A couple of thoughts on the individually provided EOI comments: Given the way that the community is treating the EOI public comment process -- e.g. dozens of postings that are more or less designed to overwhelm by numbers of comments,business users interests are best served by posting separate commentswhere you can develop and get approval within your company or association's membership. Secondly, many of the postings lack context about who the poster is. It is probably very helpful to provide a bit of information about the number of companies, if you are posting as an association or industry coalition, or the number of countries, or regionsthat your company provides services or products to, if you are a corporation. In analyzing public comments, the staff is significantly handicapped without that additional information, which the Board won't intuitively know. :-) The more you provide an individual perspective from your own company/association'sconcerns, the better the Board will be able to understand those very legitimate concerns and views and not just see this [or have it interpreted to them] as objecting to new gTLDS, regardless. My comments will also address my concern that ICANN is not demonstrating effective action on addressing the four overarching issues cohesively, as committed. There seems to be some confusion among staff that an EOI is fulfilling the economic analysis, or that 'demand lists' equate to an economic analysis. I think that the perspective of business users that these issues need to be addressed before Board, or staffmove forward with creating expectations that may be affected -- significantly -- by the answers to theseoverarching issues is important. In some environments, ICANN could be viewed as 'overhanging the market', or trying to create demand. I'm hoping that the impact of the responsible and informed concerns of business users in the public comment process can move us back into a more balanced approach to progressing the new gTLD Guidebook with changes that address the concerns of business users. Marilyn
From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:40:15 +0100
Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted earlier.
But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this will be more persuasive.
Philip