- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] Whois studies - progress report
by Marilyn Cade Aug. 20, 2009

Aug. 20, 2009

Of course. Thanks very much. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:24:26 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Whois studies - progress report Marilyn, If I may I will leave it to one of our experts on the BC team to respond if they are able. Philip

1 0

Whois studies - progress report
by Philip Sheppard Aug. 20, 2009

Aug. 20, 2009

For information The e-mail below explains the current rather slow process in establishing studies on WHOIS issues. ICANN policy staff are following previous direction to cost and assess the feasibility of studies that we asked for. Do let me know if you have any specific comment we might consider and pass on. Philip ------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster All, I have been reaching out to various proponents of studies, and to candidates who might be helpful in providing study data, on a selected basis, to try to define the precise parameters of the terms of reference for RFPs to obtain costs and feasibility for various WHOIS study areas. You may recall that the Council, in asking for this work to be done at your open meeting in Mexico City, specifically invited staff to: "pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses. At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses." These discussions have been conducted pursuant to that invitation, they have been "one-off" discussions, and Glen happened to record and post this one because I asked her to schedule it. Other calls have also occurred. I did not post agendas or announce the calls, other than to the invitees of the calls. Please let me know if you would prefer that I handle these calls in a different way. Regarding the substance and status of WHOIS studies -- I have reformulated the categories of studies into the attached groupings. (Please see chart attached). Draft terms of reference for RFPs on the first two study areas, WHOIS "misuse" and WHOIS "misrepresentation" are also attached for your reference. I am currently seeking input on the questions highlighted in the italicized "boxed" text in the attached. If you have input to provide, please feel free to do so. We have not yet begun to prepare a document on "Proxy and Privacy Services". I had not intended to conduct a broad community-wide consultation at this stage. If the Council wants to provide input or solicit broader input now or at any time before RFPs are released, please let me know and I can of course accommodate that, noting that will delay the release of these requests. Regarding Study 4 on the attached (previously study #11) staff is currently thinking (though our thoughts could certainly change) that this study might be subsumed by the work of the SSAC and GNSO to study the feasibility of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. Regarding study 5, we will be initiating the compilation of WHOIS service requirements in early September. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like further information, or if you would like me to alter my process in any way. Thanks, Liz

2 2

GAC comments on the new gTLD DAG version 2
by Philip Sheppard Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

Please find attached GAC's comments on the second version of the new gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook. Philip

1 0

Updated BC Members List and Contacts List
by George Kirikos Aug. 17, 2009

Aug. 17, 2009

Hi folks, I asked in May that the BC Members list be updated and that an up-to-date contacts list be sent out (the last one was ages ago): http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00019.html and we were told at the time that they would be updated "after the completion of the invoicing cycle." Initial invoices were due April 21, 2009, yet it is now August 12, 2009. Now that the BC mailing list is public and unmoderated, the Secretariat has far fewer duties to perform, yet this task remains undone (and the compensation of the secretariat has not been reduced!) According to Section 4.2 of the BC charter, it's the duty of the officers to "oversee the work" of a secretariat, yet this appears to not have been done successfully. Looking at the charter, the duties of the secretariat are: 1) web site hosting, design and updating 2) an e-mail list of members 3) membership fee administration and financial reporting 4) co-ordination of physical and telephone meetings I estimate #4 takes less than 10 hours per year, given the few number of telephone meetings that take place (which really only take minutes to setup using internet conference call systems), and could be easily assigned to BC members. Given the move to an unmoderated and public mailing list managed by the GNSO, #2 essentially takes no time, perhaps 3 hours/year at most (to add/delete people to the mailing list, basically sending an email to Glen, or doing it via the automated system), and once again could easily be assigned to BC members. As for webhosting, we're fortunate to be able to find a relevant comparable, given that CADNA's Form 990 statement for 2007 is public, see: http://www.loffs.com/images/cadna-form990.pdf According to that statement, CADNA spent $3,825 (dollars, not Euros, see page 2, line 43) on web expenses. I think anyone taking a look at www.cadna.org and comparing it to www.bizconst.org would note that CADNA's site is professional, well-designed, and far superior to the BC's website. It's clear we would get a much bigger bang for our buck by outsourcing the website maintenance of the BC to an organization such as the one maintaining CADNA's website. The remaining task is simply collecting money from members! I think this is outrageous, that the main duties of the Secretariat at this point, taking into account the above analysis, is to collect money from BC members, and then pay himself with our own money for that "work." This has gone on far too long. Since Philip Sheppard is a director of the Secretariat, he must obviously recuse himself from discussions due to the obvious conflict of interest. Can Mike Rodenbaugh and Zahid Jamil, our other officers, explain how and why the above situation has persisted for so long? Are the officers doing the best they can to manage the finances of this organization, given that I estimate it would cost at most $7,500/yr (if not far less) to perform all the duties of the Secretariat, and indeed could be close to zero if the GNSO performed some of these duties under the toolkit that has been discussed, and under the GNSO web site improvement project that our member Chris Chaplow has been representing us on: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00245.html which would include a content management system to allow members to maintain/update websites. So, in conclusion: 1) Where is the updated BC members list and contacts list? 2) Why are the BC officers continuing to squander the money of the BC members on an overcompensated and underworked Secretariat? The time for change and improvement is now. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

