[bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)

[Michael D. Palage]

Hello All,

 

I have not commented on this document for a couple of reasons. One I am
actively working with a number of clients in connection with new gTLDs and
two I have volunteered to help the registry constituency with their efforts
to submit a comment on this subject matter.

 

My concern however, is that many of the active members in preparing  this BC
document appear to be individuals directly/indirectly associated with new
gTLD applicants. Therefore, in advance I am stating my intention to abstain
on any BC vote, and I ask that in the interest of openness and transparency
that we document in any final submission those BC members that are
directly/indirectly involved in any new gTLD applications and their role in
formulating/approving this document.

 

I think the BC has raised a number of concerns regarding the appearance of
conflict at the ICANN Board level, and I think we need to lead by example.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
icann at rodenbaugh.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:08 AM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry
proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)

 

I support Jon's draft, thanks for the good work.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087

http://rodenbaugh.com 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:06 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry
proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)

 

Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC
comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations
Instrument in the new gTLD Program. 

 

Jon Nevett prepared this draft. 

 

This comment period and docs are described here
<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm> .


 

These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval.
This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am
requesting an expedited review period.  If any member has substantive
objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our
comments after the ICANN due date.

 

All BC members are invited to suggest edits.     Please use track changes
and circulate to BC list.   

 

Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this.

 

 

Steve DelBianco

vice chair for policy coordination, BC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20111130/d0fb3c8d/attachment.html>