Hi folks, On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I completely agree with Paul on this. These IGO names issues have been a political football for nearly five years now. The GAC is never going to get the GNSO to say what the GAC wants it to say -- we are not going to agree. The GAC has never proved any legitimate public interest concern to back their position. Accordingly, the IGO names policy was passed by a supermajority of the GNSO (as likely will be this latest policy recommendation) and that has implications in the Bylaws for the Board. The Board needs to make a decision. The GNSO need not be interested in politics, that is the Board and GAC's concern; we are interested in facts and real world policy.
Yet, the backers of Option C within this PDP have *also* been playing politics. It was pretty much established that Option 1 (now Option A) had the backing of this PDP when the preliminary report went out earlier this year, as I pointed out in today's call, based on all the analysis of law and facts. What "new information" or "new facts" or "new analysis" have been presented to get some members of this PDP to shift to the old Option 2 (now Option C)? Absolutely none -- just scaremongering about how the GNSO Council or others might react ---- *that's* politics. There's nothing "principles based" about Option C that has anything to do with facts or law. Politics were being played even *before* we got to this PDP. The prior PDP should have just said "No more", but then they kicked the can down the road (leading to this 3 years of work), which the IGOs themselves have not participated in. I hope that folks regain their bearings before this PDP is over, and really think hard about the fundamental principles that lead to policy decisions (I've been reading Ray Dalio's new book "Principles" lately). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/