[bc-gnso] RE: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sarah, since you and Marilyn are so keen for everyone to recuse themselves
if their companies or clients might apply for a new TLD... are you both
committing publicly that neither Verizon nor AT&T nor Overstock nor any
other of MC's clients will do so?

Regardless, I do not understand your basis for alleging any conflict of
interest, merely because some members have been planning on new TLDs for
many years now, how does that preclude them from discussing BC policy about
them now?  Can you please explain?



Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:56 PM
To: 'Mike Roberts'; bc-private icann.org
Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft

I support the idea of a constructively worded letter creating a record
calling for additional specific fixes to the gTLD process for the benefit of
the business community.  I concur that anyone affiliated directly or
indirectly with new applications for new gTLDs should recuse themselves from
this particular issue.  


Sarah




Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670 


-----Original Message-----
From: bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:bc-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:45 PM
To: bc-private icann.org
Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft

It's unseemly for members to attempt to stand on process when  they are
having problems with content.  There is already way too much process
bureaucracy in ICANN and we certainly don't need to advance that dubious
goal in the BC.

The other day I pointed out that the central purpose of the BC was to
represent the interests of who use the Internet and the DNS in pursuit of
their business goals.  The draft note from Marilyn certainly focuses on
those interests, at least from the perspective of The Darwin Group, which is
an SMB in Internet policy consulting.  I personally see nothing wrong with
sending it.

Over time, the BC has accommodated a number of interests not necessarily
always aligned with its central purpose.  In applying for membership,
organizations have been required to state their commitment to the central
purpose as part of joining, while acknowledging that multiple interests are
represented at times.

Individuals or organizations currently directly or indirectly affiliated
with applications for new gTLDs should be recusing themselves from this
discussion.

- Mike





On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Marilyn wrote:

> The letter restates existing BC perspectives. Discussion on the list about
this general topic has been underway since 12/12 with a short list of
comments or objections. In response to objections, the list of changes is on
a different track. However, as I have noted, the letter states BC concerns
about risks to trademark holders and asks For continued efforts to fix them.
It does not propose a delay in the announcement scheduled. 
> 


_______________________________________________
Bc-private mailing list
Bc-private@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private

_______________________________________________
Bc-private mailing list
Bc-private@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private