Nominating Committee information
by BC Secretariat Aug. 17, 2009

Aug. 17, 2009

Dear Members Regarding the nomination period and election for two BC Nominating Committee representatives, below is some background information. Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------- I have copied various relevant parts from the ICANN website but the entire documents can be found here: htthttp://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#VII http://nomcom.icann.org http://nomcom.icann.org/faqs.htm I recommend that all candidates read these pages as the information below is only a short summary. 1. Criteria Article VII, Section 4 of the Bylaws states that Delegates to the ICANN Nominating Committee shall be: 1. Accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, and intelligence, with reputations for sound judgment and open minds, and with experience and competence with collegial large group decision-making; 2. Persons with wide contacts, broad experience in the Internet community, and a commitment to the success of ICANN; 3. Persons whom the selecting body is confident will consult widely and accept input in carrying out their responsibilities; 4. Persons who are neutral and objective, without any fixed personal commitments to particular individuals, organizations, or commercial objectives in carrying out their Nominating Committee responsibilities; 5. Persons with an understanding of ICANN's mission and the potential impact of ICANN's activities on the broader Internet community who are willing to serve as volunteers, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses; and 6. Persons who are able to work and communicate in written and spoken English. 2. Expectations Nom Com members are expected to: a.. engage in affirmative outreach and recruitment of excellent candidates b.. read the submitted and gathered information about each candidate under consideration c.. participate in Nom Com teleconferences d.. work diligently with Nom Com colleagues toward an overall consensus on the best possible group of candidates to be selected e.. adhere to the Code of Ethics f.. attend a face-to-face meeting. The nominating committee typically holds two meetings, one soon after the committee is formed, and usually held concurrent with an ICANN meeting, and meeting later in the year when the committee makes its selections. Given the recruitment nature of Nom Com's work, it will be particularly helpful if members have extensive personal networks of contacts from outside, and within ICANN, that will support effective recruiting. Furthermore it will be valuable for such delegates to also be prepared to develop cross-constituency understanding to build consensus. 3. Ineligibility 1. No person who serves on the Nominating Committee in any capacity shall be eligible for selection by any means to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body having one or more membership positions that the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling, until the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting that coincides with, or is after, the conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee. [Gary: simply put, this means that while anyone is serving on the Committee, they will not be able to stand for a position on any of the ICANN bodies to which the Committee appoints. This includes the ICANN board and the GNSO Council.] 2. No person who is an employee of or paid consultant to ICANN (including the Ombudsman) shall simultaneously serve in any of the Nominating Committee positions described in Section 2 of this Article. 4. Attendance Typically the Committee holds two face-to-face meetings, typically in conjunction with an ICANN meeting, and a selection meeting later in the year. There are occasional telephone conferences. Travel and accommodation expenses have been provided to enable NomCom members to participate in the meetings. 5. Terms of Office Nominating Committee representatives are appointed for one year with a maximum term of two consecutive years.

1 0

Nominations for two representatives to the Nominating Committee
by BC Secretariat Aug. 17, 2009

Aug. 17, 2009

Dear Members Nominating Committee, 2009-2010. The nomination period for election to the Nominating Committee 2009-2010 opens today, Monday 17 August 2009 and closes at midnight in your time zone on Sunday 23 August 2009. Nominations cannot be accepted outside of these dates. Nominations 1. 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. All candidates will need to be nominated, even if they have previously stated an interest in standing for a place or are restanding. 3. Uniquely, the BC has two places on the Nominating Committee; one for small business and one for large business. We need to fill both places. Nominations must indicate whether the candidate is standing to represent small business or large business. Candidates cannot stand for both. 4. Nominations should be sent to the BC secretariat at the Secretariat mail address. 5. The BC Secretariat acts as officer for this election . Election After the closure of the nomination period an election will take place from 25-31 August 2009. I will send a further e-mail regarding this with voting instructions. Following this notice, I will send further information about the Nominating Committee. Gary Hills BC Secretariat

