[bc-gnso] BC position EOI

[Phil Corwin]

ICA is fine with the final draft.

While we do not have a formal position pro or con on the EOI, my personal view is that it is a distraction from the main game -- that every hour spent debating whether there should be an EOI, what its purpose is, and what its terms should be is an hour that is not being devoted to resolving the key issues that would permit the new gTLD application window to open.



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

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard [philip.sheppard at aim.be]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:30 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC position EOI

Thank you for the last round of comments.
Our 14 day process is almost complete and I wanted to send a copy of our paper so that BC colleagues in Nairobi will have a position to speak to.

I attach a version three factoring in the last round of comments / support. This includes all substantive contributions of content though not all of the style suggestions. Us rapporteurs should be free to retain that element!

For good order I also attach a clean version 3 and have entitled it "final" to facilitate any external communication in Nairobi.

Philip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100305/ebaf6761/attachment.html>