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

Nomcom election
by Philip Sheppard 07 Sep '09

07 Sep '09

Marilyn, thank you for informing us about your complaint to the Ombudsman. This does seem unfortunate. You seem also to think it was OK for yourself to post an interpretation about election eligibility to the list but seek to silence an elected BC officer replying with a clarification that is consistent with past BC practise. For the record I have not nominated anyone for the current election. I did nominate a candidate for the previous now complete election. Clarification 1. The election notice states the following: "Nominations for candidates should be made by a paid-up member of the BC nominating ONE candidate. Candidates can be either a paid-up member of the BC or someone who is demonstrably associated/affiliated to the BC. This association/affiliation must be explained clearly by the candidate in his or her election statement." 2. Previous BC appointees to the nom com have been as follows. 2004 Mike Roberts (S) & Grant Forsyth (L). Roberts was from a small company member, Forsyth from a large. 2005 Marilyn Cade (S) & Catherine Gabay (L). Cade was from a small company (but ex AT&T, a large company). Gabay was from a category 2 regional association representing more small companies than large. 2006 Ken Fockler (S) & Catherine Gabay (L). Fockler was ex ICANN Board (?) and associated with a small BC member. Gabay was from a category 2 regional association representing more small companies than large. 2007 Waudo Siganga (S) & Grant Forsyth (L). Siganga was from large BC member but had a network of small companies. Forsyth was by then not a BC member. 2008 Liz Williams (S) & Phil Lodico (L) . Williams was from a small company BC member. Lodico was also from a small company BC member but had a network of large companies. 3. In other words past BC practise - as I tried to explain in my previous email - is exactly NOT strict on matching BC member category to the two nom com roles. If it did do we exclude category 2? That is why I said it was up to the candidate to explain to us all WHY they had particular qualities that fit the nom com seat - in this case the large business seat. Philip

2 1

Advising the BC list that I have contacted the ICANN Ombudsman and request to suspect the present and any future election processes within the BC
by Marilyn Cade 05 Sep '09

