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

BC charter v18
by BC Secretariat Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Posted on behalf of the Officers Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change. Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes. These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording from Sarah. On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of Sarah and Rick, there is no change. However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current charter. There have not been any significant issues with the current wording. Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are well taken and are already covered in article 5.1. The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter which has the following article 8.1: "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal procedures in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more than 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws)". In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers propose we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a vote immediately thereafter. BC Officers

4 3

RE: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/
by Phil Corwin Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Thanks Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mike(a)rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:22 PM To: Phil Corwin; owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org; Marilyn Cade; 'scott(a)mccormickict.com'; 'sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org' Cc: BC List Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/ Emerald. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin(a)butera-andrews.com> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:48:22 -0400 To: 'marilynscade(a)hotmail.com'<marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; 'scott(a)mccormickict.com'<scott(a)mccormickict.com>; 'sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org'<sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: 'bc-gnso(a)icann.org'<bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/ Anyone know the room for the NC/GNSO meet? 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: scott(a)mccormickict.com <scott(a)mccormickict.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Oct 23 18:35:53 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/ Yes, there is a 9:00 a.m. meeting of the NON Contracted Users house Sat. That seems to me to be very important for all BC members to attend. I don't think there was a special announcement but it is embedded in the information that the Secretariat sent around. Maybe one thing we can do is review the agenda briefing, after the meeting and just make sure that everyone attending Seoul from the BC has a sense of when meetings are happening over the week end. Marilyn ________________________________ From: scott(a)mccormickict.com To: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:47:04 +0900 CC: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Sorry if I missed a previous e-mail, as I saw something about a BC Saturday morning meeting suggested. Is there a meeting planned for tomorrow morning? Thanks, - Scott On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve DelBianco <<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul. Marilyn’s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support: 3.2.2 Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, any organization such as a trade association representing entities described in 3.2.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership, but are required to maintain the focus on business user perspectives and positions; any such members would be viewed as having a conflict of interest with the BC’s interest, and will not be able to attend or participate in BC closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associations and consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC members are responsible for disclosing any client relationships which are material to the BC’s interest, both upon application, and upon renewal. Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “BC Closed Sessions or in policy position development.” In my 4 years on the BC I have regularly disclosed the fact that I have members in the Registry constituency and in the IP Constituency. I have consistently advocated positions that are common to both my BC and non-BC member companies. Where there are conflicts among my members, I have often advocated the BC position (WHOIS, eliminating tasting, preventing abuse in new TLDs, etc.). Within the BC, I will continue to disclose membership and to represent only those interests beneficial to BC members. But if I would not be allowed to participate in policy development, I see no point in remaining part of the BC. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice <http://www.netchoice.org/><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and <http://blog.netchoice.org/> <http://blog.netchoice.org/> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <<http://hotmail.com/><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Dear BC colleagues Like some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight --arriving late on Friday night in Seoul. Re CHARTER Changes: I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and concepts into the version of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and includes the additions of some of the association members. I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of either the Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance. I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent treatment of members who offer services as a core business. While these are often called 'consultants', for example, my own micro enterprise provides advice, strategy, and in some cases, what are called 'general consulting services'. We have had a tendency to have a category called consultants, which probably isn't necessary, unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have incorporated businesses. Sole proprietatorships may be a category. Many constituencies do not allow individual members. I am not clear from the charter on whether the BC does, or not, or whether we require all members to be incorporated as either a business, or trade association, or law firm, service provider, etc. The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are significant and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which I helped to draft in 2001 was MUCH simplier. I understand that the Board requires documents two weeks in advance, and aren't expecting complex charter changes. Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members before the end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is discussing GNSO Reform on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what our plan is regarding 1) discussion of the charter 2) incorporation of proposed changes that are still coming in 3) establishing a voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace offices who are term limited, etc. Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday at 9 a.m. Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC members? It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the officers before the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that feasible? I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but can be available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday. ________________________________ From: <http://hotmail.com/> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> randerson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:randerson@interborder.ca>; <http://icann.org/> <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400 et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in the marked up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what Sarah did, and then comment on top of her comments on what is being called v.16. That won't happen until early Thursday, since I'm crashing on work related to broader ICANN comments re the meta issues of accountability, etc. That way, Sarah's comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'. I think we have to try to have coherent and thoughtful discussions about some of these issues and they can't take place on the fly, or under a crisis time frame, or without the full ability of a broad and diverse group of members to participate. Perhaps all of us can come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader understanding about schedules with a better understanding of how the GNSO restructuring is progressing, and what flexibility there is. ________________________________ Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600 From: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:RAnderson@interborder.ca> RAnderson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:RAnderson@interborder.ca> To: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even individuals participating in multiple constutuencies ("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.") In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise. Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place where they have full membership and voting etc? Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad practice. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> randerson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> cell: (403) 830-1798 ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon All, I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below. On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies. You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions. For example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can change. I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in the charter on expected standards of behavior. I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy issues. The role of the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally. Finally, I deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all. The language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient. Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only. I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely non-controversial. If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 <http://verizon.com/><mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Dear colleagues, I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members. Best regards, Ayesha 3.3. Membership Criteria 3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1. 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19 To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience. BC Officers 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. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice <http://www.netchoice.org/><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and <http://blog.netchoice.org/> <http://blog.netchoice.org/> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 <BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/
by Phil Corwin Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Anyone know the room for the NC/GNSO meet? 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: scott(a)mccormickict.com <scott(a)mccormickict.com>; Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri Oct 23 18:35:53 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/ Yes, there is a 9:00 a.m. meeting of the NON Contracted Users house Sat. That seems to me to be very important for all BC members to attend. I don't think there was a special announcement but it is embedded in the information that the Secretariat sent around. Maybe one thing we can do is review the agenda briefing, after the meeting and just make sure that everyone attending Seoul from the BC has a sense of when meetings are happening over the week end. Marilyn ________________________________ From: scott(a)mccormickict.com To: sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:47:04 +0900 CC: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Sorry if I missed a previous e-mail, as I saw something about a BC Saturday morning meeting suggested. Is there a meeting planned for tomorrow morning? Thanks, - Scott On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve DelBianco <<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul. Marilyn’s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support: 3.2.2 Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, any organization such as a trade association representing entities described in 3.2.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership, but are required to maintain the focus on business user perspectives and positions; any such members would be viewed as having a conflict of interest with the BC’s interest, and will not be able to attend or participate in BC closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associations and consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC members are responsible for disclosing any client relationships which are material to the BC’s interest, both upon application, and upon renewal. Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “BC Closed Sessions or in policy position development.” In my 4 years on the BC I have regularly disclosed the fact that I have members in the Registry constituency and in the IP Constituency. I have consistently advocated positions that are common to both my BC and non-BC member companies. Where there are conflicts among my members, I have often advocated the BC position (WHOIS, eliminating tasting, preventing abuse in new TLDs, etc.). Within the BC, I will continue to disclose membership and to represent only those interests beneficial to BC members. But if I would not be allowed to participate in policy development, I see no point in remaining part of the BC. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice <http://www.netchoice.org/><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and <http://blog.netchoice.org/> <http://blog.netchoice.org/> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <<http://hotmail.com/><mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote: Dear BC colleagues Like some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight --arriving late on Friday night in Seoul. Re CHARTER Changes: I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and concepts into the version of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and includes the additions of some of the association members. I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of either the Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance. I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent treatment of members who offer services as a core business. While these are often called 'consultants', for example, my own micro enterprise provides advice, strategy, and in some cases, what are called 'general consulting services'. We have had a tendency to have a category called consultants, which probably isn't necessary, unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have incorporated businesses. Sole proprietatorships may be a category. Many constituencies do not allow individual members. I am not clear from the charter on whether the BC does, or not, or whether we require all members to be incorporated as either a business, or trade association, or law firm, service provider, etc. The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are significant and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which I helped to draft in 2001 was MUCH simplier. I understand that the Board requires documents two weeks in advance, and aren't expecting complex charter changes. Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members before the end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is discussing GNSO Reform on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what our plan is regarding 1) discussion of the charter 2) incorporation of proposed changes that are still coming in 3) establishing a voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace offices who are term limited, etc. Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday at 9 a.m. Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC members? It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the officers before the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that feasible? I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but can be available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday. ________________________________ From: <http://hotmail.com/> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> marilynscade(a)hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> randerson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:randerson@interborder.ca>; <http://icann.org/> <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400 et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in the marked up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what Sarah did, and then comment on top of her comments on what is being called v.16. That won't happen until early Thursday, since I'm crashing on work related to broader ICANN comments re the meta issues of accountability, etc. That way, Sarah's comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'. I think we have to try to have coherent and thoughtful discussions about some of these issues and they can't take place on the fly, or under a crisis time frame, or without the full ability of a broad and diverse group of members to participate. Perhaps all of us can come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader understanding about schedules with a better understanding of how the GNSO restructuring is progressing, and what flexibility there is. ________________________________ Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600 From: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:RAnderson@interborder.ca> RAnderson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:RAnderson@interborder.ca> To: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even individuals participating in multiple constutuencies ("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.") In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise. Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place where they have full membership and voting etc? Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad practice. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> randerson(a)interborder.ca<mailto:randerson@interborder.ca> cell: (403) 830-1798 ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon All, I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below. On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies. You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions. For example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can change. I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in the charter on expected standards of behavior. I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy issues. The role of the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally. Finally, I deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all. The language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient. Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only. I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely non-controversial. If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 <http://verizon.com/><mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Dear colleagues, I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members. Best regards, Ayesha 3.3. Membership Criteria 3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1. 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. ________________________________ From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19 To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience. BC Officers 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. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice <http://www.netchoice.org/><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and <http://blog.netchoice.org/> <http://blog.netchoice.org/> http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.202.420.7482 <BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
by Scott M. McCormick Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Sorry if I missed a previous e-mail, as I saw something about a BC Saturday morning meeting suggested. Is there a meeting planned for tomorrow morning? Thanks, - Scott On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: > I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul. > > Marilyn’s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support: > 3.2.2 Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, any organization such as a > trade association representing entities described in 3.2.1. Trade > associations whose members may also include companies/associations > that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN > constituencies are not excluded from BC membership, but are required > to maintain the focus on business user perspectives and positions; > any such members would be viewed as having a conflict of interest > with the BC’s interest, and will not be able to attend or participat > e in BC closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associa > tions and consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC mem > bers are responsible for disclosing any client relationships which a > re material to the BC’s interest, both upon application, and upon re > newal. > > Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “BC Closed S > essions or in policy position development.” > > In my 4 years on the BC I have regularly disclosed the fact that I > have members in the Registry constituency and in the IP > Constituency. I have consistently advocated positions that are > common to both my BC and non-BC member companies. Where there are > conflicts among my members, I have often advocated the BC position > (WHOIS, eliminating tasting, preventing abuse in new TLDs, etc.). > > Within the BC, I will continue to disclose membership and to > represent only those interests beneficial to BC members. But if I > would not be allowed to participate in policy development, I see no > point in remaining part of the BC. > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 > > On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Dear BC colleagues > Like some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight -- > arriving late on Friday night in Seoul. > > Re CHARTER Changes: > I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and concepts into > the version of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and includes > the additions of some of the association members. > > I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG > representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of > either the Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance. > > I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent > treatment of members who offer services as a core business. While > these are often called 'consultants', for example, my own micro > enterprise provides advice, strategy, and in some cases, what are > called 'general consulting services'. We have had a tendency to have > a category called consultants, which probably isn't necessary, > unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have > incorporated businesses. Sole proprietatorships may be a category. > Many constituencies do not allow individual members. I am not clear > from the charter on whether the BC does, or not, or whether we > require all members to be incorporated as either a business, or > trade association, or law firm, service provider, etc. > > The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are > significant and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which > I helped to draft in 2001 was MUCH simplier. I understand that the > Board requires documents two weeks in advance, and aren't expecting > complex charter changes. > > Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members > before the end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is > discussing GNSO Reform on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what > our plan is regarding 1) discussion of the charter 2) incorporation > of proposed changes that are still coming in 3) establishing a > voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace offices who are term > limited, etc. > > Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday > at 9 a.m. > > Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC > members? > > It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the > officers before the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that > feasible? > > I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but > can be available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday. > > From: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com > To: randerson(a)interborder.ca; bc-gnso(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to > comment upon > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400 > > et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in > the marked up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what > Sarah did, and then comment on top of her comments on what is being > called v.16. That won't happen until early Thursday, since I'm > crashing on work related to broader ICANN comments re the meta > issues of accountability, etc. > > That way, Sarah's comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'. > > I think we have to try to have coherent and thoughtful discussions > about some of these issues and they can't take place on the fly, or > under a crisis time frame, or without the full ability of a broad > and diverse group of members to participate. Perhaps all of us can > come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader > understanding about schedules with a better understanding of how the > GNSO restructuring is progressing, and what flexibility there is. > Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to > comment upon > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600 > From: RAnderson(a)interborder.ca > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org > > > I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even > individuals participating in multiple constutuencies > > ("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section > on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have > limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same > person or overlapping persons representing them on different > constituencies.") > > In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The > premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford > different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, > expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with > participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this > into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear > mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and > a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise. > > Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute > up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross- > fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have > different activities - while at the same time requiring each member > organization to declare one or another area as their principle > interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place > where they have full membership and voting etc? > > Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with > creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more > deeply embed a bad practice. > > cheers/Rick > > Rick Anderson > EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd > email: randerson(a)interborder.ca > cell: (403) 830-1798 > > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org > To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso > Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009 > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to > comment upon > > All, > > I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the > draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted > below. On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the > section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and > small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to > have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on > different constituencies. > > You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the > tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less > on sanctions. For example, although I understand the intent behind > the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to > approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. > Both companies and individuals' positions can change. I don't think > we need this language in light of the other language in the charter > on expected standards of behavior. > > I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole > should decide which issues are priority policy issues. The role of > the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate > with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those > decisions unilaterally. Finally, I deleted the provision about > compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally > thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC > member can reasonably be expected to know them all. The language > requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should > be sufficient. > > Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document > only. I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier > and saw it as largely non-controversial. If it is not feasible to > work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be > provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that > document into the current draft for further consideration. > > Sarah > > > Sarah B. Deutsch > Vice President & Associate General Counsel > Verizon Communications > Phone: 703-351-3044 > Fax: 703-351-3670 > sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com > > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On > Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM > To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to > comment upon > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to > ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have > members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded > from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See > suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text > to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, > USCIB and others can remain BC members. > > Best regards, > > Ayesha > > > > 3.3. Membership Criteria > > 3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other > GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the > interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the > Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described > in Article 3.1. > > > > 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit > entities excepting trade associations representing for profit > entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry > operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain > name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests > may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. > Trade associations whose members may also include companies/ > associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other > ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. > > > > > > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On > Behalf Of BC Secretariat > Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19 > To: BC gnso > Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to > comment upon > > > > Posted on behalf of the BC Officers > > > > > > Dear Members, > > > > Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter > members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the > little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that > the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 200 > 9 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience. > > > > BC Officers > > > > > > > > > > > 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 compa > ny do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be > assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action t > aken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other tha > n 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 vi > rus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, > e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthori > zed parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please no > tify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is a > ssumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such > as encryption) unless specifically requested. > > > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 > > <BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Parting is such sweet sorrow
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

George, thanks for all the hard work on analysis on many, many ICANN documents, and your over all commitment to ICANN. Your willingness to wade thru the Strat plan/operating plan/budget was always a very helpful resource to others who perhaps lacked your history and experience in those areas. I regret that you are making this decision. The Charter is still being discussed. Many members may not have had a chance to fully focus on the broader restructuring of the "House", and that there will, by necessity, be many changes yet to come. The contribution of keenly analytical minds is always helpful in understanding the "thicket" of ICANN docs. You will be missed. Best regards Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:39:58 To: <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <secretariat(a)bizconst.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Parting is such sweet sorrow i'm very sorry to see you go George. i hope we can do something, as a constituency, that will make you and others feel more welcome here. it's been a pleasure working with you, as one cranky guy to another. :-) don't be a stranger. mikey On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:31 AM, George Kirikos wrote: > > Hi folks, > > After much thought, I've concluded my company is better off leaving > the BC. Please remove my company from the BC members list, mailing > list, and myself from the Responsibilies page of the website. > > It's clear that the charter that will be adopted will not reflect our > views. Staying within the BC would simply give the impression that the > BC and its officers has our continuing support, which is not the case. > The BC cannot legitimately represent the views of businesses when it > is captured, top-down, anti-democratic, and actively discourages > participation. For example (and not limited to these): > > (1) Look at how many times the words "appoint" continue to appear in > the charter, despite this being the 18th revision, and despite the > demand for more elected and thus accountable leaders (both on the list > and during the conference call). > > (2) Look at how 7.4 changes the percentages for a required vote from > 10% to 25% -- we saw that even when there was actual 10% division over > the IRT, there was no actual vote. This will institutionalize that > negative trend. > > (3) The categories of members has not been modified, despite repeated > assurances that this would be done when the charter was reformed. > > In other words, it'll be business as usual, and indeed in a worse > direction. > > I estimate that my company's pro-rata share of the existing BC reserve > amounts to approximately USD $2,500. I request that these funds be > donated in full to the United Way of Toronto -- > http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/ <http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/> . > > It's been a pleasure working with some of you. > > Try not to miss me too much. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/> - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Parting is such sweet sorrow
by George Kirikos Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Hi folks, After much thought, I've concluded my company is better off leaving the BC. Please remove my company from the BC members list, mailing list, and myself from the Responsibilies page of the website. It's clear that the charter that will be adopted will not reflect our views. Staying within the BC would simply give the impression that the BC and its officers has our continuing support, which is not the case. The BC cannot legitimately represent the views of businesses when it is captured, top-down, anti-democratic, and actively discourages participation. For example (and not limited to these): (1) Look at how many times the words "appoint" continue to appear in the charter, despite this being the 18th revision, and despite the demand for more elected and thus accountable leaders (both on the list and during the conference call). (2) Look at how 7.4 changes the percentages for a required vote from 10% to 25% -- we saw that even when there was actual 10% division over the IRT, there was no actual vote. This will institutionalize that negative trend. (3) The categories of members has not been modified, despite repeated assurances that this would be done when the charter was reformed. In other words, it'll be business as usual, and indeed in a worse direction. I estimate that my company's pro-rata share of the existing BC reserve amounts to approximately USD $2,500. I request that these funds be donated in full to the United Way of Toronto -- http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/ . It's been a pleasure working with some of you. Try not to miss me too much. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 2

Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
by Rick Anderson Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even individuals participating in multiple constutuencies ("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.") In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise. Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place where they have full membership and voting etc? Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad practice. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon All, I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below. On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies. You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions. For example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can change. I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in the charter on expected standards of behavior. I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy issues. The role of the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally. Finally, I deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all. The language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient. Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only. I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely non-controversial. If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Dear colleagues, I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members. Best regards, Ayesha 3.3. Membership Criteria 3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1. 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19 To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience. BC Officers 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.

4 5

Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
by BC Secretariat Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the 'BC charter 2009 v16.doc' which is attached for members' convenience. BC Officers

6 6

Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by Phil Corwin Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Yes, I have been placed on the same mailing list by Glen, but I have also read that each constituency will get to appoint 3 members of the drafting team, so it is not clear to me whether being on the list just provides a monitoring function or allows one to actively participate in the process. That is what I am trying to ascertain. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> To: Phil Corwin Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 21 11:40:31 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul Hi Phil, On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: > 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 I was under the impression that GNSO workgroups are open to anyone. I think if you ask Glen, she'd put you on the mailing list. I'm already on that mailing list, see my first post at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/ The only way to prevent the same bad outcome as last time is to ensure maximum participation and transparency this time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

BC charter
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Posted on behalf of the Officers Dear Marilyn sorry to hear about your health issue and thank you for the time taken to propose new changes to the BC charter. Many of these require substantial member discussion and raise issues that we intentionally did not raise in the proposed text that the BC has been discussing for 7 months. For example, changes to member fee categories are intended to be part of the work of the new finance committee, balancing the impact of any change with the budget and call for fees. Additionally, the impact of any future merger with the ISP or IPC needs substantial debate. Today the IPC only allows votes for associations - is that the model we want to adopt for the BC ? Do they want us ? The ISP tell us no. There is no need to limit election dates given the unknown for changes. The BC can at any time vote for a new charter or CSG merger should that happen and at that point cut the term of previous elections. The present v16 of the charter submitted for member consideration last week: - is based on the current charter - factors in the staff considerations - factors in broad member input over the last 7 months - reverts the review section to the current charter (more or less) but with better due process. It would be more constructive to hear if there are any substantive parts of v16 with which members are still concerned , such as the recent comment from Ayesha Hassan of ICC. We need to proceed with a vote with due speed, in order to hold elections. BC Officers

2 1

Local times for remote participation
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Please find below the local times for the meetings in Seoul on Tuesday 27 October 2009. Gary CSG Meeting, 10.30 - 12.30 Seoul California 18.30 - 20.30 Alberta 19.30 - 21.30 DC/NY/Ottawa 21.30 - 23.30 London 01.30 - 03.30 Paris/Brussels/Malaga 02.30 - 04.30 BC Meeting, 14.00 - 16.30 Seoul California 22.00 - 00.30 Alberta 23.00 - 01.30 DC/NY/Ottawa 01.00 - 03.30 London 05.00 - 07.30 Paris/Brussels/Malaga 06.00 - 08.30

1 0

Remote participation, CSG meeting, Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Members I now have the dial-in details for the Commercial Stakeholders Group meeting in Seoul. Please contact me if you would like the details. I will compile a list of local time zones for both the CSG and BC meetings. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Re: Who will be in Seoul?
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Marilyn The latest list of BC members in Seoul is posted here http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00554.html with the addition of Chuck Warren. Gary

2 1

GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Members Please find attached the GNSO-related meeting schedule in Seoul. Best wishes Gary

1 0

CBUC Position Statement to PEDNR Working Group
by Berry Cobb Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

CBUC, Attached is the DRAFT Position Statement for CBUC relative to the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group. (PEDNR-WG). All comments and suggestions are welcome. With the PEDNR being a Pre-PDP, it is my understanding a formal vote by the CBUC will not occur on this position statement. Rather, it will be reserved for a final CBUC Position statement based on PEDNR outcomes and recommendations. Please advise if you have questions or comments. I will be sure to incorporate all comments and changes to this statement. It is my desire to have this statement returned to the PEDNR - WG by COB 11/6/2009. Thank you. Berry A. Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891

1 0

FW: DRAFT Charter for BC/based on staff iniital draft
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

