<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 78.0pt 1.0in 78.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:379982941;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-496180766 -315482550 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.5in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1651664971;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-2049660292 -315482550 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:0in;
text-indent:.5in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks
for your input, Phil. As always informed and measured. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>However,
the issues that I am having difficulty with – in both the COI and the COF
– are:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=3 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>both require an inordinate amount
of capital be ‘parked’; money that could otherwise by more usefully
deployed by new gTLD managers in developing and marketing their string to their
potential registrants; <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=3 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>tying up financial resources for a
period of 3 years is an inordinate amount of time considering that a failing
registry can be switched over to failover system in less than 24-48 hours, if
appropriate technical provisions are in place (i.e. prior to the new registry
being ‘turned on’ in the root); <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
key question, in our view, is the one ICANN notes in its request for public
comment post: <i><span style='font-style:italic'>Who should determine how much
reserve must be set aside?</span></i> In my view, it should be the new registry
applicant in conjunction with whom they choose as their backend provider. If
an applicant selects an incumbent backend provider, Verisign as an example, that
applicant should be able to choose the same failover system that Verisign has
in place as its failover. In such case, the user protection that ICANN is
looking for is clearly already in place and operational instantaneously; and
the marginal cost, if any at all, would be determined between the applicant and
its provider. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>If
an applicant selects a non-incumbent provider, ICANN need only mandate that
backend provider to meet the same failover standards as incumbent registries
have in place. ICANN should NOT be looking to new registry <u>applicants</u>
– which are effectively ‘marketing organizations’ that within
ICANN nomenclature are called ‘registry operators’ – but
rather to those entities that will, in point of fact, be managing the
technological part of the registry business, i.e., said <u>third part backend
operators</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>As
for winding down a failed registry in a controlled manner – which the
real issue ICANN should be addressing here – applicants should be
responsible for establishing such a plan with their backend registry operator
under to-be-established ICANN policy guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Finally,
in this discussion one must also consider the fact that not one of the
registries that ‘run’ the Internet today have ever failed in the
history of ICANN. And should a failure have occurred, the incumbent registry
operator’s own failover redundancy systems would have kicked in. I
underscore that the word ‘registry’ should be understood as
‘backend registry provider’.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In
our view, it appears that ICANN is simply looking for another way:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=3 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>to raise the capital investment
required for new TLD operators to yet a higher threshold to exclude large
numbers of new potential registries that do not have deep- pocket, brand TLD
financial backing; or <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><font
size=3 face=Symbol><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></font></span></span></font><![endif]>to develop yet another pool of
applicant money that ICANN will have sole discretion over spending when, and
if, a registry operator fails in their mission to market their product.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Neither
case is acceptable, particularly when viewed in light of the fact that ICANN
has already earmarked USD 25,000 from each application fee to cover sunk costs
on the new TLD program. (Note that ICANN is a not-for-profit organization that
by legal structure must spend its full budget each year and start the next year
with a fresh slate as opposed to a for-profit corporation whose shareholders
would expect such investment recovery.) In addition to that recovery cost, an
additional USD 60,000 is earmarked to a ‘risk fund’ (read: law suit
fund) to enable ICANN to fight battles such as the current .XXX lawsuit. Very
few applicants will end up in ICANN related law suits, but all pay to defend
those few that do. This is seriously flawed. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>So
in summary, on top of USD 25,000 and USD 65,000, ICANN has created a COI
whereby each applicant will have to pony up USD1 million + (according to the
slides deck presented in Dakar), which ICANN will spend as it wishes in the
highly unlikely situation that a registry operator (‘marketing
organization’) ‘fails’ despite the fact that said
registry’s end-users’ domain names will continue to resolve without
issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I
am not a technical person, nor a lawyer, but I struggle to understand why
complicated instruments such as the COI or the COF are even being contemplated
when all backend service providers already have their own redundancy systems in
place and operational. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>For
these reasons I propose the BC push back on both and replace them with an
insistence that every backend service provider meet a particular standard to
ensure that there is no impact on end-users irrespective of which domain name
they register and whether or not the front-end of those registries remain
operational. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>In
the interest of full disclosure, dotSport LLC, a company for which I am
president and CEO, is considering an application for a new TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kind
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RA<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ronald
N. Andruff<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RNA
Partners, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----Original
Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:
Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Sent:
Friday, November 25, 2011 1:54 PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>To:
Marilyn Cade ; Ron Andruff ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org ; Bc GNSO list <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Subject:
RE: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for
Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I
appreciate the work that Jon has done on this draft and hope that these
additional comments are useful.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
COF proposal reminds me of deposit insurance for banks (pre-funded) as well as
state insurance funds (generally post-insolvency funded) -- but the difference
is that both are accompanied by rather substantial regulatory regimes to manage
the risk to the common fund, far beyond anything ICANN has ever engaged in
vis-ŕ-vis registries, much less desirable in the DNS context. A COF model
basically has all registries paying into a common fund to be used to extend
operations for at least 3 years of a registry which either has a flawed
business model or is operated incompetently (and that is always accompanied by
moral hazard), while a COI model has each individual registry purchasing a
financial guarantee tailored to its own scope of operation (I am neutral on
when the COI fund size should be revealed -- but what I am wondering is how
will it be set, and will it be adjusted at regular intervals post-launch to
account for variations in domain registrations and other profit/loss factors?).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Also,
who is operating the failed registry for the 3-year minimum period (the same
management that steered it into the rocks), and is it wise to set a minimum
that's so long if annual losses are considerable? And what is the end game for
the registry at the end of the 3 years? In the bank and insurance world, any regulatory
intervention that triggers a hit on the insurance fund is generally accompanied
by very rapid takeover and merger of the failed entity into a solvent and
well-managed one.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>So
overall, while open to counter-arguments, I think I am leaning toward the COI
approach because it places the fiscal responsibility on each registry, and that
requires much less regulatory oversight than a pooled funds COF approach -- but
