[bc-gnso] IRT Final report
Liz Williams
lizawilliams at mac.com
Wed Jun 3 13:47:07 UTC 2009
I'd like to support Rick's point of view and perhaps Philip was
having a "too fast fingers" moment? I would be very disappointed if
individual members, like me, weren't valued for our expertise and
contribution as a given.
I agree with Rick and, although as a group, we rarely agree with each
other that isn't a reason not to participate or to question the
validity of someone's views.
Liz
PS For the record, I am very troubled by the IRT Report from both a
process and an output point of view.
...
Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757
On 3 Jun 2009, at 14:37, Rick Anderson wrote:
>
> I think, Philip, that may have been an unfortunate remark. There
> are many members of the BC which are small and even one-person
> companies. Some of these are people like myself who used to be
> with smaller firms and and are now with much larger, some. Have
> moved the opposite direction from larger firms to one-person
> consultancies. Regardless of size of company, some of the BC
> individuals from some of our smallest companies are amongst our
> most able contributors, such as George.
>
> If we do not respect contributions from individuals representing
> our smaller member firms, or do not repsect them as much as other
> members, maybe we should be upfront about it and refuse to accept
> their membership fees. That is not my view, I think if they
> qualify for membership under our rules, size of member firm is not
> important, certainly less important that the quality of its policy
> contribution, which in George's case is considerable, whether one
> agrees with his every point they are always educational. The BC
> would be the poorer if he took what appears to be your suggestion
> and refrained from input.
>
>
> cheers/Rick
>
> Rick Anderson
> EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
> email: randerson at interborder.ca
> cell: (403) 830-1798
> office: (403) 750-5535
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org <owner-bc-gnso at icann.org>
> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso at icann.org>
> Sent: Wed Jun 03 07:23:45 2009
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> George,
>> you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter"
>>
>> please tell BC members more about your company, its business
>> objectives, global reach and staffing.
>
> Is this some sort of suggestion that my company isn't qualified to
> offer an opinion/position, or that my company is not representative of
> the many companies (and individuals) who've registered 180 million
> domain names worldwide?
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Internet-Domain-Names-Surpass-
> iw-15423088.html
>
> I'd be curious to know who you believe should be able to comment on
> ICANN policy. My company has been a member of the BC for years,
> sailing through the credentials committee, etc. Indeed, I was trusted
> enough to be on the credentials committee, deciding who was qualified
> to be in the BC, before I decided to step down from that committee. It
> was my company that detected the flaws in the .biz/info/org contracts
> that would have permitted tiered pricing:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/
> icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/
>
> It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/petition_against_site_finder/
> http://www.verisignsucks.com/
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm
>
> even before it launched (note the 3rd link was on September 9, 2003,
> whereas SiteFinder launched on September 15 as per the 4th link).
>
> If those qualifications aren't good enough to create informed
> comments, please do educate the rest of the BC as to what does qualify
> as informed comment. Do you believe only members of AIM should be
> allowed to participate in ICANN policymaking, for example?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In
> the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s
> company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may
> not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or
> action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been
> sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify
> sender at the above e-mail address.
>
> Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check
> this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and
> sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any
> virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of
> communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to
> interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to
> communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such
> notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any
> additional security measures (such as encryption) unless
> specifically requested.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20090603/7a0a7d95/attachment.html>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list