Dear BC members I was fortunate to have the opportunity to talk to Rob Hoggarth, ICANN staff on other topics, and learned that the ICANN staff forwarded a 'minimal' charter mark up document to the BC officers in August, 2009. I've posted as BC_Charter-revisions... etc. At that time, this document represented the minimal changes to meet the ICANN Board expectations for changes.However, the BC membership has expressed an interest in having a significant change in organizational structure. The BC officers, and some members worked on a signficant rewrite of the existing Charter and that was presented for a vote, and then, withdrawn in recognition of the members concerns. The status is that the membership do not support holding a vote on the extremely detailed version of the BC Charter that was presented. Nevertheless, the Charter that was developed in the BC officer process included a significant modification that most members support -- the creation of a executive committee. After exploring the staff developed 'minimal mark up' version, I took the BC officer developed version, extracted the section on new organizational structure, and added in some enhancements, according to what I have 'discerned' from the BC list exchanges. The new draft that I present, as a BC member, has the following characteristics: a six month life cyclea distributed accountability and leadership approachrecognition of the key role of the policy councilors and a longer term to their rolesfreezing any payment of dues while the membership works out what is reasonable and sustainable None of the controversial issues of sanctioning or 'disciplining' members is dealt with, since that deserves broader and longer term discussion. so the status quo exists for any such actions. The Credentials Committee remains in place, but for six months, with renewal as is, for a next term of 1 1/2 years. there is a new CSG representative role in the new executive committee, since the reality is that everyone will be extremely busy, and the BC deserves to have all players able to devote their time to their respective roles. The '6 month officers' will be consumed with overseeing the development of a full charter. I don't expect this to be perfect, but it uses the existing charter as a basis, provides 'mark up', makes only those changes that seem to have 'rough agreement' by various posting BC members, and creates a path forward. I have cc' Rob Hoggarth, since I am using a document that I requested from him. I would like to propose a BC membership discussion on the list, and as appropriate, a 'remote participation' in Seoul. I understand that all of the BC councilors are funded to travel to Seoul, including Philip Sheppard, outgoing BC councilor, so we can count on all to be fully available to the membership. It would be useful to hold a BC meeting to discuss any outstanding issues on Saturday or Sunday evening in Seoul/your very early a.m. in DC, and mid day in Europe. Please let's use the medium to see if we can find commonality on a draft Charter -- so that a discussion would be a good use of everyone's time. I apologize for a delay in sending a marked up version. I was unfortunately in an emergency room for many hours, due to the recurrence of a serious neck injury, and unable to use my left leg and arm for several hours. That was a shock, medically, and personally, but I'm rebounding, due to the miracle of pain medication and steroids!!! I wouldn't be boring you with this news, if I didn't feel so bad to be so late in sending in a detailed draft charter.

2 2

New Registry Services Proposals posted
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 20, 2009

Oct. 20, 2009

FYI _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:10 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] New Registry Services Proposals posted Dear Council members, ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on two requests one from Neustar and one from Fundació puntCAT. Neustar has submitted a request to offer DNSSEC in dot-BIZ: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009010. puntCAT has submitted a request for one and two-character names in dot-CAT: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009009. Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice(a)icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 patrick.jones(a)icann.org patrickjones.tel

1 0

Re: Specific TM Issues (STI) drafting team of GNSO as followup to IRT
by Phil Corwin Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

I definitely wish to play a constructive role in this effort. 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Cc: Phil Corwin; Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Sent: Mon Oct 19 13:29:41 2009 Subject: Specific TM Issues (STI) drafting team of GNSO as followup to IRT Hello, I understand there's a "Specific Trademark Issues" (STI) drafting team mailing list that's been formed, see: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07709.html Instead of the BC officers simply grabbing the spots for themselves without any consultation with the constituency: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07710.html it's my position that fresh blood needs to be involved, especially given what happened last time. A balanced position needs to be created. I would like to be on the mailing list, and I suspect Phil Corwin might also want to be involved, amongst others. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Fw: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:06:26 To: Avri Doria<avri(a)acm.org>; Council GNSO<council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Board letter to GNSO Council Dear All, the mailing list is up and working: gnso-sti(a)icann.org (special trademark issues - sti) public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/ and can be found on page: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm Avri Doria, Chuck Gomes and Jeff Neuman are subscribed to the list. Please let me know who else would like to join the drafting team and be added to the list. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria On 15 Oct 2009, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > If we do decide to go for a DT, I think this is a good idea as a way to start and fits patterns that have proven successful in taking the first steps in recent efforts. I do not want to wipe the weekend end schedule for this, however, as we have a published agenda for the weekend and have people committed to those tasks who are planing to come to Seoul in time or those meetings. This does not minimize the importance of starting on the Board letter on Specific Trademark Issues (STI) and DAGv3 and that is why I think the suggestion about forming a DT a good idea. Because of the press of time, we cannot wait for a meeting to do this. So I am suggesting we start now. I propose forming a DT composed of participants each SG and the active Liaison groups who are willing to focus their time next week (perhaps even finding time for a teleconference) and on the weekend to come up with a plan and start the work for the council to discuss/accept at the Wednesday open meeting and at the Thursday meeting. Unless there is strong objection from the members of the council, I ask each SG to name 2-3 members and the active ACSO liaison groups to name 1 representative each for the STI-DT and ask Glen (or some member of staff who is not traveling at the moment) to set up a mailing list, with open archive, for that team immediately. I think it is a good suggestion for those SGs that have members who were on the IRT as either members or observers to consider including them among the 2-3 volunteers. I think the SGs should find people in the SG, not necessarily council members to populate these meeting - and recommend that the people doing this find alternatives to replace (at least temporarily) them in other other ongoing ICANN tasks (except of course for council membership). We do have some unused meting room space on Saturday (11am on), so I suggest we schedule this group consider an open meeting during this opne time. The topic has already been scheduled for the Wednesday open meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_28_oct_2009 ), and has already been spoken of as the main topic for the Thursday meeting (https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi? agenda_29_oct_2009). a.

