March 2011 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Input needed from all members
by Marilyn Cade March 4, 2011

March 4, 2011

The Board and CSG interaction we are working toward and which is tentative for Tuesday for one hour allows the CSG to propose three topics. Your excomm needs input from BC membership. I have heard from some members: ideas are AoC I implications for business users New GTLDs Security, Stability and resiliency from Bs user perspective Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

3 2

Re: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
by Zahid Jamil March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011

I would support new gTLDs as the main topic AoC as a strong second But restrict it to these two. I understand that the other CSG members are currently looking at new gTLDs as the main topic and I too would support this notion. ------Original Message------ From: Marilyn S. Cade Sender: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org To: BC Secretariat Subject: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members Sent: Mar 3, 2011 14:01 The Board and CSG interaction we are working toward and which is tentative for Tuesday for one hour allows the CSG to propose three topics. Your excomm needs input from BC membership. I have heard from some members: ideas are AoC I implications for business users New GTLDs Security, Stability and resiliency from Bs user perspective Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

7 6

Fwd: FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
by Mike Roberts March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011

From the standpoint of the ICANN NomCom, on which Chris Martin and I serve, this further complicates an already complicated situation. It is widely thought in ICANN circles that the workload on Board members is too high. Certainly it is far beyond the norm of private sector directors, and in some respects, it is those norms we are competing against in recruiting experienced people to serve on the Board. (The ATRT report, BTW, got this all wrong in its insistence on more Board time and effort than is currently committed.) So, it simply doesn't work to assume the Board adds a bunch more time for interactions with governments on top of what they are already doing. Something has to be subtracted from the list of direct interaction commitments. I think the BC, with its knowledge of how private sector organizations and their Boards get the job done, could usefully make some suggestions along this line. - Mike Roberts ---------------- From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000 ICA is fine with focusing primarily on new gTLDs, notwithstanding our differences with some of the BC rights protection positions. While not strictly on the AOC, and perhaps not a topic for extended discussion with the Board at this particular meeting, I think that all BC members should think about how ICANN meetings should best be structured to take into account the new reality of substantially increased GAC involvement in the policy process. The Board and the GAC now plan two days of meetings in San Francisco on new gTLDs (and also, presumably, .xxx) -- on Tuesday, Constituency Day, and on Thursday, which is usually devoted to a lengthy public forum. As there are so many hours in a day, the time the Board huddles with the GAC is time that they cannot interact with constituencies or with the community -- plus they will naturally be more focused mentally on the meetings with the GAC. While there are unlikely to be issues of the same intensity as new gTLDs in the immediate future, GAC members made it quite clear that they want to be involved in future policy issues from the beginning, and that the form o! f discussion with the Board taking place now is setting a precedent. So I think we should all assume that ICANN meetings in the future will either be longer, or differently structured, and have some internal discussion about what revised format would best serve business users.

1 0

FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
by Phil Corwin March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011

ICA is fine with focusing primarily on new gTLDs, notwithstanding our differences with some of the BC rights protection positions. While not strictly on the AOC, and perhaps not a topic for extended discussion with the Board at this particular meeting, I think that all BC members should think about how ICANN meetings should best be structured to take into account the new reality of substantially increased GAC involvement in the policy process. The Board and the GAC now plan two days of meetings in San Francisco on new gTLDs (and also, presumably, .xxx) -- on Tuesday, Constituency Day, and on Thursday, which is usually devoted to a lengthy public forum. As there are so many hours in a day, the time the Board huddles with the GAC is time that they cannot interact with constituencies or with the community -- plus they will naturally be more focused mentally on the meetings with the GAC. While there are unlikely to be issues of the same intensity as new gTLDs in the immediate future, GAC members made it quite clear that they want to be involved in future policy issues from the beginning, and that the form of discussion with the Board taking place now is setting a precedent. So I think we should all assume that ICANN meetings in the future will either be longer, or differently structured, and have some internal discussion about what revised format would best serve business users. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org] on behalf of Philip Sheppard [philip.sheppard(a)aim.be] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:42 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members Support focusing on TLDs only. Philip .... ... who very nicely did NOT reply to all and thus saved 5 BC members from duplicate mails. Will the next BC member be as kind to me ?

1 0

organized transcript of GAC-Board meetings
by Steve DelBianco March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011

1 0

San Francisco prep call - 7th March
by Benedetta Rossi March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011

Dear BC Members, Please note that the upcoming conference call in preparation for the San Francisco meeting will take place on: Monday 7th March 2011 at 10.00 am EST. Kindest Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat

1 1

ICANN - GAC article
by Steve DelBianco March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011

Please see this article from today's Washington Post, regarding ICANN's relationships with Governments. Some unfortunate quotes, but gets it right about the need to protect the multi-stakeholder model of ICANN from UN/ITU threat. "Obama administration joins critics of U.S. nonprofit group that oversees Internet" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR201102280… -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0