RE: [bc-gnso] GAC Advice Public Comment - or not?

[Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes - lets plan to discuss this with the entire membership at next Friday's BC 
member call which is scheduled for 11am ET on April 26th.

I will also just mention that Fadi had also promised in his recent 
interview<http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/beijing46/video-post-meeting-12apr13-en.htm>,
 an updated New gTLD timeline this week, which I have not yet seen.

Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency

208 389-5779 PH

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron 
Andruff
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:45 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] GAC Advice Public Comment - or not?

Dear colleagues,

So it appears that ICANN is once again entering into the Theatre of the Absurd. 
 First, Fadi states publicly in the post-Beijing video that in a 
precedent-setting move, ICANN would put the GAC advice out to public comment; 
then (perhaps recognizing the law of unintended consequences) he does an 
about-face and notes the Public Comment will not include any public comments... 
The public comment period that wasn't?

If you haven't seen the announcement, it is here: 
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en

The president and staff have to recognize that these flip flopping, 
stutter-stepping, inconsistencies are unacceptable to the community and to 
governments.  Trying to make up processes on the fly to ensure that the 
deadlines for new gTLDs are hit is not part of the bottom up, consensus-driven 
institution many in the community devote so much volunteer time in building.

For my part, we need to send that message back to Fadi.  Either it is an open 
Public Comment forum; or there is no Public Comment at all, in my view.  He 
can't have it both ways... In essence, what he is trying to do now is solely 
give affected applicants a chance to say that shouldn't be on the list because 
of x, y, or z.  What about the parties affected by, or objectors to, those 
applications?  Don't they deserve - at the very least - equal time?

I do hope that we can find consensus on this matter within the BC.  We REALLY 
need to pull together on this and singular/plural - both of which are absurd.  
Can we look to our Ex Com to take the lead...?

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com>