[bc-gnso] RE: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear colleagues, 

 

It appears that ICANN has seen the error of their ways.  The Public Forum
that IS public after all:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.
htm 

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

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

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:45 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>