I sent a response that raised questions about the challenges in this position, as several members did also raise concerns about how the BC has benefitted from GAC support on Strawman and SSR.
I think this is going to be a contentious discussion within the BC, and I'd like to be sure that we are taking a broadly inclusive input to any discussion, including considering the importance of how the GAC has helped the BC's interests on gaining improvements on Strawman improvements. I know that Stephane, you didn't support the improvements that the BC fought for, along with the IPC, but those were broadly supported by the BC, and we frankly would not have gained the improvements, without the GAC listening, and accepting our concerns, and weighing in.
On SSR, again, there is a shared concern about stability as the new gTLDs are introduced.
It is important to the BC as users to also take into account our longer term views and concerns.
Finally, I will say that working with the GAC within ICANN is much preferred to having to work with governments outside of ICANN at WIPO, ITU, and UN General Assembly, where the SME nature of the GAC is not always present in those discussions.
I do want to be part of the discussions, but I also want to note that all discussions on the role of GAC need to be broad and inclusive and not focused on individual gTLD decisions.
In fact, the BC membership charter is not about gTLD applications and concerns of applicants or contracted parties. That is extremely important to remember and to maintain the integrity of that uniqueness of our role.
Marilyn Cade
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:32:16 -0700
From: jscottevans@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
To: stephvg@gmail.com; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
CC: psc@vlaw-dc.com; bc-gnso@icann.org
Thanks Stephane. I think you're perspective would be refreshing.
Steve, what do we need to do to get this started?
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone |
From:
stephvg@gmail.com <stephvg@gmail.com>;
To:
Deutsch, Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>;
Cc:
'jscottevans@yahoo.com' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; 'psc@vlaw-dc.com' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' <bc-gnso@icann.org>;
Subject:
Re: [bc-gnso] Report on Geograhic Indicator Debate at Durban
Sent:
Thu, Aug 1, 2013 6:16:18 PM
+1. Happy to help if I can.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89 T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053 Skype: SVANGELDER
I'd be happy to work on this as well and see if we can find a consensus position.
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
I am telling you all this is a dangerous precedent. I hereby request that the BC take up this issue and develop a formal opinion in this specific issue and the broader issue of the GAC's role.
I am happy to lead this effort.
J. Scott
Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone |
|