Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board to delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows: "the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents." Philip
I agree with the concerns re process. This "Working Group" was nothing of the sort, but instead a small, self-formed and self-interested group of new-TLD applicants who have tried to railroad process through ICANN. That alone warrants disagreement. Substantively, I think the proposal is foolish because it is likely to result in more rather than less delay to the newTLD implementation, which I would like to see happen ASAP, provided that 'overarching concerns' are first adequately addressed. Those concerns seem to have been addressed, as adequately as possible (though we have not seen the latest DAG yet), and anyway the suggested EOI process seems more likely to reopen dressed wounds than it is to cure anything. As we have discussed on the list, the Business Constituency is not going to formally comment on this to ICANN, and neither will I. It is not really a substantive concern, but one of process. The GNSO made clear recommendations about timing and communications, and now -- it seems to me -- the Staff and a small group of self-interested parties is trying to circumvent that. 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 Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:32 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board to delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows: "the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents." Philip
Mike With respect, what you've said is nonsense. It was not a small, self-formed group. It was formed in response to a Board request. The group was open to anyone who wanted to join and included a very diverse set of people who worked to provide inputs to the Board on moving a process forward which has been under discussion for a decade! When you want to throw around statements like "new tld applicants who have tried to railroad process through ICANN" a modicum of self reflection about the closed and self-selected IRT process would be useful. Liz On 27 Jan 2010, at 10:51, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I agree with the concerns re process. This "Working Group" was nothing of the sort, but instead a small, self-formed and self-interested group of new-TLD applicants who have tried to railroad process through ICANN. That alone warrants disagreement.
Substantively, I think the proposal is foolish because it is likely to result in more rather than less delay to the newTLD implementation, which I would like to see happen ASAP, provided that 'overarching concerns' are first adequately addressed. Those concerns seem to have been addressed, as adequately as possible (though we have not seen the latest DAG yet), and anyway the suggested EOI process seems more likely to reopen dressed wounds than it is to cure anything.
As we have discussed on the list, the Business Constituency is not going to formally comment on this to ICANN, and neither will I. It is not really a substantive concern, but one of process. The GNSO made clear recommendations about timing and communications, and now -- it seems to me -- the Staff and a small group of self-interested parties is trying to circumvent that.
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 Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:32 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board to delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows:
"the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents."
Philip
Comments are due today. We don't have time for a formal vote on a BC position on the EOI, so ours would have to be a consensus comment. Would everyone support a simple statement along these lines? Before the Board votes on whether to proceed with the EOI, it should first resolve the ambiguity about what the EOI is designed to accomplish. Is the EOI just a data gathering exercise, or is it a mandatory pre-registration? Once we understand that threshold question, the community can address the details of the EOI plan, in a brief public comment period followed by public discussions in Nairobi. --Steve DelBianco On 1/27/10 4:32 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board to delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows:
"the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents."
Philip
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Dear colleagues, Attached please find ICC task force Chair and Vice Chair's informal comments on the draft EoI proposal. It has been submitted to ICANN today, and it urges public discussion on the proposal at the ICANN Nairobi meeting. Thus, it is consistent with Steve's proposed comment from the BC. Kind regards, Ayesha -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: mercredi 27 janvier 2010 13:12 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Comments are due today. We don't have time for a formal vote on a BC position on the EOI, so ours would have to be a consensus comment. Would everyone support a simple statement along these lines? Before the Board votes on whether to proceed with the EOI, it should first resolve the ambiguity about what the EOI is designed to accomplish. Is the EOI just a data gathering exercise, or is it a mandatory pre-registration? Once we understand that threshold question, the community can address the details of the EOI plan, in a brief public comment period followed by public discussions in Nairobi. --Steve DelBianco On 1/27/10 4:32 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the
delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows:
"the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could
requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents
Board to trigger the
respective interests of respondents."
