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: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:59:13 -0400


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 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.

It seems you've already done so, given that multiple people have asked
many questions or brought up important issues, and you've ignored

1. (by me) http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00263.html

"You also state "you have been asked if the BC has a view on this
issue", but did not say who asked you, nor in what context."

(and repeated numerous times since)

2. Liz http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00270.html

"I am not clear on what we need to be preparing by way of commentary
or what the timing/decision tree is about.

Perhaps Mike could enlighten us on the process."

3. Michael Ward: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00272.html

"Mike R. -- you stated that you have been asked to see if the BC has a
view on this.  Was that individual who asked you part of the BC or
somebody else?"

4. Marilyn: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00289.html

"I do not believe that it  is a BC GNSO policy topic now. It is
actually outside of the GNSO Policy work, isn't it? "


"I am not sure where this would be posted. Can we get a quick answer
on that? that would be important so that the work of the members
would be meaningful if they devote time to editing/commenting on the

5. Phil Corwin: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00256.html

"ICA takes strong exception to Mike's commentary (below). We believe
that our opposition and that of many others to the URS has been well
founded and that the use of the term "ridiculous" to characterize
certain opposition to the URS and IP Clearinghouse (and we support the
latter, in restricted form) is completely inappropriate."

I guess we "don't need to have an open comment period" whenever the
Registry Constituency and wannabe registry operators crack the whip
and ask the BC to fall in line, do we? And as long as the BC officers
agree with false statements made about the BC, they don't feel
inclined to lift a finger, either.

The BC has a system for prioritizing work, see:


"The BC applies a priority system to issues.
1 - top priority, active engagement, BC position papers track and
update an issue as needed
2 - medium priority, occasional BC position papers to set principles
3 - low priority, may be a hot ICANN issue, but has low impact on
business users, unlikely to even write a BC paper."

This topic is a '3' for businesses, but a '1' for registry operators
(or wanna-be new TLD operators) and registrars. Can someone explain
why this is suddenly the top priority of the BC, when a lot of folks
aren't even paying attention due to holidays? (count the number of
vacation auto-responders in the last couple of weeks, to understand
this) Or, is it being made a priority BECAUSE it's the holidays, and
no one is paying attention? And to be a higher priority than price

Of course, price caps are something the registry constituency opposes,
so I suppose now that they have de facto control over the BC policy
setting machinery, it won't be a BC priority any longer. Should we all
be sending our next constituency renewal fees directly to the Registry
Constituency treasurer, to make things more efficient in the future?


George Kirikos

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy