ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation

  • To: "'BC gnso'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:10:49 -0700

We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC
position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to
guide further policy development.

If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it.
The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are
not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories.   Indeed I am
quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read --
this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired
of your posts.


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
George Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM
To: BC gnso
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> One step at a time please.
> This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
> If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a
different paper please.

I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment
period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement
should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar
separation is but one aspect.

And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another
constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say
anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms
doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party,
demanding retractions, etc.

But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of
concern" in June:


(when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are
the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of
concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that
Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position
back in June?

This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at
the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC
had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then
they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink)

So, to repeat:

1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of
concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly.
2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the
false statement that the BC had any position on the topic.


George Kirikos

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy