AW: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI
Dirk Krischenowski | dotBERLIN
krischenowski at dotberlin.de
Wed Jan 27 12:27:42 UTC 2010
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.
Von: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] Im Auftrag von
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 13:12
An: 'bc - GNSO list'
Betreff: Re: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on
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.
On 1/27/10 4:32 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be> wrote:
> The GAC have submitted a proposal on process. In effect it asks the Board
> 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
> advice is as follows:
> "the GAC therefore advises the Board to:
> - avoid taking a decision on the EoI at its February meeting and
> 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
> the EoI at the next ICANN Public meeting, prior to any final decisions;
> - ensure that the second summary of comments clearly documents the
> respective interests of respondents."
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
More information about the Bc-gnso