[bc-gnso] where are we at on a new charter?
icann at leap.com
Fri Sep 25 13:00:11 UTC 2009
(1) I submitted comments previously at:
I don't think your revised draft reflected all my concerns. I think
the better foundation is to use someone else's template, like the City
Top-Level Domain Constituency's draft.
(2) Marilyn and others called for a conference call long ago with ICANN staff.
(3) Another approach would be to seriously consider joining up with
the IP and ISP constituencies to form a superconstituency. Even Mike
Rodenbaugh has bemoaned the situation that:
"WE DO NOT HAVE MANY MEMBERS PARTICIPATING SUBSTANTIALLY TO ANY
BC-RELATED WORK TODAY"
"FEW ENGAGE IN THAT NOW."
If one looks at the archive of the ISP constituency mailing list:
they've had not a single post to their mailing list in all of 2009.
It'd be better to roll-up the 3 constituencies into one large and
vibrant "Commercial Stakeholders" constituency, rather than have
disjoint, weak and ineffective small constituencies with low
participation. Some prefer to be a big fish in a small pond, but we'd
serve business better if instead they learned to be a small fish in a
big pond, and maybe they'd even rise to become a "big fish in a big
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike at haven2.com> wrote:
> hi all,
> i've incorporated a few comments on the charter-draft into this new version.
> so where are we at on approving a new charter? don't we need to keep
> pushing forward on this?
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
More information about the Bc-gnso