I will be traveling Friday and therefor won't be able to be on the call. Ron makes an excellent point about ICANN's predilection to flip, lop, stutter, and and otherwise provide unclear direction. There are any number of examples but my current favorite is the RAA, the interminable negotiations, request for early review of incomplete text, announcement of the Beijing Breakthrough, and an apparent "cancellation" of one review with a substitution of another. It's enough to make a poor registrant's head spin - and this will be the agreement all businesses (any registrant) will be governed by when interacting with ICANN. Marilyn makes excellent points regarding the work of the GAC. I'm sure we all know representative there and know that they are acting in the best interest of their customers - the public. Working in a government setting is difficult at best and intergovernmental settings, like the GAC, are even more difficult. As I said in Beijing, I think it important for us to remember that "the whole world is watching" and how we respond to GAC *advice* will be telling. I'm in favor of a less is more approach here. The GAC is a group of experts and they provide advice on issues relevant to their expertise. ICANN does not need to accept the advice of experts, but it would be well advised to seriously consider it; just as it should seriously consider advice from SSAC or any other advisory group. In the end, the Board has decisions to make and it is now becoming clear that those decisions are critical to how the Internet is governed. For GAC advice, I think it appropriate, and sufficient, for the BC to offer recognition of the GAC efforts and to support their advice as the considered advice of relevant experts. We need not agree or disagree with any or all of it as the BC. Rather we should defer to the Board and say that it is time for the Board to consider all relevant advice and make decisions - for the public good. If the Board chooses to ignore GAC advice, I fear Internet Governance will turn evermore intergovernmental to the detriment of the Internet. But that's a decision the Board must make. Regarding singular and plural strings, the Board can only reasonably make one decision as a practical matter. They are similar and should not be allowed - and the Board will need to act. I hope we can agree on that. On Apr 23, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>> wrote: Thanks for sending Ron. This is great news – we should plan to discuss how to move forward with drafting comments on our call scheduled for this Friday. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:32 PM To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice 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.... Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com> ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] 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>