<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br>I am going to send comments on the EOI, as an individual company. <div><br></div><div>I had understood that we all had discussed a BC approved position and agreed that we </div><div>didn't have 14 days for a circulation/discussion /vote. Isn't that the agreement</div><div>on the list? </div><div><br></div><div>I think you will find that the individualized postings will be more effective than position</div><div>that hasn't had a thorough circulation and discussion and vote by the members.</div><div><br></div><div>And, it looks to me like it is important to have those individual postings as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I am sensitive that not all members may be in agreement, so would want to </div><div>ensure that there was a proper process on any 'BC position', being fair to the full</div><div>membership. </div><div><br></div><div>Again, personally, I have grave concerns about the EOI as it has been developed,</div><div>from a process perspective, and from a substance position. I'll share my comments </div><div>when I get them posted. They are my individual comments, in my capacity as the Principal/</div><div>CEO of mCADE. </div><div><br></div><div>I like the GAC document and will reference it, but only as one more example of concerns </div><div>shared by a critical group of advisors in the full ICANN process. </div><div><br></div><div>Marilyn </div><div><br><br><br>> From: berrycobb@infinityportals.com<br>> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on EOI<br>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0800<br>> <br>> <br>> I support Steve's statement with Philip's last addition about supporting the<br>> GAC.<br>> <br>> Thank you.<br>> <br>> <br>> Berry A. Cobb<br>> Infinity Portals LLC<br>> 866.921.8891<br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of<br>> Philip Sheppard<br>> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 04:40<br>> To: 'bc - GNSO list'<br>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Propose that the BC support GAC process comments on<br>> EOI<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Would be delighted to have support to the AIM position, but happy to agree<br>> for<br>> pragmatic purposes, on Steve's statement expressing the sentiment I posted<br>> earlier.<br>> <br>> But Steve, lets add a reference to supporting the GAC process position -<br>> this<br>> will be more persuasive.<br>> <br>> Philip<br>> <br>> <br>> <br></div> </body>
</html>