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

Re: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Phil Corwin Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Related question - Did we decide on the BC rep to the STI review team? And is the first STI meeting still scheduled for thursday, 5-6:30 in Astor on 36th floor? 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: 'Marilyn Cade' <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; michael(a)palage.com <michael(a)palage.com>; 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Oct 27 22:56:22 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Indeed Marilyn. You are right. The members at the meeting agreed but the draft position will be posted to the list for input allowing members that were not in the meeting to also have the opportunity to comment. 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<http://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. From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:44 AM To: Zahid Jamil; michael(a)palage.com; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, just one clarification. Otherwise fully agree. We agreed, i think, that the members that we had to reach an agreement within the members who were in the room, and based on the emails that were being posted to the list. That's the going in position, right? We all realize that we are relying upon the earlier BC positions, but modified by the evolving situation, right? and realizing that we had to try to reach a 'rough' consensus within the meeting. ________________________________ From: zahid(a)dndrc.com To: michael(a)palage.com; bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:35:13 +0900 Thanks for the query Michael, The BC meeting yesterday led to member’s developing a position. I would suggest that it is up to our membership which (minus one member) agreed to proposals that were discussed in the constructive session moderated by Mike R. 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<http://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. From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:21 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil'; 'BC gnso' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Zahid, Is it really constructive to advocate positions that go above and beyond the initial recommendations contained in the IRT? Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:13 PM To: 'BC gnso' Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here’s something helpful Mike R put together. 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<http://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. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed “IP claims”) must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch – unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to ‘yahoo’, or ‘yahoomail’ or ‘yaho0’ or ‘yahhoo’?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS – mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn’t made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML – VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087<http://service.ringcentral.com/ringme/callback.asp?mbid=57178438,0,&referer…> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>

1 0

FW: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Dear All, Will be sending out a draft of our position on the STI. Here's something helpful Mike R put together. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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. From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:08 AM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements TM Clearinghouse: 1. Sunrise processes must be standardized and mandatory. 2. TM notices (misnamed "IP claims") must be mandatory: a. All applications for newTLD domain registrations will be checked against the TMC, regardless whether application is during sunrise period or thereafter b. If applied-for domain string anywhere contains text of trademark listed in TMC, then TM notice given to applicant per proposal listed in Staff recommendation, if domain is registered then TM owner is notified c. TM owners will have option also to trigger notices in the event that applied-for domain string includes the trademark string altered by typographical errors, as determined by an algorithmic tool. For example, yaho0.new would trigger a notice if Yahoo! elected to exercise this option. d. Domain applicant must affirmatively respond to the TM notice, either on screen or email, and registrar must maintain written records of such responses for every domain name. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS: 1. Process as detailed by Staff must be mandatory in all newTLD registries a. Substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS 2. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. a. Successful complainant must also have option to have domain suspended until end of its current registration term, and then indefinitely flagged b. Flag shall be recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register such name(s) again, they would get a notice. 3. Complainant abuse shall be defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP. 4. Meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. 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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:56 PM To: 'Zahid Jamil' Cc: 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: STI-DT -- BC preliminary position statements BC position on TM Clearinghouse and URS, notes for preliminary statement: Note the attendance at the meeting (Philip has it). TMC -- sunrise processes must be standard AND mandatory IP claims, POST-launch - unanimous except Palage -- scope of what triggers a hit, proposal is vague as to 'yahoo', or 'yahoomail' or 'yaho0' or 'yahhoo'?? We require notice if TM string is replicated anywhere in the domain name that is applied for (except Palage). TM owners can elect how widely the notices would be sent, either to exact matches anywhere in the name, or also algorithmic typos. Domain applicant MUST affirmatively respond to the notice, either on screen or email. TM owner must get notice of every registration that occurs. URS - mandatory in all newTLD registries (unanimous except for ICA, who thinks in effect it will be adopted by everyone anyway); substantive standard of UDRP must be exactly replicated in URS; procedural elements and evidentiary threshold of Staff proposal; sanctions for complainant abuse (abuse defined same as Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under UDRP); meaningful appeal process required, Staff hasn't made any proposal on that yet, so we cannot comment. Successful complainant must have option to transfer the name or cancel, if no appeal filed within 90 days from date of URS decision. Some members also would support an indefinite suspension, recorded in clearinghouse so that if anyone seeks to register again, they would get a notice. GPML - VRZN, Nokia, NetChoice & Marilyn think it should still be on the table, but not a deal-breaker, nobody else supports leaving it on the table. PDDM 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/>

7 11

FW: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs
by Ron Andruff Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

