Re: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike:

Just a couple of points. 

As one of the few BC members at the workshop in Dakar on this issue, Steve 
asked me if I would amalgamate the comments on the issue made on the list and 
those made by BC members during the session, which I did. We only make six 
points in the proposed comments. I do note that three of the six points that we 
have in the draft came from your comments to the list regarding the RySG 
proposal. 

You raise a very challenging issue related to the BC and those of us members 
who are affiliated with or supporting an entity participating in the New TLD 
process. I suggest that we take that issue up at an upcoming call or meeting. 
It will be interesting to see how many BC members organizations do, in fact, 
participate. One benefit of transparency is to get a diversity of viewpoints 
with an understanding of where such viewpoints emanate. Of course, we should 
not use transparency and accountability principles as a sword to stifle speech 
and alternative views. Those are my $.02.  

Thanks.

Jon


On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Hello All,
>  
> I have not commented on this document for a couple of reasons. One I am 
> actively working with a number of clients in connection with new gTLDs and 
> two I have volunteered to help the registry constituency with their efforts 
> to submit a comment on this subject matter.
>  
> My concern however, is that many of the active members in preparing  this BC 
> document appear to be individuals directly/indirectly associated with new 
> gTLD applicants. Therefore, in advance I am stating my intention to abstain 
> on any BC vote, and I ask that in the interest of openness and transparency 
> that we document in any final submission those BC members that are 
> directly/indirectly involved in any new gTLD applications and their role in 
> formulating/approving this document.
>  
> I think the BC has raised a number of concerns regarding the appearance of 
> conflict at the ICANN Board level, and I think we need to lead by example.
>  
> Just my two cents.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Michael
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:08 AM
> To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry 
> proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
>  
> I support Jon’s draft, thanks for the good work.
>  
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>  
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Steve DelBianco
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> To: 'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list'
> Subject: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry 
> proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
>  
> Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC 
> comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations 
> Instrument in the new gTLD Program.
>  
> Jon Nevett prepared this draft. 
>  
> This comment period and docs are described here. 
>  
> These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval.   
> This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am 
> requesting an expedited review period.  If any member has substantive 
> objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our 
> comments after the ICANN due date.
>  
> All BC members are invited to suggest edits.     Please use track changes and 
> circulate to BC list.   
>  
> Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this.
>  
>  
> Steve DelBianco
> vice chair for policy coordination, BC