I, too, found yesterdays dialogue discomforting. Although I do not have anything to do with closed generics, it does seem that the process itself did not foreclose on applying for them. I also see that closed generics do raise issues that closed TM TLDs do not. Yesterdays discussion did nothing to clarify the issues that Mr. Evans, et al were attempting to address in their comments, but did ask an attorney to make full disclosures about clients that, as attorneys themselves, they recognize may be impossible to make. I think Mike was clear that he represents parties applying for closed generics and that he disagreed with the comments being put forth by this group and that he preferred those made by Steve’s original proposition.
I generally do not comment when I do not hold strong positions that have nothing to do with the business I represent. Whenever I have commented, however, the BC has always been highly respectful of my minority opinion. So rest assured, Stephane, that this was a rare event.
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of stephvg@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:33 AM
To: Ron Andruff
Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
All,
Due to the difference in timezones, I missed this discussion as it was happening "live" and had the pleasure of catching up at my leisure whilst sipping my morning coffee :)
I have to admit to being very uncomfortable with the path this discussion seems to be taking. I have the words witch hunt forming in my mind.
My approach is this: I have an implicit trust that anyone… who is keen and engaged enough to take the time to read the emails on this list, take part in the discussions, be active in the BC calls or volunteer for BC work… is operating for the greater good of the BC.
I find any suggestion otherwise worrying. And actually quite discouraging. Does this mean that next time I make a comment that someone doesn't like, then I will also be put on the spot and asked to justify myself from a business point of view? So is it better for me to shut up rather than risk taking abuse?
Those who know me already know that I find it very hard to shut up, so that is hardly likely to happen :), but I do want to go on record here as saying that unless someone proves to me that any member of the BC is acting with ill intent, my base approach is to trust that people have exactly the same take on BC work as me: working for the good of the BC and the defense of the ICANN model which is the governance model that provides me, as a small business owner, with a voice in the Internet's ,naming and address governance discussion.
Best,
Stéphane
Oh, and BTW, I don't work for any closed generics ;)
Le 23 mai 2013 à 23:44, Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> a écrit :
Mike,
As an observer to this string of debate, it appears to me (and possibly other members) that you are obfuscating. You have been asked on several occasions to declare your interests, but you parry that question with more questions. What is holding you back from being up front with the members and disclosing? Disclosure would, IMHO, lend more credibility to your arguments.
Disclosure should be our first obligation as members of the BC – considering the convoluted nature of our membership today.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jscottevans@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:58 PM
To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; icann@rodenbaugh.com; lhc@yahoo-inc.com; svg@stephanevangelder.com; sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
Cc: Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Oh, and as to a counter-argument to your position, I refer you to the USPTO's disposition of the various .music trademark applications. While not identical, the USPTO's reasoning is very solar to the concerns I have heard from others. |
From: icann@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>;
To: <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; <icann@rodenbaugh.com>; <lhc@yahoo-inc.com>; <svg@stephanevangelder.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>;
Cc: <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>;
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on GAC Advice on safeguards for new gTLDs
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 8:20:35 PM
All of my clients, and my law firm, have business interests much broader than the domain industry. Who are these people expressing grave concerns? Because I am only hearing competitors to so-called closed generic TLD applicants expressing concerns (including indirectly through their ICANN-connected government reps), with no evidence or any real specifics as to the parade of horribles they seem to envision. And certainly no counter-argument to the points I am raising. Do you or anyone else have any substantive response to any of those points? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087 From: jscottevans@yahoo.com [mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com]
From: icann@rodenbaugh.com <icann@rodenbaugh.com>;
|