Sheppard amended module 5 section on criteria for marks entering TM Clearinghouse.</div><div><br></div><div>- 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.</div></blockquote><div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div><br></div><div>- Per Jarkko, I changed summary page to avoid implication that GAC Scorecard agrees with all remaining BC concerns.</div><div><br></div><div>- Phil Corwin suggested that our comment on URS is outdated, since URS is much improved.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?</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>These comments are due 15-May. Members are invited to address remaining questions (in red) in the attached draft. Namely:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div>- p.2 includes our previous request for further economic studies. I suggest we delete this.</div><div><br></div><div>- p.6 includes our previous request for definitions in limited public interest process, proposed by John Berard. John — do we still need these definition requests?</div><div><br></div><div>- 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?</div><div><br></div><div>- pages 10 and 11 include our prior recommendations for flexibility for single-registrant TLDs. I do not think these comments are still needed any longer. </div><div><br></div><div>- p. 12 shows a change to the carve-out for single-registrant TLDs. Any objections?</div><div><br></div><div>- p.14 includes our prior comment on PDDRP. What are our specific recommendations given the latest PDDRP process?</div><div><br></div></blockquote><div>Please reply to list with specific answers. However, please don't add new issues -- the time for that has passed.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div></div></div></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div>On 4/27/11 2:57 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:</div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.</div><div><br></div><div>This comment period and docs are described at <a target="_blank" href="http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm">http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm</a> </div><div>These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval.</div><div><br></div><div>For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways:</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div>- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations.</div><div>- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5</div><div>- Asked several questions for BC members (in red) </div><div>- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD". We may hold a separate call on this.</div><div><br></div></blockquote><div>All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list. </div><div>I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1. </div><div><div><br></div><div>Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module. </div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div>Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees. (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff )</div><div><br></div><div>Module 2: Evaluation Procedures. (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett, Adam Palmer, Zahid Jamil, Sarah Deutsch )</div><div><br></div><div>Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )</div><div><br></div><div>Module 4: String Contention. ( Ron Andruff )</div><div><br></div><div>Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs</div><div>( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman, Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )</div></blockquote></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Other notes:</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div>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. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Steve DelBianco</div><div>vice chair for policy coordination</div><blockquote style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 40px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "><div><br></div></blockquote><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; "><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><blockquote style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 40px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; "></blockquote></div></div></div></span></div></div></span></div></div></span></div></div></span></div></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>