October 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings
by Liz Williams Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

Mike It's helpful to be flexible in these situations and I think that the "system" needs to incorporate Issue Managers on a predictable and normal basis. People who work in Working Groups and Taskforces become natural experts and need a formalised platform to share their work. That is a good development which does not preclude Councillors doing their job on Council. It helps them in working group situations. This isn't the UN or APEC TEL or the OECD -- that's where we would worry about scalability. It is small numbers of people working a wide range of complex issues. Limiting the "table" to Councillors and Issues Managers is a mid way point between having the open slather which is currently the case and Councillors only. I'd suggest that the BC is in a position to be the leader here and that we should talk about the best way forward for working sessions tonight. Best wishes. Liz On 25 Oct 2009, at 03:48, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > Hi Liz, > > I appreciate the thinking here, but still believe it is not > scalable. It is clearly appropriate for any Councilor to allow > anyone else to speak on their or their Constituency’s behalf during > a Council meeting for a limited time or purpose. Councilors can > also raise comments or questions posed by others, of course. Just > like I can forward an email from any constituent to the Council > email list. Input from members is ALWAYS welcome, it just ought not > be input directly to Council for many hopefully obvious reasons. > > All, > > I will not be responding further to the recent email from Mike > Palage or Ron Andruff on this topic, as sufficient response is > contained in my prior email to this List, today and previously. > Namely, Michael Palage’s ‘conflict of interest’ allegation was > earlier raised by George Kirikos, and I consider it frivolous for > the reasons stated during that interchange, particularly that any > purported conflict was fully disclosed long before my last > election, and has no impact on my efforts on behalf of the BC. The > email from Ron also overlooks the fact that I have been elected to > represent the BC on Council. While I appreciate the desire to > always speak one’s mind openly at Council meetings, the Council > appears nearly unanimous that this privilege is not scalable, not > fair, has caused detriment to the efficiency and output of the > Council, and therefore has been discontinued. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > > From: Liz Williams [mailto:lizawilliams@mac.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:03 PM > To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com > Cc: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at > face to face open council meetings > > Hello Mike > > I'm sympathetic to the issues you've raised particularly as the > weekend sessions are really working drafting sessions. > > I've had some experience of this in other environments and would > like to suggest a middle ground which may help over-worked > Councillors. > > We have proposed an Issue Manager/Rapporteur system in the new > Charter and I suggest that anyone who volunteers to do work on > issues (whatever they are) ought to be at the table as well. This > helps new members/volunteers become experienced at dealing with a > wide range of issues in great detail. It is also a supportive > position for the Councillors. It spreads the work around and also > maximises the use of different skills in the group (for example, > some are better on technical issues than legal drafting or > intellectual property or competition). > > For example, it would probably work something like (and I'll use me > as a hypothetical) this. > > 1. Councillors are at the table supported by me (the Issue Manager) > on ABC issue. > > 2. Issue Manager is responsible for the scribing/writing/ > presentation of materials. > > 3. Councillors are there to link different issues and positions > together and take that to Council. > > This strengthens our work with diverse voices and volunteers taking > responsibility who are "rewarded" with a seat the table. > > Best wishes. > > Liz > On 25 Oct 2009, at 01:18, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > > > Fyi below from the Council Chair, in response to the attached email > string > begun by me, and subsequent discussion of Council this morning. I > have had > these very strong feelings for a long time now, and various less > formal > efforts to remedy the situation have not been effective. > > The Council appears nearly unanimous in support of the concept that > Councilors should be given every opportunity to speak at Council > meetings, > and any public comment periods within the weekend meetings will be > structured more as they are in the large public Council meetings > held on > Wednesday of the ICANN meetings. This is an effort to make Council > more > efficient, and to allow Councilors to do their jobs without constant > interruptions from non-representative individuals. Of course, there > are > many other opportunities for such individuals to voice their > comments and > questions through the GNSO's bottom-up, open and transparent policy > development practices, including the BC's internal practices. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:37 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open > council > meetings > > > Hi. > > After this mornings meeting I wanted to confirm several actions that > I took > away from the meeting: > > 1. the seats at the table for open council meetings will be reserved > for > council members, liaisons and relevant staff. Chair, vice-chair > (s) and staff will request that others take the observers seats. > For future > meetings name placards will be requested to those to be seated at > the table. > > 2. the observers will be requested to queue at the microphones, and > the > chair will be responsible for giving them the floor at appropriate > points, > though precedence for speaking will be given to those around the > table. > > 3. any further changes to the practices at open meetings will be > discussed > by the new council at its discretion. > > Please let me know if I have misinterpreted the will of that meeting. > > a. > > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> > Date: 24 October 2009 23:50:08 BST > To: <icann(a)rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council > > > Thanks Mike. Maybe we will have time to discuss this in our > breakfast meeting. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:42 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council > > Hi Chuck, > This is not a policy development issue, but instead is > administrative. I have twice been elected to represent the BC in > Council administrative matters. Specifically per our Charter > section 4.1, “[t]he representatives will act in the GNSO Council as > representatives of and spokespersons for the Constituency and will > collaborate with other members of the Council in pursuit of the > mission of the Constituency.” > > I am only trying to discontinue an unwarranted privilege by which > unrepresentative persons increasingly usurp the role of > representative Councilors and Liaisons, and which unduly takes time > from the entire Council and Staff. > > Do you have any reasoned argument against this? > > Thanks, > Mike > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:15 PM > To: icann(a)rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council > Subject: RE: [council] End of the Shadow Council > > Mike, > > Is this a CBUC request? > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:42 PM > To: GNSO Council > Subject: [council] End of the Shadow Council > > Dear Colleagues, > > I write again regarding the so-called “Observers” at face-to-face > GNSO Council meetings. > > Of course, I fully support that our face-to-face meetings are > generally always open to true observers, both those present and > located remotely. And I fully support that all of our meetings are > generally fully recorded and transcribed. Indeed I think they > should be translated, and that our conference calls be opened in > real time to the public, with non-speaking access. I fully support > that our email list is open and archived. All of this allows the > public to see how the Council operates in practically real-time, and > to experience the information and debate first-hand. Council must > have flexibility to close its sessions and/or communicate privately, > when it deems necessary for any stated and agreed reason. But I > believe that has never happened to date, and of course the default > must be open meetings and open communications. > > However, the growing trend is for GNSO “Observers” to participate in > the Council’s weekend face-to-face meetings on equal footing with > Councilors, Liasons and Staff. A small and growing group of > privileged observers, none of whom are elected or appointed to > represent anyone but themselves and/or their specific organizations, > are increasingly taking an inordinate amount of Council and Staff > time. In effect, they are a “Shadow Council” that follows the > Council from meeting to meeting, taking advantage of a privilege > they ought not have. This must stop, effective immediately. > > It is not scalable as the community of interested observers grows > and diversifies. It is not fair in any way: > > n Not fair to Councilors and Liasons who offer great personal > sacrifice to travel long distances away from their lives, > volunteering an overly full weekend in advance of a lengthy five-day > meeting. > > n Not fair to the constituents who elected or appointed the > Councilors and Liasons, expecting that they (and only they) would > serve as those constituents’ representatives on Council. > > n Not fair to the general public whose only opportunities for input > to Council are via the Constituencies, Working Groups or public > comment periods. Particularly not fair to the general public that > does not speak English, or who cannot attend the sessions, as they > have no equal ability to participate vis a vis the “Shadow Council”. > > n Not fair to the Staff nor the Council as a whole, whose only > opportunity to communicate face-to-face is during these meetings. > > The GNSO Council is a representative body. The representative > Councilors and designated Liaisons must be allowed to do their jobs, > which absolutely requires face-to-face interaction with Staff and > with each other -- without constant ‘clarifying questions’, ‘points > of order’, comments or questions from the public. To my > knowledge, no other SO, nor the GAC nor the Board – nor any other > council, committee or board anywhere in the world -- ever allow such > privilege to observers. Such points should be raised through > Council representatives, or during any or all of the many > opportunities for public comment into the Council processes. Indeed > this is the reason-for-being of the Constituencies themselves, of > Working Groups, of public comment periods in general, and of the > public comment periods allowed at the Council’s face-to-face > meetings (which can also be used in our weekend sessions, if time > allows). > > Therefore, beginning with the newTLD session today, I request that > observers be disallowed equal access to the Council table and > microphones, just as they are disallowed such access at our larger > public meetings and in our conference calls. The material presented > by Staff in the session today will doubtless be repeated during a > public session later in the week, which is a perfect opportunity for > anyone to ask their questions or make their points directly to the > Staff, without wasting tremendously valuable and scarce face-to-face > Council/Staff time. As we have seen, too many people are abusing > the privilege of open access to raise points that they then raise > again and again at every opportunity throughout the ICANN meeting, > and/or to communicate their particular, non-representative > interests. They are abusing a privilege that they should not have > in the first place, because it is not fair. > > Does anyone have an argument as to why the current privilege should > be allowed to continue? Is anyone aware of any other council, board > or committee, anywhere in the world, that allows such a privilege to > observers? > > Otherwise, I hope the privilege will be discontinued immediately, > and request Avri to confirm via reply to this list. If not, my next > effort to stop this will be an Ombudsman complaint, on behalf of the > entire community, so that this practice is investigated by a neutral > party and discussed formally at the Council and/or Board level(s). > I also request that the relevant OSC team discuss this and recommend > appropriate provisions in our Council Rules of Procedure to ensure > that nobody is given undue and disruptive access to Council, > Liaisons and Staff during our meetings. > > Each and every member of the community – other than the “Shadow > Councilors” and their specific organizations -- suffer from the > continuation of this unwarranted and unseemly privilege that offered > to just a few, at the expense of the many. > > Sincerely, > Mike > > Mike Rodenbaugh > RODENBAUGH LAW > 548 Market Street > San Francisco, CA 94104 > (415) 738-8087 > http://rodenbaugh.com > > > >

