Thanks for the kind words guys. The true credit, though, goes to Robin and
Milton whose guidance and instruction allowed me to do, and improved upon,
 the little bit I did. One of the great things about this group is the
willingness of those with more experience to help those of us with less. I
hope that's an NC tradition that will continue long after all of us are
gone.

This appears to be the first Reconsideration Review Request submitted by
either the NCSG or NCUC. As ICANN grows and becomes more bureaucratic we're
going to need to start familiarizing ourselves with tools like the RRR as
well as  DIDP requests to ensure adherence to the MS model. These are tools
that have been used by commercial interests for well over a decade. I only
hope the BGC and the Board recognize the validity of our concerns in this
matter concerning staff unilateralism and chooses to restore balance to the
process and restores legitimacy to ICANN itself.



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> You are right Robin, I should have given due props to Ed, who was so
> dedicated to the task that he blew off the Beijing gala dinner to hide in a
> hotel room and work on the text.  So kudos to the man from South Boston…
>
> Bill
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 6:09 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Bill!   But actually most of the congrats belongs to Edward
> Morris who did the lion's share of the drafting on NCSG's Request for
> Reconsideration (while traveling).
> >
> > Thank you, Edward!  Your good work will force ICANN to at least answer
> on the record for breaking its bylaws in disregarding GNSO policy.  Let's
> hope the board will attempt to fix this break with its stated policy.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robin
> >
> > On May 2, 2013, at 3:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> PS:  Congrats on "ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of
> Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of
> ICANN’s Bylaws"!
> >
>
>