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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Mike

With respect, what you've said is nonsense.

It was not a small, self-formed group.  It was formed in response to a  
Board request.  The group was open to anyone who wanted to join and  
included a very diverse set of people who worked to provide inputs to  
the Board on moving a process forward which has been under discussion  
for a decade!
When you want to throw around statements like "new tld applicants who  
have tried to railroad process through ICANN" a modicum of self  
reflection about the closed and self-selected IRT process would be  
useful.
Liz

On 27 Jan 2010, at 10:51, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 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