Thanks Philip. I agree with the paper, but would also like
to see a statement to the effect that we believe an EOI process is more likely to
delay the launch of the new gTLD program, for several of the reasons stated in
our paper and also because this sort of public information is likely to cause
preliminary disputes that may halt the entire program. Whereas on the
other hand, if all the issues are worked out and the program begins, any
disputes can be dealt with on parallel track while undisputed applications move
forward unabated by those disputes. The paper should also mention the BC’s
longstanding support of the newTLD program, provided the ‘overarching
issues’ are adequately addressed first.
Best,
Mike
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 1:25 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI
And
with the paper !
From: Philip Sheppard
[mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:19 AM
To: 'bc-gnso@icann.org'
Subject: Draft BC position EOI
For
14 day comment
I
have been asked by the new VP policy coordination Steve DelBianco to act as
rapporteur for the issue of Expressions of Interest in the context of the new
gTLDS process.
I
attach a proposed draft for the Constituency. Its argumentation and consequent
conclusion is based on the submissions of Bc members in their individual
capacity to the public comments process. These comment were significant in
their commonality. In short all commentators believed that:
-
the EOI is a poor substitute for data gathering and an economic study
-
the EOI is bad business practice as it requires investors to invest in
ignorance of issues that ICANN is obliged to solve.
Comments,
improvements are most welcome ideally by e-mail bullet points referencing the
line numbers rather than Word tracked changes.
This
makes the job of the poor rapporteur much easier !
Philip