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. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 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

Thanks Mikey, Berry and others for the work on these important Guidelines. I am generally in support of the BC statement you have drafted, with the following disagreements: 1. I disagree with the addition of this sentence re WG Chairs: "To further promote neutrality, a person should avoid standing for Chair if they participated on the Drafting Team that created the Charter of the Working Group." I think generally it ought to be beneficial for the Chair to have been involved in the Drafting Team, and see no reason to exclude them in all cases. Thus we should remove this sentence. 2. I disagree with the suggested additional language re neutrality of Liasons. The Liason's role is simply to communicate between WG and CO, neutrality is not needed other than wrt those communications. The Liason should otherwise be able to participate fully. It will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to find disinterested Liasons -- who would volunteer for such a role if they are not interested?! Thus we should remove this recommendation. 3. I disagree with the suggested language re 'consistent participation'. We must recognize that many people will not have time for WG calls, for example, and will choose to participate via the email list and otherwise in writing. This is particularly important not only for those with jobs unrelated to ICANN, but also for those who do not speak English as a first language and for those whose timezone may not be friendly to the WG schedule. Thus our comments should be clear that no meaningful WG decisions should ever be accomplished without ability for input from the mail list, and specifically should never be taken on the basis of participation on any one or few WG calls. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:39 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3 hello all, sorry to send this right at the beginning of the ICANN meetings, but timing is tough and i need to send it now in order to be able to submit it on time. thanks to all who contributed to this revised version of the draft position -- especially Berry! please review this between now and March 20th so that we/i can submit these by the March 22nd deadline. mikey

I just do not understand why participation on a Drafting Team indicates potential bias as Chair. People on DTs will be interested in the topic, which ought to be desired of the Chair as well. As you know we often have too few volunteers, even without imposing arbitrary restrictions like this. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:37 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3 To counter the disagreement wrt item #1, the concern here is to prevent a breach in neutrality. I will not waste time with details, but a recent example does exist where neutrality was compromised. I can sign on for the removal of this sentence from our Position Statement, due in part that we do have limited resources given the demand. With this removal, how can we further promote and ensure neutrality of the WG chair? Thank you. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:59 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3 Thanks Mikey, Berry and others for the work on these important Guidelines. I am generally in support of the BC statement you have drafted, with the following disagreements: 1. I disagree with the addition of this sentence re WG Chairs: "To further promote neutrality, a person should avoid standing for Chair if they participated on the Drafting Team that created the Charter of the Working Group." I think generally it ought to be beneficial for the Chair to have been involved in the Drafting Team, and see no reason to exclude them in all cases. Thus we should remove this sentence. 2. I disagree with the suggested additional language re neutrality of Liasons. The Liason's role is simply to communicate between WG and CO, neutrality is not needed other than wrt those communications. The Liason should otherwise be able to participate fully. It will be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to find disinterested Liasons -- who would volunteer for such a role if they are not interested?! Thus we should remove this recommendation. 3. I disagree with the suggested language re 'consistent participation'. We must recognize that many people will not have time for WG calls, for example, and will choose to participate via the email list and otherwise in writing. This is particularly important not only for those with jobs unrelated to ICANN, but also for those who do not speak English as a first language and for those whose timezone may not be friendly to the WG schedule. Thus our comments should be clear that no meaningful WG decisions should ever be accomplished without ability for input from the mail list, and specifically should never be taken on the basis of participation on any one or few WG calls. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 2:39 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position -- comments on Working Group Guidelines v3 hello all, sorry to send this right at the beginning of the ICANN meetings, but timing is tough and i need to send it now in order to be able to submit it on time. thanks to all who contributed to this revised version of the draft position -- especially Berry! please review this between now and March 20th so that we/i can submit these by the March 22nd deadline. mikey