1 0

FW: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

Fyi below from the Council Chair, in response to the attached email string begun by me, and subsequent discussion of Council this morning. I have had these very strong feelings for a long time now, and various less formal efforts to remedy the situation have not been effective. The Council appears nearly unanimous in support of the concept that Councilors should be given every opportunity to speak at Council meetings, and any public comment periods within the weekend meetings will be structured more as they are in the large public Council meetings held on Wednesday of the ICANN meetings. This is an effort to make Council more efficient, and to allow Councilors to do their jobs without constant interruptions from non-representative individuals. Of course, there are many other opportunities for such individuals to voice their comments and questions through the GNSO's bottom-up, open and transparent policy development practices, including the BC's internal practices. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:37 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Confirmation of new practice at face to face open council meetings Hi. After this mornings meeting I wanted to confirm several actions that I took away from the meeting: 1. the seats at the table for open council meetings will be reserved for council members, liaisons and relevant staff. Chair, vice-chair (s) and staff will request that others take the observers seats. For future meetings name placards will be requested to those to be seated at the table. 2. the observers will be requested to queue at the microphones, and the chair will be responsible for giving them the floor at appropriate points, though precedence for speaking will be given to those around the table. 3. any further changes to the practices at open meetings will be discussed by the new council at its discretion. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted the will of that meeting. a.

3 2

FW: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council
by Mike Rodenbaugh Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

Fyi, for our discussion in the CSG and BC meetings on Tuesday. Any questions or discussion on list in advance may be helpful. Note the deadline for constituency statements of November 4th! Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) <http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer =http://rodenbaugh.com/contact> 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:41 PM To: GNSO Council Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: [council] Motion for the Reponse to ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council All, During yesterdays discussions it was determined that a Review Team should be developed to review the issues and positions of members within the GNSO with regard to the ICANN Board letter to the GNSO in order to formulate the appropriate response to that letter. Please see the suggested motion below. We would propose to vote on this motion on Wednesdays GNSO Council meeting. Whilst we understand that this does not allow for the usual seven days we would ask that, on this occasion, because of the tight timelines, that all Stakeholder Groups act quickly to discuss this motion (potentially utilising time during Stakeholder Group day on Tuesday). Glen could you please forward this to each Stakeholder Group chair in order to promote this motion as efficiently as possible? Thanks! Thanks. Adrian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO evaluate certain ICANN staff implementation proposals for the protection of trademarks in new gTLDs based in part on the recommendations from the IRT, public comments, and additional analysis undertaken by ICANN Staff, as described in the letter dated 12 October 2009 <<Letter <http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p df> from Rod Beckstrom & Peter Dengate Thrush to GNSO Council>>. WHEREAS, the ICANN Board letter requests the GNSOs view by December 14, 2009 on whether certain rights protection mechanisms for second level strings recommended by ICANN Staff based on public input are consistent with the GNSOs proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs, and are the appropriate and effective options for achieving the GNSOs stated principles and objectives; WHEREAS, the GNSO has reviewed the ICANN Board letter and desires to approve the procedures for conducting such evaluation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the GNSO adopts the following process to conduct the evaluation requested by the Board: 1. A GNSO Review Team will be comprised of representatives designated as follows: the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups with two (2) representatives each, the Commercial Stakeholder Groups and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups with four (4) representatives each, and At-Large with two (2) representatives and one representative from the Nominating Committee Appointees(1); 2. Each of the Stakeholder Groups will solicit from their members their initial position statements on the questions and issues raised by the ICANN Board letter and the ICANN Staff proposed models for the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension model, and will deliver their initial position statements on November 4, and with final position statements to be delivered by November 6, 2009; 3. Such position statements will be summarized by ICANN Staff and distributed to the GNSO Review Team to evaluate whether a consensus can be reached on the ICANN Staff implementation models or other proposals for the protection of trademarks in the New gTLD Program; and The GNSO Review Team will conduct its analysis, identify those areas where consensus has already been reached, an seek to develop consensus on those issues for which consensus could not be determined. The GNSO Review Team will provide a final report to the GNSO on or before the GNSO councils meeting in late November, 2009.