05 Sep '09

Dear BC fellow members it is with regret that I write to you to announce that I am filing an ombudsman complaint regarding how the BC is conducting election processes, including the present election process.I am asking that the Ombudsman and General Counsel move to suspend the current election; determine that the eligibility for the second seat is limited to representatives of large businesses, and that ICANN staff take over and conduct this election, and election processes for all other elections for the time being. Why am I doing this: The concerns that I have raised publicly have been ignored and disregarded. Other BC members have raised concerns, and these have been ignored by the officers.It is unclear that the secretariat is actually able to be fully independent, since there seems to be situations where the officers are interpreting their options, which are contrary to the postings of those members actively engaged. The posting of the secretariat indicates that he is taking direction in an election from the officers, yet at least one of the officers has a conflict of interest in having nominated one of the candidates. there is no indication that that officer is fully recused from all discussions and interactions in the eligibility discussions. There is a nomination process underway that does not make it clear that only large companies or associations that are representative of large businesses are eligible The original announcement of the two seats made it clear that these are distinct seats, with different criteria and purposes. The most recent announcement by the Secretariat, after apparent consultation with the officers has published a different approach for this seat that does not make the requirement that the candidate be from large business clear. Of concern to me is that an officer, who nominated a candidate to the small seat specifically, and then interacted with said candidate to encourage them to stand instead for the large business seat is now interjecting themselves into the online discussion and expressing 'guidance' about how the BC members should interpret eligibility. Elections have to be neutral, conducted with equality, and fairness. One candidate for the SME seat was not a BC member, and strangely, the secretariat didn't post the candidate statements of the two competing candidates to that candidate. That would have been an neutral and professional courtesy. Criteria have to be fair, and neutrally applied. Officers should not be involved in any way in elections. Since we also have upcoming elections for councilors, the present officers/councilors are in a position to influence the entire process. Even accidently. I am asking the ombudsman to intervene in the present election regarding the NC position for the second seat/large business representative and to also then recommend that ICANN staff take over and conduct all elections for positions until the finalization of the charter, election of officers, etc. I am truly disappointed about taking this step. I have posted my concerns to the BC. However, it is clear that a neutral and external resource is needed to address the short term and longer term election oversight until clarification is undertaken that can be fully supported by all BC members. I posted an ombudsman complaint today, and am copying the Ombudsman and the General Council of ICANN as I advise the full BC that I am taking this step. Because I am asking to suspend the current election process, and move this and future election processes to ICANN, I felt it necessary to advise the General Counsel of that aspect of my request to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is fully independent, and I respect that. However, we are not merely talking about internal BC processes, but a process that has implications for BC participation in the Nominating Committee and indeed, in the GNSO Council. Resolving these concerns in a timely manner is essential to enable all future elections to move forward with transparency, fairness, openness and accountability. No one has asked me to do this. I have not discussed my filing with the ombudsman with any candidate. I am confident that with the complete disclosure of what has in fact transpired; what the past practices are, and with good will, that a path forward can be found for the NC decision, and with the development of more detailed and fully tranparent and documented processes for criteria, nomination, candidate campaign opportunities, and ensuring no interaction with candidates during election cycles, other than by a neutral entity for administrative purposes, we can improve the election process. As to the election of new officers, or councilors, which is next, this clearly should not be overseen by existing officers, or existing potentially competing candidates. As a member in good standing, I do not expect this to affect my membership, my ability to post, nor my ability to fully interact with full respect and regard, with all other members and with the elected officers and secretariat. I am aware from the draft charter, which I have raised many questions about, would allow a discretionary rejection of a member for raising the kinds of issues I am raising, or for 'duplicate' or long posts. The proposals in that draft charter would stifle debate, limit disagreement, and lead to subjective decisions about when a member is expelled. That is not in the spirit of ICANN, nor in the spirit of the constituency which I helped to found -- now years ago. There has to be room for disagreement, and room for agreement. But there has to be intregrity of process, and all processes that lead to identification/nomination of candidates, and then elections have to have a very high degree of trustworthness. I am confident that we can regain that. This is not a request for support for my view. It is merely my notifying you, as fellow BC members, of my concern, and what I have done -- filed an Ombudsman complaint, and why. I have asked to suspend the election process. Thus, I believed I should tell you, as a believer in being accountable for one's actions, that I have done that, and why. I understand some will agree with me; some will strongly disagree. This is my personal, and deeply held view: The BC MUST be an exemplary organization. We are business users. Intregrity both in action, and in perception must be our baseline. Misunderstandings happen. People make decisions for the best of intentions that can still be wrong. and I could be wrong in my understanding of the situation. Thankfully, the Ombudsman is there to sort this out. Marilyn Cade

2 1

NCUC statement on vertical integration
by BC Secretariat 04 Sep '09

04 Sep '09

The Non-Commercial Users Constituency have requested a Policy Development Process to examine the issues of registry-registrar separation. Their statment is attached. The Council will vote on the NCUC motion at our next meeting in three weeks. Based on our recent BC position paper, the BC Councilors expect to support the motion. Please reply with any comments or questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 +1.415.738.8087 www.rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 9:01 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [Bulk] [council] NCUC statement on vertical integration Hi all To help move things along at Thursday's meeting, I'm attaching NCUC's statement on the issue of Registry/Registrar vertical integration to this email. I hope it will clarify some of the questions that some of you may have about why NCUC believes this is a policy issue for the GNSO. I would have sent it before today, but I took the weekend to see if other NCUC members had final comments or additions to make to it. Thank you! Best, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

3 2

George Kirikos
by Liz Williams 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Colleagues I have copied below part of George's posting which relate to private discussions between him, the Officers and the Credentials Committee. "Indeed, it's nice to see you stand up so publicly to talk about people being treated "equitably." Where was that sense of equity, justice and due process when you and the officers tried to have me removed from the constituency in the past few weeks, issuing private "warnings", convening a "star chamber" without any evidence or proof?" His claims that I and other officers "tried to have me removed from the constituency" are false. If he would like released the notes of a meeting he had with the Officers and three members of the Credentials Committee about his behaviour I am sure that be arranged. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757

