<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks, Robin for this excellent summary
of the challenging issues before us. Are there any impending public comment
opportunities to raise these issues (especially the staff’s alarming
reintroduction of beauty contests)? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>What we see here is a disturbing but
somewhat predictable tendency to create what you call “carve-outs” –
special, privileged rules tailored to specific interests that allow them to
bypass the normal objections process. So in addition to the already Byzantine and
unpredictable process we add another layer of carveouts. What a nightmare! <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Non-Commercial
User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Robin Gross<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, April 21, 2008 4:48
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [NCUC-DISCUSS] new gtld
policy update - 11 April mtg and staff notes</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>A few key issues were discussed at the new gtld policy meeting on 11
April in LA. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Here are the 70 slides from the meeting:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy-discussion-11apr08.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>1. There is a question as to whether a TLD operator can expand
its business down the line in ways not outlines in its original application for
a TLD. We have argued that TLD operators should not be straight jacketed
into their business plan 1.0 and should be allowed to expand their use of the
TLD in lawful ways. Some in the business and registry constituencies want
for TLD operators to have to go back and receive approval from ICANN every time
they want to use the TLD in a new way. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2. Some want country names and their abbreviations to be
off-limits to anyone for use in a top-level domain. There is a lot of
pressure from GAC to reserve words they would want to own. The GNSO's
response has been GAC can object to any application like anyone else and take
the names it wants that way. But there are still calls for a reserved
name list for country names and abbreviations.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3. When two applicants want the same string, ICANN is proposing a
"beauty contest" method of determining who should be given the
string. This "comparison evaluation" was not in the GNSO's
recommendations and is something ICANN staff has created. Many in the
GNSO expressed concern about this method, but it remains to be seen whether the
GNSO will have final say in what its recommendations are. The beauty
contest criteria for deciding who is awarded a domain name include very
subjective and arbitrary evaluation criteria such as "provides value",
or is "important" to ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>4. The morality / public order string criteria continue to be
problematic. There is some discussion as to who has standing to raise an
objection to a domain name based on morality and public order. We have
argued that only governments should have such standing, but the current wording
of the recommendation opens it up for any one in the world to object to a
string based on morality and public order. ICANN will adopt a
"one-size-fits-all" for standards of morality and public order.
Very little information on this issue was given at the 11 April mtg (only
1 slide of 70 slides).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><!--StartFragment-->
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5. There will be a 3-part test for OBJECTIONS:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> For an objection to be successful in killing an application for a
domain name, the objector must prove that:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>-</span></font><font size=1><span style='font-size:
7.0pt'> </span></font>Community opposition
to the application is substantial; AND<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>-</span></font><font size=1><span style='font-size:
7.0pt'> </span></font>Community invoked is
a coherent community; AND<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.25in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>-</span></font><font size=1><span style='font-size:
7.0pt'> </span></font>There is a reasonable
association between the community invoked and the TLD string applied for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<!--EndFragment--><span style='orphans: 2;text-align:auto;widows: 2;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0;word-spacing:0px'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>6. The
trademark and business constituencies want special privileges for software
companies that would prohibit a TLD if it corresponds to a file extension (like
.doc or .pdf). ICANN staff said it was told that there were no technical
problems with such a TLD, but the trademark industry is still pushing for this
and may get the special carve out. At the meeting I argued that if there
is a question of confusion, the objection process should be used to solve that
question. Those companies can go through the same process that everyone
else must go through to raise their objection based on likelihood of confusion.
But the voices for the special carve-out are loud and well-funded; and
the contracting parties don't care much one way or another so will likely give
in to the pressure to create a presumption against a file extension as a TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</span>
<div><span style='orphans: 2;text-align:auto;widows: 2;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0;word-spacing:0px'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>7. Chart of new
gtld sting evaluation process:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'> <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'>8. And see also
the attached briefing notes from ICANN staff of 14 April.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=1 color=black face=Helvetica><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>