Hello Mike, I for one have NOT grown tired of his nor anyone else's email. I have been on boards with triple the amount of email to read through and a lot more strained relations. I think everyone is open to do as they please but once dialog stops we stop moving forward and fracture as a group. Michael Castello CEO/President Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc. http://www.ccin.com michael@ccin.com -- Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 10:10:49 AM, you wrote: MR> We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC MR> position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to MR> guide further policy development. MR> If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it. MR> The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are MR> not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories. Indeed I am MR> quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read -- MR> this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired MR> of your posts. MR> Sincerely, MR> Mike MR> Mike Rodenbaugh MR> Rodenbaugh Law MR> 548 Market Street MR> San Francisco, CA 94104 MR> +1.415.738.8087 MR> www.rodenbaugh.com MR> -----Original Message----- MR> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of MR> George Kirikos MR> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM MR> To: BC gnso MR> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation MR> Hello, MR> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
One step at a time please. This paper covers only R&R separation and will continue to do so.
If BC members want more on other issues, then volunteer to draft a MR> different paper please.
MR> I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment MR> period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement MR> should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar MR> separation is but one aspect. MR> And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another MR> constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say MR> anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms MR> doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party, MR> demanding retractions, etc. MR> But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of MR> concern" in June: MR> http://blog.pir.org/?p=363 MR> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r MR> egistrar_separation/ MR> (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are MR> the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of MR> concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that MR> Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position MR> back in June? MR> This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at MR> the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC MR> had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then MR> they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink) MR> So, to repeat: MR> 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of MR> concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly. MR> 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the MR> false statement that the BC had any position on the topic. MR> Sincerely, MR> George Kirikos MR> 416-588-0269 MR> http://www.leap.com/