ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[bc-gnso] IRT Final report

  • To: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report
  • From: "Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:37:32 -0600

I think, Philip, that may have been an unfortunate remark.  There are many 
members of the BC which are small and even one-person companies.  Some of these 
are people like myself who used to be with smaller firms and and are now with 
much larger, some. Have moved the opposite direction from larger firms to 
one-person consultancies.  Regardless of size of company, some of the BC 
individuals from some of our smallest companies are amongst our most able 
contributors, such as George.

If we do not respect contributions from individuals representing our smaller 
member firms, or do not repsect them as much as other members, maybe we should 
be upfront about it and refuse to accept their membership fees.  That is not my 
view, I think if they qualify for membership under our rules, size of member 
firm is not important, certainly less important that the quality of its policy 
contribution, which in George's case is considerable, whether one agrees with 
his every point they are always educational.  The BC would be the poorer if he 
took what appears to be your suggestion and refrained from input.


Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798
office: (403) 750-5535

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jun 03 07:23:45 2009
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> George,
> you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter"
> please tell BC members more about your company, its business objectives, 
> global reach and staffing.

Is this some sort of suggestion that my company isn't qualified to
offer an opinion/position, or that my company is not representative of
the many companies (and individuals) who've registered 180 million
domain names worldwide?


I'd be curious to know who you believe should be able to comment on
ICANN policy. My company has been a member of the BC for years,
sailing through the credentials committee, etc. Indeed, I was trusted
enough to be on the credentials committee, deciding who was qualified
to be in the BC, before I decided to step down from that committee. It
was my company that detected the flaws in the .biz/info/org contracts
that would have permitted tiered pricing:


It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder:


even before it launched (note the 3rd link was on September 9, 2003,
whereas SiteFinder launched on September 15 as per the 4th link).

If those qualifications aren't good enough to create informed
comments, please do educate the rest of the BC as to what does qualify
as informed comment. Do you believe only members of AIM should be
allowed to participate in ICANN policymaking, for example?


George Kirikos

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this 
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive 
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of 
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify 
sender at the above e-mail address.
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail 
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no 
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like 
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to 
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by 
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent 
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as 
encryption) unless specifically requested.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy