ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

  • To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:20:13 -0400

Thanks for the explanation, Philip. As you know I am fairly new to the BC so I 
don't have a deep sense of its history on some of these issues. In the future, 
even a few sentences of explanation of what the BC position has been on similar 
matters in the past would be useful for those of us who are fairly new to the 
Constituency as that is the only way we will get familiar with that historic 

As for government being an ally, I'm all for that when it's feasible but I 
don't see that happening in my client's case as regards the GAC's asserted 
claims on geo names at the second level, as domain investors just have a very 
different viewpoint -- and if what they want had been the rule in the past then 
a lot of very valuable geo-domains at .com and other incumbent gTLDs that 
provide real benefits to consumers and local businesses would either not exist 
or would have been awarded based on lobbying and political connections required 
to get endorsement or non-objection. But that is the ICA view and if others 
differ that would indeed indicate a lack of consensus within the BC and argue 
for abstention.

Best regards and enjoy the weekend.

Philip S. Corwin 
Butera & Andrews 
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 
Suite 500 
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office) 

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:29 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

In reply to Phil Corwin, 
this letter has been produced at Council level prompted by an individual 
Council member.
The presumption of a need to abstain is based on my experience and knowledge of 
the issues
and the historic position of BC members. That is why I asked the BC members to 
validate the
presumption !

For the record (speaking as AIM) I support abstention on grounds that a Council 
reply is not
needed as the Board is to reply. Why upset government when they can be your 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy