Re: [bc-gnso] FILED: BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The BC, when we are good, we're good!
Thanks, John. It always helps to know members like the work of their peers!

Sent from my iPad

> On May 8, 2014, at 4:41 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Steve,
>  
> Thanks to you, Phil, Marilyn, Aparna and Andrew for writing this comment.  In 
> the time I have been associated with the BC, I have never seen a statement 
> that so thoroughly melds ICANN's mission and the healthy mentality of 
> business in promoting an agenda in support of the health of the Internet for 
> all. 
>  
> You know I am not prone to public displays of affection, but I love this 
> short, sweet and wholly representative document.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Berard
>  
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: [bc-gnso] FILED: BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA 
> transition
> From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 5/8/14 1:27 pm
> To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN’s proposed principles and 
> process for IANA transition. 
>  
> During the review period, several members said they supported the comment.  
> One member (Laura Covington) suggested we  cite the NETmundial success in our 
> appeal to open the process more.  To that end, I added this to item 3:
>  
> Each constituency should be allowed to name individuals to the 
> Steering/Convening Committee, with the goal of having the same broad 
> representation of interests that made NETmundial successful.
>  
> Thanks again to Phil, Marilyn, Aparna, and Andrew for contributing to the 
> draft.
>  
>  
> From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM
> To: BC Private <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 8-MAY: Draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed process 
> for IANA transition
>  
> ICANN is accepting comments on their proposed principles and process for IANA 
> transition planning.  When you look at the public comment page (link), it’s 
> clear we are to comment only on the process and scope ICANN has proposed — 
> not on the substantive elements or outcomes of the transition.  Please be 
> sure to read ICANN’s scoping document, too (link).
> 
> Thanks to BC members who helped with this draft, starting with Phil Corwin, 
> Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, and Andrew Mack. 
>  
> This comment is due 8-May.   Our draft is just over 1 page in length, so the 
> BC Executive Committee has approved a 3-day expedited review period.   Please 
> reply-all with your comments or in-line edits to the attached doc.
>  
> If lively debate is continuing on 8-May, we will extend the BC review period 
> and inform ICANN that we will be a few days late. 
>  
>  
>