Thanks to all for engaging in the email discussion over these comments.
However, I don't think we've seen any specific edits on the draft circulated last Tuesday 22-Nov.
Ron and Phil proposed a more extensive critique of the Guidebook's COI plan, but the scope of this comment is reacting to the Registry proposal for an alternative mechanism (COF). I would strongly suggest that Ron and Phil individually submit their concerns
to ICANN, of course.
Mike Palage advised us to be careful about conflicts of interest, so I propose a simple way to do this quickly and transparently:
If any BC member objects to the BC filing the attached draft comment , please REPLY ALL and indicate your objection and reason. If any member objections are noted by midnight UTC on 1-Dec, we will extend the process and ask the membership to vote
on alternate versions of BC comments. This would mean our comments are submitted late, but might still be considered.
If no objections are noted we will post the attached draft to ICANN on the closing date of 2-Dec.
Thanks again for engaging in this discussion.
--Steve
(vice chair for policy coordination)