certainly agree that the COI instrument amount should be flexible at the
inception based on business model and anticipated registrations, and then
reviewed regularly post-launch for adequacy. COI also seems preferable because,
as the draft notes, it provides more registrant protection, which is the main
point of the exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Philip
S. Corwin, Founding Principal<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Virtualaw
LLC<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><font
size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>1155 F Street, NW</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on"><font
size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Suite</span></font></st1:Street>
1050</st1:address><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Washington</span></font></st1:City>,
<st1:State w:st="on">DC</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">20004</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>202-559-8597/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>202-559-8750/Fax<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>202-255-6172/cell<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----Original
Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn
Cade <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Sent:
Friday, November 25, 2011 12:50 PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>To:
Ron Andruff ; sdelbianco@netchoice.org ; Bc GNSO list <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Subject:
Re: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for
Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Will
read this. I am having some trouble with how this wprks, but also think that
this may be an opportunity for our BC request for improvements for IPR - if
they can consider such a big change in this, why not still in ITR mechanisms. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Sent
via BlackBerry by AT&T<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----Original
Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:
Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Date:
Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:32:40<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>To:
<sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Subject:
RE: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for
Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks
to Steve and Jon for this first cut. It is a shame that time is so short
because a considerable amount of work still needs to be done on this topic over
the coming few days. I will bring some thoughts to this discussion in a
later post, but thought that the excerpt that Steve linked out to would be a
helpful start and have thus posted them below for member's consideration. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Public
comment is requested concerning the recently received from the proposal for
Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund. This proposal comes from the
Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed
Continuity Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by
some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing
Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. Here are some questions
that public comment respondents could consider regarding the RySG alternative
proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>1.
Considering ICANN's <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Mission</st1:place></st1:City>,
what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer?
Under which circumstances? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
* Can the same end be accomplished through a third party? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
* Will an insurance company underwrite this? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>2.
The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook (see: http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb)
is designed to provide some safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD
registries that fail. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>For
the existing COI model: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
* There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new
registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to
protect registrants. How could this be addressed? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>For
the COF model: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
* Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
* What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to
provide registrant protections? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>1.
In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations
Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the
proposed fund? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>2.
How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF model
ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes from
small to large? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>3.
Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new registries
enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this account for
some level of predictability and fairness for all registries? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>4.
What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections,
tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>5.
What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various
parties as required responding to emergency situations? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>One
comment I would leave with you all is that it should be well-noted that ICANN
already extracts USD 60,000 from each applicant as a risk fee without detailed
explanation as to its use. Most applicants understand that this money
will be used by ICANN legal to fight lawsuits that may arise from the new gTLD
program, but find it an uncomfortable "tax" which will probably be
used to fight battles that are not of their making. Food for thought. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kind
regards, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RA
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Ronald
N. Andruff<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>President
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>RNA
Partners, Inc. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>220
<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Fifth Avenue</st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=3
face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>New York</span></font></st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">New York</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">10001</st1:PostalCode></st1:place>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>+
1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>----------------<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve
DelBianco<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Sent:
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:06 PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>To:
'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Subject:
[bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for
Continuity Operations Instrument (COI) <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Per
discussion in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Dakar</st1:City></st1:place>
and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC comments on the a
proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations Instrument in the new
gTLD Program. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Jon
Nevett prepared this draft. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>This
comment period and docs are described here
<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm>
. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>These
comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval. This
is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am requesting an
expedited review period. If any member has substantive objections to the
expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our comments after the ICANN
due date. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>All
BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track
changes and circulate to BC list. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks
again to Jon for taking the lead on this. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Steve
DelBianco <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>vice
chair for policy coordination, BC<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>No
virus found in this message.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Checked
by AVG - www.avg.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=3 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Version:
10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/4038 - Release Date: 11/25/11<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>