FILED: BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition
Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN's proposed principles and process for IANA transition. During the review period, several members said they supported the comment. One member (Laura Covington) suggested we cite the NETmundial success in our appeal to open the process more. To that end, I added this to item 3: Each constituency should be allowed to name individuals to the Steering/Convening Committee, with the goal of having the same broad representation of interests that made NETmundial successful. Thanks again to Phil, Marilyn, Aparna, and Andrew for contributing to the draft. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM To: BC Private <bc-private@icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 8-MAY: Draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition ICANN is accepting comments on their proposed principles and process for IANA transition planning. When you look at the public comment page (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...>), it's clear we are to comment only on the process and scope ICANN has proposed - not on the substantive elements or outcomes of the transition. Please be sure to read ICANN's scoping document, too (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr1...>). Thanks to BC members who helped with this draft, starting with Phil Corwin, Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, and Andrew Mack. This comment is due 8-May. Our draft is just over 1 page in length, so the BC Executive Committee has approved a 3-day expedited review period. Please reply-all with your comments or in-line edits to the attached doc. If lively debate is continuing on 8-May, we will extend the BC review period and inform ICANN that we will be a few days late.
Steve, Thanks to you, Phil, Marilyn, Aparna and Andrew for writing this comment. In the time I have been associated with the BC, I have never seen a statement that so thoroughly melds ICANN's mission and the healthy mentality of business in promoting an agenda in support of the health of the Internet for all. You know I am not prone to public displays of affection, but I love this short, sweet and wholly representative document. Cheers, Berard --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [bc-gnso] FILED: BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: 5/8/14 1:27 pm To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org> Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN's proposed principles and process for IANA transition. During the review period, several members said they supported the comment. One member (Laura Covington) suggested we cite the NETmundial success in our appeal to open the process more. To that end, I added this to item 3: Each constituency should be allowed to name individuals to the Steering/Convening Committee, with the goal of having the same broad representation of interests that made NETmundial successful. Thanks again to Phil, Marilyn, Aparna, and Andrew for contributing to the draft. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM To: BC Private <bc-private@icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 8-MAY: Draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition ICANN is accepting comments on their proposed principles and process for IANA transition planning. When you look at the public comment page (link), it's clear we are to comment only on the process and scope ICANN has proposed - not on the substantive elements or outcomes of the transition. Please be sure to read ICANN's scoping document, too (link). Thanks to BC members who helped with this draft, starting with Phil Corwin, Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, and Andrew Mack. This comment is due 8-May. Our draft is just over 1 page in length, so the BC Executive Committee has approved a 3-day expedited review period. Please reply-all with your comments or in-line edits to the attached doc. If lively debate is continuing on 8-May, we will extend the BC review period and inform ICANN that we will be a few days late.
The BC, when we are good, we're good! Thanks, John. It always helps to know members like the work of their peers! Sent from my iPad
On May 8, 2014, at 4:41 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
Steve,
Thanks to you, Phil, Marilyn, Aparna and Andrew for writing this comment. In the time I have been associated with the BC, I have never seen a statement that so thoroughly melds ICANN's mission and the healthy mentality of business in promoting an agenda in support of the health of the Internet for all.
You know I am not prone to public displays of affection, but I love this short, sweet and wholly representative document.
Cheers,
Berard
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [bc-gnso] FILED: BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: 5/8/14 1:27 pm To: "'bc - GNSO list'" <bc-gnso@icann.org>
Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN’s proposed principles and process for IANA transition.
During the review period, several members said they supported the comment. One member (Laura Covington) suggested we cite the NETmundial success in our appeal to open the process more. To that end, I added this to item 3:
Each constituency should be allowed to name individuals to the Steering/Convening Committee, with the goal of having the same broad representation of interests that made NETmundial successful.
Thanks again to Phil, Marilyn, Aparna, and Andrew for contributing to the draft.
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM To: BC Private <bc-private@icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 8-MAY: Draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition
ICANN is accepting comments on their proposed principles and process for IANA transition planning. When you look at the public comment page (link), it’s clear we are to comment only on the process and scope ICANN has proposed — not on the substantive elements or outcomes of the transition. Please be sure to read ICANN’s scoping document, too (link).
Thanks to BC members who helped with this draft, starting with Phil Corwin, Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, and Andrew Mack.
This comment is due 8-May. Our draft is just over 1 page in length, so the BC Executive Committee has approved a 3-day expedited review period. Please reply-all with your comments or in-line edits to the attached doc.
If lively debate is continuing on 8-May, we will extend the BC review period and inform ICANN that we will be a few days late.
You guys rock. This is really nicely done. Thank you Laura Covington On May 9, 2014, at 4:34 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Today we filed the attached comment on ICANN’s proposed principles and process for IANA transition. During the review period, several members said they supported the comment. One member (Laura Covington) suggested we cite the NETmundial success in our appeal to open the process more. To that end, I added this to item 3: Each constituency should be allowed to name individuals to the Steering/Convening Committee, with the goal of having the same broad representation of interests that made NETmundial successful. Thanks again to Phil, Marilyn, Aparna, and Andrew for contributing to the draft. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 11:44 AM To: BC Private <bc-private@icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW BY 8-MAY: Draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed process for IANA transition ICANN is accepting comments on their proposed principles and process for IANA transition planning. When you look at the public comment page (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08ap...>), it’s clear we are to comment only on the process and scope ICANN has proposed — not on the substantive elements or outcomes of the transition. Please be sure to read ICANN’s scoping document, too (link<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr1...>). Thanks to BC members who helped with this draft, starting with Phil Corwin, Marilyn Cade, Aparna Sridhar, and Andrew Mack. This comment is due 8-May. Our draft is just over 1 page in length, so the BC Executive Committee has approved a 3-day expedited review period. Please reply-all with your comments or in-line edits to the attached doc. If lively debate is continuing on 8-May, we will extend the BC review period and inform ICANN that we will be a few days late. <BC Comment on IANA Transition Process.pdf>
participants (4)
-
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Laura Covington -
Marilyn Cade -
Steve DelBianco