John,
First let me thank you for undertaking this task on behalf of the BC. My intention is not to use openness and transparency as a sword, but as a shield. I just think at this point in time with the threat of more pending lawsuits on the horizon we do ICANN, your stakeholder group, and the new gTLD process a favor by exercising more disclosure not less.
In your capacity as an observer in the registry constituency you have seen how each member that votes or does not vote on an issues is documented. While I think you and I bring an incredible SMB business perspective to this group and while individual BC members trust our ability to do the right thing, we need to realize that ICANN’s action are being analyzed under a microscope by some third parties that will not be giving us that benefit of the doubt and why we need to go above and beyond.
Thanks again for your effort, and I apologize if there was any misunderstanding regarding my initial concerns.
Best regards,
Michael
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:53 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
Mike:
Just a couple of points.
As one of the few BC members at the workshop in Dakar on this issue, Steve asked me if I would amalgamate the comments on the issue made on the list and those made by BC members during the session, which I did. We only make six points in the proposed comments. I do note that three of the six points that we have in the draft came from your comments to the list regarding the RySG proposal.
You raise a very challenging issue related to the BC and those of us members who are affiliated with or supporting an entity participating in the New TLD process. I suggest that we take that issue up at an upcoming call or meeting. It will be interesting to see how many BC members organizations do, in fact, participate. One benefit of transparency is to get a diversity of viewpoints with an understanding of where such viewpoints emanate. Of course, we should not use transparency and accountability principles as a sword to stifle speech and alternative views. Those are my $.02.
Thanks.
Jon
On Nov 30, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Hello All,
I have not commented on this document for a couple of reasons. One I am actively working with a number of clients in connection with new gTLDs and two I have volunteered to help the registry constituency with their efforts to submit a comment on this subject matter.
My concern however, is that many of the active members in preparing this BC document appear to be individuals directly/indirectly associated with new gTLD applicants. Therefore, in advance I am stating my intention to abstain on any BC vote, and I ask that in the interest of openness and transparency that we document in any final submission those BC members that are directly/indirectly involved in any new gTLD applications and their role in formulating/approving this document.
I think the BC has raised a number of concerns regarding the appearance of conflict at the ICANN Board level, and I think we need to lead by example.
Just my two cents.
Best regards,
Michael
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of icann@rodenbaugh.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:08 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
I support Jon’s draft, thanks for the good work.
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:06 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)
Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations Instrument in the new gTLD Program.
Jon Nevett prepared this draft.
This comment period and docs are described here.
These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval. This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am requesting an expedited review period. If any member has substantive objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our comments after the ICANN due date.
All BC members are invited to suggest edits. Please use track changes and circulate to BC list.
Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this.
Steve DelBianco
vice chair for policy coordination, BC