Most of us in the BC sully supported your analysis, Phil. I know that a former member of ours felt otherwise because of the double voting, but this compromise hasn't worked well. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:14:55 To: <james.f.baskin@verizon.com>; <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Kieren's summary of the status of RAA discussions I hardly ever say anything in the "I told you so" vein, but I do recall expressing substantial reservations at the time the GNSO reform plan was unveiled that splitting it between contracted and non-contracted parties would institutionalize existing divisions and make consensus even more difficult to achieve. Unfortunately time and experience seem to have borne that out. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC   "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Baskin, James F (Jim) Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:59 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Kieren's summary of the status of RAA discussions Mikey - Thanks for the URI. Kieren's analysis on the RAA negotiations appears, sadly, right on target.  Relating to the BC discussions on the topic, his paragraph on the PDP option explains exactly why we should be concerned: "ICANN's formal policy development process (PDP) is supposed to be where big policy issues are decided, and registrars have been arguing for some time that this is the best and most effective route to revise the RAA. The reality however is that due to the shoddy restructuring of ICANN's policy body, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its main Council, that there is currently very little confidence in the process. Despite planned revisions to the PDP process, the reality remains that registrars are effectively able to veto any changes - and have done so repeatedly. On top of that, there is significantly bad blood created over the past three years due to manipulations of the process, especially surrounding the RAA. It may be the most appropriate route, but it is unlikely to be the most smooth of effective. Likelihood of happening: Medium to High Likely effectiveness: Low to Medium" Jim -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:18 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Kieren's summary of the status of RAA discussions the topic came up on the Monday call -- Kieren just published his view here; http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/07/raa-talks-what-now mikey - - - - - - - - - phone    651-647-6109  fax              866-280-2356  web      http://www.haven2.com handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4856 - Release Date: 03/07/12