[bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC

[Phil Corwin]

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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 3:29 AM
To: bc-gnso at 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