[bc-gnso] RE: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice

[Elisa Cooper]

Thanks for sending Ron. This is great news - we should plan to discuss how to move forward with drafting comments on our call scheduled for this Friday.

Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

Elisa Cooper
Chair
ICANN Business Constituency

208 389-5779 PH

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:32 PM
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice

Dear colleagues,

It appears that ICANN has seen the error of their ways...  The Public Forum that IS public after all: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com>
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:45 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] GAC Advice Public Comment - or not?

Dear colleagues,

So it appears that ICANN is once again entering into the Theatre of the Absurd.  First, Fadi states publicly in the post-Beijing video that in a precedent-setting move, ICANN would put the GAC advice out to public comment; then (perhaps recognizing the law of unintended consequences) he does an about-face and notes the Public Comment will not include any public comments... The public comment period that wasn't?

If you haven't seen the announcement, it is here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en

The president and staff have to recognize that these flip flopping, stutter-stepping, inconsistencies are unacceptable to the community and to governments.  Trying to make up processes on the fly to ensure that the deadlines for new gTLDs are hit is not part of the bottom up, consensus-driven institution many in the community devote so much volunteer time in building.

For my part, we need to send that message back to Fadi.  Either it is an open Public Comment forum; or there is no Public Comment at all, in my view.  He can't have it both ways... In essence, what he is trying to do now is solely give affected applicants a chance to say that shouldn't be on the list because of x, y, or z.  What about the parties affected by, or objectors to, those applications?  Don't they deserve - at the very least - equal time?

I do hope that we can find consensus on this matter within the BC.  We REALLY need to pull together on this and singular/plural - both of which are absurd.  Can we look to our Ex Com to take the lead...?

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.<http://www.rnapartners.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130423/767d3883/attachment.html>