<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI
- From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:17:05 -0500
ICA is fine with the final draft.
While we do not have a formal position pro or con on the EOI, my personal view
is that it is a distraction from the main game -- that every hour spent
debating whether there should be an EOI, what its purpose is, and what its
terms should be is an hour that is not being devoted to resolving the key
issues that would permit the new gTLD application window to open.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office)
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip
Sheppard [philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:30 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI
Thank you for the last round of comments.
Our 14 day process is almost complete and I wanted to send a copy of our paper
so that BC colleagues in Nairobi will have a position to speak to.
I attach a version three factoring in the last round of comments / support.
This includes all substantive contributions of content though not all of the
style suggestions. Us rapporteurs should be free to retain that element!
For good order I also attach a clean version 3 and have entitled it "final" to
facilitate any external communication in Nairobi.
Philip
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|