[bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2

Berry Cobb berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Mon Mar 1 22:59:16 UTC 2010



Thank you for taking point on the EOI BC Position.  


While I support the EOI concept, there are far too many unresolved issues
for this to be a fair and balanced method to advance gTLDs.  My primary
concern with the proposed EOI is referenced in Reasons #4 & #5 of the BC
position.  By forcing all potential applicants to blindly file EOI before
all conditions and rules are finalized also unfairly prevents others from
entering the application round.  The primary motivation for this EOI rule
was to prevent speculative applications against similar strings.  I
understand the reasoning, but more relaxed rules can accomplish the same
goal without locking out other future applicants.


The other six reasons listed are equally valid points that the ICANN Board
and broader community should consider.  Therefore, I support the proposed BC
Position.  I look forward to reviewing the final version.  


For those in the BC that do not know me, I fully support the gTLD expansion.
But, I can only support it when most of the current state issues the
community and market experience today are resolved.


Thank you.



Berry A. Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC


From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:56
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft BC position EOI v2


Thanks to BC members for their comments to date.

I attach a revised version 2.

Comments / expressions of support please now on this version referencing
line tracking as appropriate.




From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard at aim.be] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:19 AM
To: 'bc-gnso at icann.org'
Subject: Draft BC position EOI

For 14 day comment


I have been asked by the new VP policy coordination Steve DelBianco to act
as rapporteur for the issue of Expressions of Interest in the context of the
new gTLDS process.


I attach a proposed draft for the Constituency. Its argumentation and
consequent conclusion is based on the submissions of Bc members in their
individual capacity to the public comments process. These comment were
significant in their commonality. In short all commentators believed that:

- the EOI is a poor substitute for data gathering and an economic study

- the EOI is bad business practice as it requires investors to invest in
ignorance of issues that ICANN is obliged to solve.


Comments, improvements are most welcome ideally by e-mail bullet points
referencing the line numbers rather than Word tracked changes.

This makes the job of the poor rapporteur much easier !




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100301/debd84ee/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list