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Phil Corwin Oct. 25, 2009

Oct. 25, 2009

So where are we huddling at 5? Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: Ron Andruff <randruff(a)rnapartners.com>; bc-gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; 'BC List' <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Sent: Sat Oct 24 03:04:58 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? I can make both - Thanks Ron Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ________________________________ From: "Ron Andruff" [randruff(a)rnapartners.com] Sent: 23/10/2009 23:39 AST To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; "'BC List'" <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today’s discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 – 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ________________________________ SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Phil Corwin Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Excellent suggestion and happy to participate. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; 'BC List' <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Sent: Fri Oct 23 23:39:52 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today’s discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 – 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

5 4

RE: [bc-gnso] Message from Mike Roberts
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Nice to hear from you, Mike! When you get into Seoul, if you are looking for where the majority of the BC members who are here are 'hanging' out, on Sunday a.m., you will find some in Emerald Room and some in Sapphire Room beginning at 9 a.m. At 11:30 a.m. probably EVERYONE from the BC, as well as others, will be in Emerald, since Kurt Pritz is doing an update on the new gTLD process. It will be great to have a chance to talk to you and also to Chris Martin regarding both topics while you are both here in Seoul. thanks for making that offer via the BC list. One point: I wanted to note that on Wednesday at 11 a.m., there is also an important meeting related to the Nom Committee [NomComm] Presentation of the WG Report -- I believe that BC members may be interested in that report, since it has significant implications for how to improve the NomComm process and the NomComm. Mike, I am not sure if you have that meeting on your agenda already. That meeting, just so all understand, is at the same time as the GNSO Policy Council meeting, and also competes with the DNSSEC Workshop. For the convenience of the BC members and Mike, I've pasted that meeting below. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Review of the Nominating Committee: presentation of the WG reportDate: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 11:00 - 12:30WebcastAudiocast: Audio Streaming providedRoom: Garnet (L37)What it is | This is the presentation to community of the draft report of the Nominating Committee review Working Group, containing recommendations to the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board.Why it's important | The Nominating Committee review WG follows up on the independent review finalized at the end of 2007 by external consultants. The first positions expressed in 2008 by the WG needed to be validated once terminated the process of review of other key structures of ICANN, which are strictly interlinked with the review of the NomCom. The NomCom review WG has recently updated the initial findings from the early phases of the review and presents now its draft recommendations, for public consultation.The outcome of this review is particularly important in consideration of the high significance of the role plaid by the Nominating Committee of ICANN in terms of selection of individuals that will be called to play a key role of governance of the organization.Who should attend? Past and present Chairs and Members of the Nominating Committee: this will be a crucial occasion to interact with the WG after the workshops recently organized in Mexico City and in Sydney that allowed the WG to progress on its workMembers of the community interested in the review of key structures of the organization, and on the interlinks between this review and other key reviews of ICANNMembers of the Board, who will have an occasion to hear the voices of the interested members of the community before taking a decision on the measures proposed by the report of the WGAgenda details: Thomas Roessler (Chair NomCom review WG) and Marco Lorenzoni (Director, Organizational reviews): presentation of the WG reportMembers of the Board review WG: Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein, Alejandro Pisanty: agenda items to be confirmedComments from participants: open microphone From: secretariat(a)bizconst.org To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Message from Mike Roberts Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:47:56 +0200 Posted on behalf of Mike Roberts Dear Colleagues - I am heading off to Seoul today as your elected representative to the 2010 NomCom. As noted in a previous message, I would appreciate hearing from you with regard to both your views on how to improve the NomCom process, as well as your suggestions for candidates to be recruited. I have not yet seen a message from staff with regard to the openings to be filled, but will pass that along when I do. I hope to talk to a number of you face to face in Seoul. Best regards, - Mike Roberts

1 0

Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Ron Andruff Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

4 3

Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

I can make both - Thanks Ron Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Andruff" [randruff(a)rnapartners.com] Sent: 23/10/2009 23:39 AST To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; "'BC List'" <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

I can meet at 17 today. -----Original Message----- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; "'BC List'" <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Sent: 10/23/2009 11:40 PM Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by Phil Corwin Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

By what process does the BC plan to select its 3 delegates to the GNSO drafting team on trademark protection? I would like to volunteer for one of those slots and believe I can contribute greatly to a final outcome that protects TM interests without abrogating the due process rights of registrants. Quite a number of domain investors belong to the BC so I would hope that the selection process results in a balanced delegation. Thanks Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 21 04:18:28 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul Dear Members Please find attached the GNSO-related meeting schedule in Seoul. Best wishes Gary

3 2