I am going to send comments on the EOI, as an individual company. I had understood that we all had discussed a BC approved position and agreed that we didn't have 14 days for a circulation/discussion /vote. Isn't that the agreementon the list? I think you will find that the individualized postings will be more effective than positionthat hasn't had a thorough circulation and discussion and vote by the members. And, it looks to me like it is important to have those individual postings as well. Finally, I am sensitive that not all members may be in agreement, so would want to ensure that there was a proper process on any 'BC position', being fair to the fullmembership. Again, personally, I have grave concerns about the EOI as it has been developed,from a process perspective, and from a substance position. I'll share my comments when I get them posted. They are my individual comments, in my capacity as the Principal/CEO of mCADE. I like the GAC document and will reference it, but only as one more example of concerns shared by a critical group of advisors in the full ICANN process. Marilyn
From: berrycobb@infinityportals.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0800
I support Steve's statement with Philip's last addition about supporting the GAC.
Thank you.
Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 04:40 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
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