RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the concerns re process.  This "Working Group" was nothing of
the sort, but instead a small, self-formed and self-interested group of
new-TLD applicants who have tried to railroad process through ICANN.  That
alone warrants disagreement.  

Substantively, I think the proposal is foolish because it is likely to
result in more rather than less delay to the newTLD implementation, which I
would like to see happen ASAP, provided that 'overarching concerns' are
first adequately addressed.  Those concerns seem to have been addressed, as
adequately as possible (though we have not seen the latest DAG yet), and
anyway the suggested EOI process seems more likely to reopen dressed wounds
than it is to cure anything.

As we have discussed on the list, the Business Constituency is not going to
formally comment on this to ICANN, and neither will I.  It is not really a
substantive concern, but one of process.  The GNSO made clear
recommendations about timing and communications, and now -- it seems to me
-- the Staff and a small group of self-interested parties is trying to
circumvent that.  

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:32 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI


The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board to
delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi.
I would like to suggest that the BC supports this.
Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today !
---------------------------
The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific
process
advice is as follows:
 
"the GAC therefore advises the Board to:
-      avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer
it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger
requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion;
-      request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on
the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and
-      ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the
respective interests of respondents."
 
 
Philip