FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
psc at vlaw-dc.com
Thu Mar 3 17:06:19 UTC 2011
ICA is fine with focusing primarily on new gTLDs, notwithstanding our differences with some of the BC rights protection positions.
While not strictly on the AOC, and perhaps not a topic for extended discussion with the Board at this particular meeting, I think that all BC members should think about how ICANN meetings should best be structured to take into account the new reality of substantially increased GAC involvement in the policy process. The Board and the GAC now plan two days of meetings in San Francisco on new gTLDs (and also, presumably, .xxx) -- on Tuesday, Constituency Day, and on Thursday, which is usually devoted to a lengthy public forum. As there are so many hours in a day, the time the Board huddles with the GAC is time that they cannot interact with constituencies or with the community -- plus they will naturally be more focused mentally on the meetings with the GAC. While there are unlikely to be issues of the same intensity as new gTLDs in the immediate future, GAC members made it quite clear that they want to be involved in future policy issues from the beginning, and that the form of discussion with the Board taking place now is setting a precedent.
So I think we should all assume that ICANN meetings in the future will either be longer, or differently structured, and have some internal discussion about what revised format would best serve business users.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"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: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:42 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
Support focusing on TLDs only.
... who very nicely did NOT reply to all and thus saved 5 BC members from
Will the next BC member be as kind to me ?
More information about the Bc-gnso