1 0

Specific TM Issues (STI) drafting team of GNSO as followup to IRT
by George Kirikos Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Hello, I understand there's a "Specific Trademark Issues" (STI) drafting team mailing list that's been formed, see: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07709.html Instead of the BC officers simply grabbing the spots for themselves without any consultation with the constituency: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07710.html it's my position that fresh blood needs to be involved, especially given what happened last time. A balanced position needs to be created. I would like to be on the mailing list, and I suspect Phil Corwin might also want to be involved, amongst others. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

European Commission reaction on the AOC
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

For European Commission reaction on the AOC see this link. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1397 Philip

2 1

BC Charter vote - suspended
by BC Secretariat Oct. 18, 2009

Oct. 18, 2009

Colleagues, it seems that seven months of discussion has been insufficient. Yes we started in April ! The Officers agree to a suspension of the vote. We propose a further 7 day discussion period. Followed by a 7day vote. This will take us beyond Seoul and we will apologise to the Board for that. This makes no difference to our two on-going Council members assuming the Board take no action. We have seen two substantive issues (review clause) (membership criteria) and propose this edit (v16) to address them. Please let us know other substantive issues. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard

3 2

Board letter to GNSO wrt IRT recommendations aka Fw: [council] Board request for GNSO input on specific trademark issues in the Draft Applicant Guidebook
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 17, 2009

Oct. 17, 2009

Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:04:37 To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>; liaison6c<liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Kurt Pritz<kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Board request for GNSO input on specific trademark issues in the Draft Applicant Guidebook Dear GNSO Council members: Attached is the Board's letter to the GNSO Council requesting input on the URS and Clearinghouse recommendations in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook version 3. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

6 13

BC meetings and events in Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear Members Please find attached a one-page summary of BC meetings and events in Seoul. Below is an up-to-date list of BC members who will be in Seoul. Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------- Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard Chris Martin Liz Williams Marilyn Cade Jarkko Ruuska and Ritva Siren Steve DelBianco Martin Sutton Ron Andruff Phil Corwin Jim Baskin Susan Kawaguchi Alain Bidron Scott McCormick Maggie Mansourkia

1 0

BC cocktail 28 October
by Philip Sheppard Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Colleagues, The BC is holding an outreach cocktail in Seoul. All BC members present in Seoul are invited. No need to RSVP. If you have contacts in the local business community and will be present in Seoul, please encourage them to join us. In this case please keep the secretariat informed of any acceptances. --------------------------------------- Wednesday 28 October 18.00 - 19.00 BC outreach cocktail - Athenee room - Lotte Hotel Seoul www.lottehotelseoul.com (the main venue hotel) 1, Sogong-dong, Jung-gu Seoul, Korea 100-721

1 0