RE: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft
Sarah, since you and Marilyn are so keen for everyone to recuse themselves if their companies or clients might apply for a new TLD... are you both committing publicly that neither Verizon nor AT&T nor Overstock nor any other of MC's clients will do so? Regardless, I do not understand your basis for alleging any conflict of interest, merely because some members have been planning on new TLDs for many years now, how does that preclude them from discussing BC policy about them now? Can you please explain? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:56 PM To: 'Mike Roberts'; bc-private icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft I support the idea of a constructively worded letter creating a record calling for additional specific fixes to the gTLD process for the benefit of the business community. I concur that anyone affiliated directly or indirectly with new applications for new gTLDs should recuse themselves from this particular issue. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 -----Original Message----- From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:45 PM To: bc-private icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft It's unseemly for members to attempt to stand on process when they are having problems with content. There is already way too much process bureaucracy in ICANN and we certainly don't need to advance that dubious goal in the BC. The other day I pointed out that the central purpose of the BC was to represent the interests of who use the Internet and the DNS in pursuit of their business goals. The draft note from Marilyn certainly focuses on those interests, at least from the perspective of The Darwin Group, which is an SMB in Internet policy consulting. I personally see nothing wrong with sending it. Over time, the BC has accommodated a number of interests not necessarily always aligned with its central purpose. In applying for membership, organizations have been required to state their commitment to the central purpose as part of joining, while acknowledging that multiple interests are represented at times. Individuals or organizations currently directly or indirectly affiliated with applications for new gTLDs should be recusing themselves from this discussion. - Mike On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Marilyn wrote:
The letter restates existing BC perspectives. Discussion on the list about this general topic has been underway since 12/12 with a short list of comments or objections. In response to objections, the list of changes is on a different track. However, as I have noted, the letter states BC concerns about risks to trademark holders and asks For continued efforts to fix them. It does not propose a delay in the announcement scheduled.
_______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private _______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private
Overstock is not Sent from my iPhone On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:09 PM, <icann@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Sarah, since you and Marilyn are so keen for everyone to recuse themselves if their companies or clients might apply for a new TLD... are you both committing publicly that neither Verizon nor AT&T nor Overstock nor any other of MC's clients will do so?
Regardless, I do not understand your basis for alleging any conflict of interest, merely because some members have been planning on new TLDs for many years now, how does that preclude them from discussing BC policy about them now? Can you please explain?
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message----- From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 1:56 PM To: 'Mike Roberts'; bc-private icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft
I support the idea of a constructively worded letter creating a record calling for additional specific fixes to the gTLD process for the benefit of the business community. I concur that anyone affiliated directly or indirectly with new applications for new gTLDs should recuse themselves from this particular issue.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670
-----Original Message----- From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:45 PM To: bc-private icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft
It's unseemly for members to attempt to stand on process when they are having problems with content. There is already way too much process bureaucracy in ICANN and we certainly don't need to advance that dubious goal in the BC.
The other day I pointed out that the central purpose of the BC was to represent the interests of who use the Internet and the DNS in pursuit of their business goals. The draft note from Marilyn certainly focuses on those interests, at least from the perspective of The Darwin Group, which is an SMB in Internet policy consulting. I personally see nothing wrong with sending it.
Over time, the BC has accommodated a number of interests not necessarily always aligned with its central purpose. In applying for membership, organizations have been required to state their commitment to the central purpose as part of joining, while acknowledging that multiple interests are represented at times.
Individuals or organizations currently directly or indirectly affiliated with applications for new gTLDs should be recusing themselves from this discussion.
- Mike
On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Marilyn wrote:
The letter restates existing BC perspectives. Discussion on the list about this general topic has been underway since 12/12 with a short list of comments or objections. In response to objections, the list of changes is on a different track. However, as I have noted, the letter states BC concerns about risks to trademark holders and asks For continued efforts to fix them. It does not propose a delay in the announcement scheduled.
_______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private
_______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private
_______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private
participants (2)
-
Chuck Warren -
icann＠rodenbaugh.com