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

[Chuck Warren <warren65@xxxxxxxxx>]

Overstock is not 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:09 PM, <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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