[bc-gnso] THoughts about business users participation in the public comment process on the EOI

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A couple of thoughts on the individually provided EOI comments:
Given the way that the community is treating the EOI public comment process -- 
e.g. dozens of postings that are more or less designed to overwhelm by numbers 
of comments,business users interests are best served by posting separate 
commentswhere you can develop and get approval within your company or 
association's membership.
Secondly, many of the postings lack context about who the poster is. It is 
probably very helpful to provide a bit of information about the number of 
companies, if you are posting as an association or industry coalition, or the 
number of countries, or regionsthat your company provides services or products 
to, if you are a corporation. 
In analyzing public comments, the staff is significantly handicapped without 
that additional information, which the Board won't intuitively know. :-) 
The more you provide an individual perspective from your own 
company/association'sconcerns, the better the Board will be able to understand 
those very legitimate concerns and views and not just see this [or have it 
interpreted to them] as objecting to new gTLDS, regardless.
My comments will also address my concern that ICANN is not demonstrating 
effective action on addressing the four overarching issues cohesively, as 
committed. There seems to be some confusion among staff that an EOI is 
fulfilling the economic analysis, or that 'demand lists' equate to an economic 
analysis. 
I think that the perspective of business users that these issues need to be 
addressed before Board, or staffmove forward with creating expectations that 
may be affected -- significantly -- by the answers to theseoverarching issues 
is important.  In some environments, ICANN could be viewed as 'overhanging the 
market', or trying to create demand. I'm hoping that the impact of the 
responsible and informed concerns of business users in the public comment 
process can move us back into a more balanced approach to progressing the new 
gTLD Guidebook with changes that address the concerns of business users. 

Marilyn 





> From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:40:15 +0100
> 
> 
> 
> Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for
> pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted
> earlier.
> 
> But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this
> will be more persuasive.
> 
> Philip
>