RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI/don't we have a process issues re time to vote on a BC position?
- To: Berry Cobb <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI/don't we have a process issues re time to vote on a BC position?
- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:06:52 -0500
I am going to send comments on the EOI, as an individual company.
I had understood that we all had discussed a BC approved position and agreed
that we didn't have 14 days for a circulation/discussion /vote. Isn't that the
agreementon the list?
I think you will find that the individualized postings will be more effective
than positionthat hasn't had a thorough circulation and discussion and vote by
And, it looks to me like it is important to have those individual postings as
Finally, I am sensitive that not all members may be in agreement, so would want
to ensure that there was a proper process on any 'BC position', being fair to
Again, personally, I have grave concerns about the EOI as it has been
developed,from a process perspective, and from a substance position. I'll share
my comments when I get them posted. They are my individual comments, in my
capacity as the Principal/CEO of mCADE.
I like the GAC document and will reference it, but only as one more example of
concerns shared by a critical group of advisors in the full ICANN process.
> From: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0800
> I support Steve's statement with Philip's last addition about supporting the
> Thank you.
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 04:40
> To: 'bc - GNSO list'
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on
> Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree
> pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted
> But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position -
> will be more persuasive.