On 15 July 2010 19:06, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2010 21:57, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote :
Still think a call with BC might be worthy for this and many other reasons...
Definitely, but like Evan, I think we need a really clear agenda. I think that we can all work together towards a common goal
That's fine to say, but given the widely divergent viewpoints on important issues, I guess identifying the common goal will be one of the biggest challenges of such a dialogue. That said, we also have to *listen* to each other, and attempt to understand
each other's concerns. Perhaps that could be a first step.
The precedents are not hopeful. The BC was a full participant in the STI-WG, heard the view of many other communities, and yet still came forward to defend the disgraced IRT. And I for one have a difficult time understanding why they would do that unless it's driven by a "grab as much as you can" credo that ignores the general good. This is why I have been advocating working with groups who have actively sought results-based engagement, such as the NCSG (on consumer issues), the GAC (on MAPO) and the RyC and ISPC (and others from GNSO, on the community TLD cost-reduction WG). Given our limited resources these efforts have the most chance of bearing real results. ALAC / BC dialogue may be useful, but that needs to be at a higher level than the gTLD WG. - Evan