Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
I would support an abstention. First, positions like this deserve broader BC discussion, and as noted by Philip, there are items where there may not be membership consensus. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:20:36 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf> The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip
Clearly, based upon what I sent earlier today, I disagree with Marilyn on this matter. But, regardless of the substance, I have questions about the process followed on this matter. There is no way to determine whether there is sufficient consensus among BC members without first providing them with the draft GNSO letter as well as some analysis as to whether and how it is at odds with prior BC policy statements. Instead, it has been presumed up front that consensus does not exist and a BC position of abstention has been conveyed to the GNSO before the BC as a whole has had any opportunity to consider the matter. It may well be that no consensus exists and that a default position of abstention properly reflects that, but I think BC members should have some opportunity for input before a Constituency position is conveyed. 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:51 PM To: Philip Sheppard ; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC I would support an abstention. First, positions like this deserve broader BC discussion, and as noted by Philip, there are items where there may not be membership consensus. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:20:36 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf> The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip
In reply to Phil Corwin, this letter has been produced at Council level prompted by an individual Council member. The presumption of a need to abstain is based on my experience and knowledge of the issues and the historic position of BC members. That is why I asked the BC members to validate the presumption ! For the record (speaking as AIM) I support abstention on grounds that a Council reply is not needed as the Board is to reply. Why upset government when they can be your ally? Philip
We support the abstention, particularly on the grounds of Philip's last sentence (below). Sincerely, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 2009-05-15 03:29 To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC In reply to Phil Corwin, this letter has been produced at Council level prompted by an individual Council member. The presumption of a need to abstain is based on my experience and knowledge of the issues and the historic position of BC members. That is why I asked the BC members to validate the presumption ! For the record (speaking as AIM) I support abstention on grounds that a Council reply is not needed as the Board is to reply. Why upset government when they can be your ally? Philip
Thanks for the explanation, Philip. As you know I am fairly new to the BC so I don't have a deep sense of its history on some of these issues. In the future, even a few sentences of explanation of what the BC position has been on similar matters in the past would be useful for those of us who are fairly new to the Constituency as that is the only way we will get familiar with that historic context. As for government being an ally, I'm all for that when it's feasible but I don't see that happening in my client's case as regards the GAC's asserted claims on geo names at the second level, as domain investors just have a very different viewpoint -- and if what they want had been the rule in the past then a lot of very valuable geo-domains at .com and other incumbent gTLDs that provide real benefits to consumers and local businesses would either not exist or would have been awarded based on lobbying and political connections required to get endorsement or non-objection. But that is the ICA view and if others differ that would indeed indicate a lack of consensus within the BC and argue for abstention. Best regards and enjoy the weekend. 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:29 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC In reply to Phil Corwin, this letter has been produced at Council level prompted by an individual Council member. The presumption of a need to abstain is based on my experience and knowledge of the issues and the historic position of BC members. That is why I asked the BC members to validate the presumption ! For the record (speaking as AIM) I support abstention on grounds that a Council reply is not needed as the Board is to reply. Why upset government when they can be your ally? Philip
participants (4)
-
Marilyn Cade -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff