Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report
I'd like to support Rick's point of view and perhaps Philip was having a "too fast fingers" moment? I would be very disappointed if individual members, like me, weren't valued for our expertise and contribution as a given.
I agree with Rick and, although as a group, we rarely agree with each other that isn't a reason not to participate or to question the validity of someone's views.
LizPS For the record, I am very troubled by the IRT Report from both a process and an output point of view.
... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 3 Jun 2009, at 14:37, Rick Anderson wrote:
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.cheers/Rick 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 Hello, 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?http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Internet-Domain-Names-Surpass- iw-15423088.htmlI'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:http://www.circleid.com/posts/ icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder: http://www.circleid.com/posts/petition_against_site_finder/ http://www.verisignsucks.com/ http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm 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? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/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.