Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues

["BRUEGGEMAN, JEFF (ATTSI)" <jb7454@xxxxxxx>]

I support Ron's suggestion too, in part because there are so many outstanding 
issues. If the Board realistically cannot respond to all of these substantive 
issues at this point in the process, then a general remedy to address the 
concerns is to limit the initial round and allow a fact-based review of that 
round to inform the process.  And I think that is in the interest of the 
business community too as a way to provide a path forward, recognizing that all 
of our concerns have not been addressed. 

Jon, you raise good points about the practical concerns, but can't the starting 
point be a numerical limit based on the timing of when applications make it 
through the process. I would think that would reward applicants that are ready 
to move quickly and do not trigger the objection or conflict process. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2011, at 5:36 PM, "Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)" 
<tero.mustala@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Jon. Also if you read the GAC communique, you might see 
> that the governments are quite definite with some of their concerns.
>  
> regards
>  
> Tero
>  
> Tero Mustala 
> Principal Consultant, 
> CTO/Industry Environment 
> Nokia Siemens Networks 
> tero.mustala@xxxxxxx
> 
>  
>  
> 
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> ext Jon Nevett
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:06 AM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Cc: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues
> 
> Probably not a surprise, but I do not support (2) -- how would you decide 
> which ones to move forward on?  For example, why RPMs in generics would be 
> more important than in .nyc?  Do you do it randomly?  Not sure the equity in 
> that -- and would it be a problematic lottery?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
> 
>> Good suggestions, Ron. I'm in general support. 
>>  
>> From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 06:53 PM
>> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
>> <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC 
>> statement regardingBoard-GAC Scorecard issues 
>>  
>> Marilyn and all, 
>> 
>> In discussions with Peter DT, he has made it clear that Monday's comment 
>> session is critical to coming to closure with the GAC. It is clear that GAC 
>> members must take something home for their ministers, so we need to give 
>> some serious thought to what those things might be. Two ideas that come to 
>> mind are (1) recommend that all community based applications be allowed to 
>> apply simultaneously for their IDN equivalents or a small fee per string, 
>> which would lead to each nation being able to use non-English / non-ASCII 
>> scripts (and therein a "win"); and (2) suggest that a way to get past the 
>> impass of too many "2"s in the scorecard would be to go forward with a 
>> limited round to start so that we can all see if the current AGB (as 
>> suggested by the Board) is functional or needs the modifications currently 
>> revcommended by the GAC. In any case, according to PDT, we cannot leave SFO 
>> without resolution. IMHO, that must be the message we share with all we meet 
>> in the meeting rooms and halls.... 
>> 
>> Kind regards, 
>> 
>> RA 
>> ________________________________________
>> Ron Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>> randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.rnapartners.com
>> From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:22:51 -0400
>> To: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [bc-gnso] urgent update to all BC members -- regarding BC statement 
>> regarding Board-GAC Scorecard issues
>> 
>> During a meeting with Kurt Pritz, V.President, ICANN with the GNSO and the 
>> GNSO Council, he announced that there is agreement to have short statements 
>> from the Chairs of the SOs/ACs and SGs at the beginning of the session on 
>> Monday that reviews the Board and GAC Scorecard Document [showing 1a, 1b, 
>> and 2]. 
>> 
>> I am going to convene a process to draft a statement from the BC [we don't 
>> have a CSG chair/and at this point, the position I have given to the chairs 
>> within the CSG is that we will each make a statement for our Constituency. I 
>> intend that we will have a statement, since we have a lot at risk to ensure 
>> that the input of the BC's Constituency members are reflected in the 
>> statement.
>> 
>> Zahid and John are going to have a heavy work load on this -- they have 
>> Council to 'guide' [and have done a great job already on that in the 
>> discussions  so far. ]
>> 
>> I will be conferring with excomm on how to do a statement and clear it with 
>> you all/stay closely tuned.
> 
> <Brussels Intersessional Meeting- GAC Communique.pdf>