Hi Mike, (1) I submitted comments previously at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00345.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html I don't think your revised draft reflected all my concerns. I think the better foundation is to use someone else's template, like the City Top-Level Domain Constituency's draft. (2) Marilyn and others called for a conference call long ago with ICANN staff. (3) Another approach would be to seriously consider joining up with the IP and ISP constituencies to form a superconstituency. Even Mike Rodenbaugh has bemoaned the situation that: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00416.html "WE DO NOT HAVE MANY MEMBERS PARTICIPATING SUBSTANTIALLY TO ANY BC-RELATED WORK TODAY" "FEW ENGAGE IN THAT NOW." If one looks at the archive of the ISP constituency mailing list: http://www.ispcp.info/abt-mail.html http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/ they've had not a single post to their mailing list in all of 2009. It'd be better to roll-up the 3 constituencies into one large and vibrant "Commercial Stakeholders" constituency, rather than have disjoint, weak and ineffective small constituencies with low participation. Some prefer to be a big fish in a small pond, but we'd serve business better if instead they learned to be a small fish in a big pond, and maybe they'd even rise to become a "big fish in a big pond." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
i've incorporated a few comments on the charter-draft into this new version.
so where are we at on approving a new charter? don't we need to keep pushing forward on this?
mikey
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)