3 2

George Kirikos
by Liz Williams 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Colleagues I have copied below part of George's posting which relate to private discussions between him, the Officers and the Credentials Committee. "Indeed, it's nice to see you stand up so publicly to talk about people being treated "equitably." Where was that sense of equity, justice and due process when you and the officers tried to have me removed from the constituency in the past few weeks, issuing private "warnings", convening a "star chamber" without any evidence or proof?" His claims that I and other officers "tried to have me removed from the constituency" are false. If he would like released the notes of a meeting he had with the Officers and three members of the Credentials Committee about his behaviour I am sure that be arranged. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757

1 0

Elections
by Liz Williams 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Colleagues I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right. I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations. I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run. 1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option. 2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to. 3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running. Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important. Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably. 4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default? If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months. I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757

4 5

Nominating Committee Large Business
by BC Secretariat 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Nominating Committee representative for Large Business The officers have agreed that there should be a new election for the Large Business Nominating Committee seat. In the light of new interest being expressed for the Large Business seat, we feel that all members should be given the opportunity to stand or restand for election. We have asked Gary to open a nomination process tomorrow during which time the usual formal nominations can be made. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard

1 0

Nominating Committee
by BC Secretariat 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Dear Members FYI, the officers discussed the Nominating Committee yesterday and I will post a decision about the Large Business seat later today Gary

2 1

Elections
by Rick Anderson 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

Hello everyone. I have a great deal of sympathy for the points Liz raises. It is quite important to the BC's legitimacy and our effectiveness that we take our governance seriously and that we go about our processes in an even-handed and transparent manner. This is not exactly how I, at least, perceive the BC to be operating these last few years. Just to address one factual point which Liz mentions, in last year's election it was not quite so simple as Rick "not having his nomination in on time". Without regurgitating the tedious details, what actually occurred was that the officers announced there would be an election and my nomination was promptly submitted - but it was deemed to be "too early" as the nomination period was not yet formally commenced. I was in the process of changing jobs, homes and moving 2000 miles cross- country. While my new membership was pending, I was briefly removed from the list for a few weeks whilst the membership application of my new company (yes, a large business) was submitted, processed and accepted. I was quite surprised to find that in the interregnum my "too early" nomination had simply been ignored, thinking then (and now) that this is a rather shoddy way to treat longstanding members who are expressing an interest to volunteer our time for roles. Once my new firm's membership was processed, it was then "too late" to resubmit that nomination. On that basis I was excluded from running: one nomination too early and the other too late. The members were informed there were not enough candidates to hold an election, and an acclamation proceeded. It would not have any effort at all to confirm the interest of another candidate known to be willing to stand, and known also to be in the process of a membership transition, but no such effort was made. I did perceive a certain capriciousness in all of that, as does Liz today, and said so at the time in my objection. With respect to today, I am seeking no special treatment. There is a vacancy for the position of our BC's large business rep on the NomCom. I have indicated my willingness to fill that position, and am qualified to do so. If there are others who are also willing and qualified, the obvious solution would seem to be for the members to have an election and for the members to choose our large business rep, as Liz and others have stated. Best wishes. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Thu Sep 03 01:34:47 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Elections Colleagues I am very disappointed with the conduct (not the results) of the elections and have set out below my suggestions for a way forward. The problems with the election illustrate again, despite months of discussion about accountability, transparency, charter improvements and policy development processes that we still haven't got things right. I preface my remarks by saying how delighted I am that Mike Roberts has been encouraged to join our efforts -- the test for him will be whether he actually joins the constituency and takes an active role in its operations. I am most concerned about the way in which the election process was run. 1. No nominee for the large business representative was received. Three nominations were received for the small business representative. There was no plan from the Councillors to address that - either through an appointment process or whatever that was made PUBLIC before the elections took place. I was asked for and I submitted a note to the Councillors expressing my interest in volunteering for the Large Business representative seat, should no other nominees be received. I don't know whether Waudo was given that option. 2. We are now in a situation where two candidates have lost the election who could have been selected for the position as runners-up. There is nothing in the By-laws that would have prevented that happening, except that the nominees may not have wanted to. 3. We now have a presumptive nominee (Rick Anderson) sending in his nomination AFTER the fact with a statement as to why he should be elected when there isn't even a nomination period open. He didn't nominate in the first place and shouldn't be given preferential treatment in any "second" round, especially where other candidates have spent time and effort finding nominees, submitting statements of suitability, going through an election where they have to seek support for their candidature. Members will recall the fuss and bother last year, over exactly this issue, when Rick protested about not having his nomination in on time and he was excluded from running. Waudo and I have been significantly disadvantaged in the choices open to us -- as a representative of WITSA Waudo is qualified to represent large business interests; having worked for large corporations I am qualified to do the same. Indeed employment with a large organisation is not a requirement of this post -- sensitivity to the various needs of large businesses is much more important. Having said that, I would support Rick's candidacy because he is able, highly critical of the constituency and may have some influence on making positive changes. My issue is that the process was not public beforehand and candidates have not been treated equitably. 4. With respect to Mike Roberts' nomination, it was very unfair that neither Waudo or I were given the chance to have a detailed statement of support from our nominees, in exactly the way that Marilyn did for Mike. This was a decision taken by the Secretariat which, for perhaps uninformed and disinterested voters, was the information that they needed to sway their vote. My argument is not that the statement shouldn't have been distributed but that each candidate would have had the same opportunity. We are now in exactly the same situation with Rick Anderson receiving letters of support -- what other potential candidate would be silly enough to stand in the face of a self- nomination in a pseudo election by default? If we are to be taken seriously as representatives of business interests, we need to smarten up immediately -- not sometime in the future, not when a notional charter is completed, not when we get around to it but immediately in every action we take. I say this across the board in our operations -- from working on the Credentials Committee assessing new member applications & being involved in disciplining members; in my work on developing the new charter and encouraging a deliberate move to a new and broader mode of operation and in our work on policy development process improvements. On the latter, no BC representative has been present on the Working Group on PDP improvements for many months. I am also making an official request that the results of the election are made public showing who voted for whom and how the weighted votes were applied. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877757 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.

