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