Thanks Philip for all your work on this. I support this draft.
I agree completely with Phil Corwin’s comments about distraction, which I think
are covered well in the document.
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil
Corwin
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:17 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI
ICA is fine with the final draft.
While
we do not have a formal position pro or con on the EOI, my personal view is
that it is a distraction from the main game -- that every hour spent debating
whether there should be an EOI, what its purpose is, and what its terms should
be is an hour that is not being devoted to resolving the key issues that would
permit the new gTLD application window to open.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office)
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)
"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard [philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:30 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI
Thank
you for the last round of comments.
Our
14 day process is almost complete and I wanted to send a copy of our paper so
that BC colleagues in Nairobi will have a position to speak to.
I
attach a version three factoring in the last round of comments / support. This
includes all substantive contributions of content though not all of the style
suggestions. Us rapporteurs should be free to retain that element!
For
good order I also attach a clean version 3 and have entitled it
"final" to facilitate any external communication in Nairobi.
Philip