Philip
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Dear BC-Members, the .berliners are fine with the posted comments, but I think as most BC members are inline with the AIM position the BC should oppose the mandatory pre-registration which will definitely open the floodgate to TLD tasting, gaming in selling of .brand EOI slots. Best regards, Dirk Krischenowski -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Steve DelBianco Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 13:12 An: 'bc - GNSO list' Betreff: Re: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Comments are due today. We don't have time for a formal vote on a BC position on the EOI, so ours would have to be a consensus comment. Would everyone support a simple statement along these lines? Before the Board votes on whether to proceed with the EOI, it should first resolve the ambiguity about what the EOI is designed to accomplish. Is the EOI just a data gathering exercise, or is it a mandatory pre-registration? Once we understand that threshold question, the community can address the details of the EOI plan, in a brief public comment period followed by public discussions in Nairobi. --Steve DelBianco On 1/27/10 4:32 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board
to
delay a decision until after debate in Nairobi. I would like to suggest that the BC supports this. Please let me have your opinion today as public comments close today ! --------------------------- The full text of the GAC advice is on the comments list but the specific process advice is as follows:
"the GAC therefore advises the Board to: - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and defer it until the next ICANN Public meeting. A premature decision could trigger requests for reconsideration and further derail the discussion; - request that staff facilitate a full cross-community deliberation on the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions; and - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the respective interests of respondents."
Philip
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted earlier. But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this will be more persuasive. Philip
A couple of thoughts on the individually provided EOI comments: Given the way that the community is treating the EOI public comment process -- e.g. dozens of postings that are more or less designed to overwhelm by numbers of comments,business users interests are best served by posting separate commentswhere you can develop and get approval within your company or association's membership. Secondly, many of the postings lack context about who the poster is. It is probably very helpful to provide a bit of information about the number of companies, if you are posting as an association or industry coalition, or the number of countries, or regionsthat your company provides services or products to, if you are a corporation. In analyzing public comments, the staff is significantly handicapped without that additional information, which the Board won't intuitively know. :-) The more you provide an individual perspective from your own company/association'sconcerns, the better the Board will be able to understand those very legitimate concerns and views and not just see this [or have it interpreted to them] as objecting to new gTLDS, regardless. My comments will also address my concern that ICANN is not demonstrating effective action on addressing the four overarching issues cohesively, as committed. There seems to be some confusion among staff that an EOI is fulfilling the economic analysis, or that 'demand lists' equate to an economic analysis. I think that the perspective of business users that these issues need to be addressed before Board, or staffmove forward with creating expectations that may be affected -- significantly -- by the answers to theseoverarching issues is important. In some environments, ICANN could be viewed as 'overhanging the market', or trying to create demand. I'm hoping that the impact of the responsible and informed concerns of business users in the public comment process can move us back into a more balanced approach to progressing the new gTLD Guidebook with changes that address the concerns of business users. Marilyn
From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:40:15 +0100
Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted earlier.
But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this will be more persuasive.
Philip
I support Steve's statement with Philip's last addition about supporting the GAC. 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 Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 04:40 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted earlier. But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this will be more persuasive. Philip
I am going to send comments on the EOI, as an individual company. I had understood that we all had discussed a BC approved position and agreed that we didn't have 14 days for a circulation/discussion /vote. Isn't that the agreementon the list? I think you will find that the individualized postings will be more effective than positionthat hasn't had a thorough circulation and discussion and vote by the members. And, it looks to me like it is important to have those individual postings as well. Finally, I am sensitive that not all members may be in agreement, so would want to ensure that there was a proper process on any 'BC position', being fair to the fullmembership. Again, personally, I have grave concerns about the EOI as it has been developed,from a process perspective, and from a substance position. I'll share my comments when I get them posted. They are my individual comments, in my capacity as the Principal/CEO of mCADE. I like the GAC document and will reference it, but only as one more example of concerns shared by a critical group of advisors in the full ICANN process. Marilyn
From: berrycobb@infinityportals.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0800
I support Steve's statement with Philip's last addition about supporting the GAC.
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 Philip Sheppard Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 04:40 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree for pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted earlier.
But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position - this will be more persuasive.
Philip
If there isn't enough time to agree on a BC position, we understand. Although, if it turns out that we have more time down the line, we should continue to try to develop a BC position. Verizon has submitted its comments on the NOI and they are posted on ICANN's website. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670
participants (9)
-
Berry Cobb -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN -
HASSAN Ayesha -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Philip Sheppard -
Steve DelBianco