1 0

A message from Mike Roberts
by Rick Anderson 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Hi all. I am delighted to join everyone else in offering hearty congratulations to Mike on his selection to the NomCom. His experience, knowledge and perspective will bring terrific value to the NomCom. He will do the BC proud as our representative. I think it also important to acknowledge the endless contributions of Liz Williams, who works tirelessly to advance the BC ship in ICANN's never-easy-to-navigate waters. Lastly, I wish to share with all of you fellow members that which I conveyed to the BC officers and secretariat a couple of weeks ago, which is that I would be delighted to serve as the BC's large business rep on the NomCom if that is the will of the members. (I had not volunteered at the outset, thinking there would be others who would have stepped forward during the pre-election process.) By way of brief background, I am EVP of Interborder Holdings Ltd, based in Canada. We have operations in the US, Asia and Europe, offering mutual fund and real estate-based investing to clients on those three continents. We have about 1,500 employees and do about $3 billion in business annually. We have no financial interest in the domain name industry (eg as registries, registrars, portfolio investors, etc) other than operating own proprietary websites in support of our businesses (about two dozen websites, in six languages, with perhaps another 500 related urls held defensively). Like everyone in the BC, we wishing to see the internet continue to flourish as an entrepreneurial and creative medium which finds the proper continue balances amongst stakeholders. Personally, I have been involved with ICANN for about six years, and have been a member of the BC for about that long, have attended perhaps a dozen Board meetings (Argentina, India, Luxembourg, LA, Vancouver, Montreal, Wellington, Cape Town, Rome, Paris...). For the past five or six years, I have also been an elected director of CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration, the not-for-profit organization mandated by the Government of Canada to operate the .ca registry. I would be happy to represent the BC on the NomCom if that is your wish. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Sep 01 08:25:06 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] A message from Mike Roberts Dear BC Members - I very much appreciate the confidence you have shown in electing me to the NomCom. Within the bounds of the rules for NomCom members, I'll do my best to ensure that candidates that share our values and perspective on ICANN's challenges are named to the Board. I also will be pleased to have your comments and suggestions at any time. Given my California base of operations, my email is perhaps best way to reach me routinely. mmr(a)darwin.ptvy.ca.us - Mike Roberts 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 3