We do not need to have an 'open comment' period in order to come to a BC position, which can be posted at our website at any time and then used to guide further policy development. If you have a problem with Alexa's statement, feel free to ask her about it. The Officers of the BC are not your employees, and I am certain that we are not going to investigate your pointless conspiracy theories. Indeed I am quite close to simply banishing your email to a folder that I do not read -- this is also an option for any other annoyed members that have grown tired of your posts. Sincerely, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:21 AM To: BC gnso Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position Regsitry Registrar Separation Hello, 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 different paper please.
I believe Marilyn made the valid point that since there is no GNSO comment period at this time, and since there is thus no time urgency, any statement should be on the broader "economic issues", of which registry-registrar separation is but one aspect. And since this issue is now being reopened, I wonder, had another constituency made a false statement that the BC was in favour of say anonymous WHOIS, I imagine and expect that the officers would be up in arms doing investigations on who said what, seeking out the guilty party, demanding retractions, etc. But when Alexa Raad of PIR openly says the BC issued a strong "statement of concern" in June: http://blog.pir.org/?p=363 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_advocating_for_domain_name_registry_r egistrar_separation/ (when the BC had no position) there is of course no investigation. Why are the BC officers not investigating who made this "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC? Why are the BC officers not demanding that Alexa Raad and PIR retract the false statement that the BC had any position back in June? This seems to me to be an exercise in historical revisionism taking place at the moment, whereby the party or parties who told PIR/Alexa Raad that the BC had a position are now trying to get a BC position in place ex post. Then they can claim "Oh, of course the BC *always* had a position." (wink, wink) So, to repeat: 1) The officers should investigate who made the "strong statement of concern" on behalf of the BC, and discipline them accordingly. 2) Contact Alexa Raad / PIR to demand that they immediately retract the false statement that the BC had any position on the topic. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/