Sorry for the double posting should this email pop up twice. Important information noted below. 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 _____ From: Ron Andruff [mailto:ra@dotsportllc.com] Sent: 2009-10-27 02:20 To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: New 'Differentiated' gTLDs Importance: High Dear Colleagues, I had circulated some documentation regarding the orderly introduction of domain names prior to the Seoul meeting for the benefit of membership review. While here, we have had many discussions with the leadership and membership of the IP, ISP, ALAC, and GAC and we are finding significant support for our argument. The GAC are moving toward 'categorization', which would be a much too narrow approach, so concerned ICANN community members appear to be coalescing around our argument for 'differentiation'. This morning at the CSG meeting, I recommended that we start the process with differentiation and then, if found to be not necessary, we could then remove such a restriction. We cannot do this the other way around because once the genie is out of the bottle there is no getting her back in. Notably, the senior staff view the proposal, in relation to the gathering support for what they call 'categorization', is "not necessary" or "too late". This is extremely discomfiting. On the other hand, Board member Thomas Narten stated at the CSG meeting today that the Board is not yet sure which way to go on this. I read this to mean that senior staff is standing at the barricades pushing their view through and ignoring the community's input. Our argument is based completely on existing 'policy'. That is to say, we are noting (1) that the GNSO Final Report is not being properly implemented; (2) the Scaling the Root Report; (3) the AoC language; and (4) the BC's long-standing (9-years) position on the introduction of new gTLDs. Finally, the attached document of my comments to the GAC has now been circulated to the full membership of the GAC and ALAC, the IP and ISP leadership, as well as several board members and other key opinion-shapers in the community. In my view, we have this one chance to ensure that the new gTLD process does not become a wild, wild west on the Internet. We can be certain that there are those within our ICANN community - let alone those outside who have yet to learn (but will be happy to know) how the system can be gamed - who will take advantage of a 'no rules' names introduction. As such, I strongly urge all members to give this issue serious consideration and post comments in support of 'differentiation' language being added to the DAG v4. We are not married to the language suggested in the document, so any amendments you have in that regard are also welcome. If I can be of further assistance please contact me. Thank you, RA Ronald N. Andruff dotSport LLC 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 <mailto:ra@dotSportLLC.com> ra(a)dotSportLLC.com <http://www.dotsportllc.com> www.dotsportllc.com

3 3

BC Business Stream Cocktail
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

BC members, colleagues from the CSG, new Council appointees are reminded they are all welcome to attend the cocktail tonight from 18.00 - 19.00 in Athenee Lounge, level 3, Lotte Hotel, Seoul. Philip

1 0

New Blog Entry on Seoul Meeting
by Phil Corwin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Fellow BC members -- my latest post on the Seoul meeting is now up at http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN-Seoul_Mixed_Messages_on_New_gTLD . Hope you find it useful. 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

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Excellent! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Deutsch Sarah B <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:42:52 To: <mike(a)haven2.com>; <DFares(a)newscorp.com> Cc: <zahid(a)dndrc.com>; <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Sounds good to me as well and it should address the original concern that led to this proposed language. 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: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:04 AM To: Fares, David Cc: Zahid Jamil; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 i'm with David on this one. His sentence seems like what we need, instead of all the prose; "When a member is representing the BC, they should remain faithful to approved BC positions" end of story. mikey On Oct 27, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Fares, David wrote: Colleagues, I am still working through the Charter. Regarding solidarity though, I suggest that we rephrase the language to ensure that when a member is representing the BC that they are faithful to approved BC positions.. I am not sure that we need the more in-depth language. Thanks, David From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Zahid Jamil Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:54 PM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Philip Sheppard'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 7.5. Solidarity Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position. As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s). This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position. Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 10. Privacy of personal data The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected. Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. [Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] 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 <http://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. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well. I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal information. 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 <mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> ---------------- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 Philip, thanks. a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to me. I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in this version. However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course. A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers. That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN. I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on that one. I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient communications. We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. Marilyn > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 > From: philip.sheppard(a)aim.be <mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be> > To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > > > I attach the latest version for discussion. > I believe we are nearly there. > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was > to date unaltered. > > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. > > Philip > This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect. - - - - - - - - - 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

BC charter v19
by philip.sheppard＠aim.be Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I attach the latest version for discussion. I believe we are nearly there. It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was to date unaltered. I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul. Philip

7 9

Small edit to v19 Charter
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

I believe our Membership description may have a typo in second sentence: > 3.1 Members of the Business Constituency use the Internet to conduct business > related to electronic commerce in its broad sense. The Business Constituency > is a constituency representing customers of other companies, who provide > connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and related services who > are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. I think the second sentence should read: > The Business Constituency is a constituency representing customers of > companies who provide connectivity, domain name, Internet Protocol address and > related services who are typically members of the Contracted Parties House. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

3 3

test
by Christopher Martin Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Sorry for the email test, but we're having issues here forwarding docs to members from the meeting. Christopher G. Martin Manager - Marketing & Advertising, ICT, Banking, Emerging Markets United States Council for International Business 1212 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (t)+1 212 703 5061 (m)+1 917 238 0902 (f)+1 212 575 0327 cgmartin(a)uscib.org<mailto:cgmartin@uscib.org> www.uscib.org<http://www.uscib.org/> View our new issue ad campaign on CNN International: www.YouTube.com/USCIB<http://www.YouTube.com/USCIB>

1 0

Really Brief RPM issues
by Zahid Jamil Oct. 27, 2009

Oct. 27, 2009

Possible short phrases to characterise some of the Staff Proposals for RPMs: IP Clearing House - Won't work if domain name's being cybersquatted using hyphens (spaces, hyphens, punctuation, special characters etc.) URS - We are moving from an age where cars used to go 10 miles an hour to where they can go 100 miles an hour but for car manufacturers to include seat belts remains optional/best practice. Post Delegation - Registry can turn 'blind eye' to systemic TM infringement. GPML - Gone - Businesses will HAVE TO undertake Defensive Registrations - basically PAY for unwanted domains in EVERY new gTLD. 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 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 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.

3 3