[bc-gnso] .XXX

Mike Rodenbaugh icann at rodenbaugh.com
Mon Mar 29 15:51:21 UTC 2010

Hey Berry,

Only the GAC and the GNSO are relevant SOs on this topic.  The GAC may be
relevant on any topic they choose, regardless of which SO is the main
driver.  The GAC can also proactively recommend policy if it wants to, but I
believe it has always been more reactive than proactive to date.  The GAC
has certain powers under the Bylaws to recommend policy directly to the
Board, and under the AOC which gives GAC heightened review powers and
requires GAC consultation on major policy initiatives.

Hope this helps.

Mike Rodenbaugh
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:41 PM
To: bc-GNSO at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] .XXX


I am reviewing the documents and decision tree for the .XXX public  
comment period.  Forgive my inexperience and lack of history regarding  
this TLD, but can someone explain to me why the GAC Comments (either  
past or possible new) are a consideration in the decision tree?  Why  
wouldn't any of the SO get equal opportunity to influence or weigh in  
on the decision outside of public comment?

Thank you for enlightening me.


Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list