1 0

Slackers (*not* the movie!)
by George Kirikos Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Hello, On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > I wonder why I bother to do anything of benefit to the BC, when I am > attacked on our public list for simply raising a topic for membership > discussion, and including my personal opinion on that topic. You know, I was going to let that statement of self-pity go, feeling that it would be seen as jumping on someone when they're down if I followed up. But, then I saw this attempt to offload promised work to ICANN staff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00304.html that was already late, as I noted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00305.html It's one thing to pretend one does things that "benefit the BC", it's another thing to actually deliver upon them. That also means showing up at meetings (recall the GNSO Council meeting where no BC reps dialed in?), being on time, etc. Oh yes, and since requesting the updated BC Members List and Contacts list, have we seen deliverables? Nope. However, the Secretariat did find to: 1) Make *dozens* of updates on Twitter: http://twitter.com/GaryHills 2) Check to see if I had a Twitter page of my own! (see the referrer URL in #3) Sorry, I don't waste my time Tweeting. 3) Visit my personal homepage linked to my Twitter page (i.e. via the referrer URL): 81.247.72.198 - - [13/Aug/2009:07:28:53 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 6654 "http://twitter.com/GeorgeKirikos" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618)" and note 81.247.72.198 is certainly Gary's IP address, as it was in the headers of the email forwarded on behalf of Marilyn: Received: from 198.72-247-81.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO ZaparazziPC) ([81.247.72.198]) by relay.skynet.be with SMTP; 13 Aug 2009 14:34:17 +0200 I don't expect folks to go "above and beyond" the call of duty, just do the work they promised to do. My criticisms might be tough, but they're certainly fair. So, if folks want to Twitter all day, or claim they do a lot for the BC, that's fine --- just do the work you're supposed to do, and there's no need for me to waste my time writing emails like this (emails on topics that others are either uninfomed about, and love to see the true facts of how this constituency operates, given the number of people who downloaded the CADNA Form 990 statement the other day), or are simply too meek to state the obvious and leave it up to the more vigilant and outspoken ones to play "bad cop" while they can then play "good cop." There are two types of people in this world, givers and takers. This constituency needs more of the former, and fewer of the latter. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

MP3 recording GNSO Council teleconference, Thursday, 13 August 2009
by BC Secretariat Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on Thursday, 13 August, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090813.mp3 on page http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#august Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GCOT request for input from CBUC members
by BC Secretariat Aug. 13, 2009

Aug. 13, 2009

Forwarded on behalf of Marilyn Cade Dear Julie My appreciation to the GCOT for the opportunity to comment on the establishment of a separate Administrative team. My response is that it is very much an improvement to the GNSO to separate the Policy Council and its work from the Administrative functions, as proposed. I will make a couple of proposed changes, however, in the team's proposal. Since this was distributed via the constituencies, I have cc'd the BC list as FYI. I think that there are very good ideas in this proposal by the GCOT. Let me try to describe the area where I would propose a change. On page 4, under Executive Committee, I propose a change to the role of the Executive Committee. First, think of this administrative management group as a 'team'. So that group will have a chair, which they elect. Then, it is appropriate to have the Policy Chair, [or Vice Chair ]and one more rep sit on the Coordinating Team to ensure that there is reflection of the Policy Council's priorities, but there is not a need to have such a formalized structure that creates a second layer on top of the Administrative Coordinating Team. Thus, I could see that we could strike the new Executive Committee of 5 people. This will be perceived by many as creating too much layering. Keep this simple. Divide the work as proposed. Have a separate Administrative team, put the Policy chair/and one more policy rep on it. The two chairs then have separate functions. There may be instances when both chairs should participate in certain events, or meetings, when both administrative management and policy development/management are being discussed. I am sure that can happen in a cohesive and collegial manner. So, "yes" to the new Administrative Group, but cut out the 'supra chair' and cut out the executive committee idea of 5 people. The constituencies/groups should all be largely self governing, and will hopefully have independent management structures of their own that are seprate from their elected policy councilors. Otherwise, I want to applaud the work of the group in the write up of this document. It is well thought out, and succinct in how it describes what is a significant change, but one that can improve the neutral administrative functioning of the GNSO, while also enabling the dedication of time and focus on the important policy development activities. Best Regards Marilyn Cade ICT Strategies mCADE llc

1 0

IP-Watch: Congress Members Seek Permanent ICANN-US Link
by Philip Sheppard Aug. 11, 2009

Aug. 11, 2009

For information http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/08/05/congress-members-seek-permanent-i… us-link/

2 1