- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Phil Corwin Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Excellent suggestion and happy to participate. 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: bc-gnso(a)icann.org <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; 'BC List' <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Sent: Fri Oct 23 23:39:52 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today’s discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 – 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com> V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

5 4

RE: [bc-gnso] Message from Mike Roberts
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Nice to hear from you, Mike! When you get into Seoul, if you are looking for where the majority of the BC members who are here are 'hanging' out, on Sunday a.m., you will find some in Emerald Room and some in Sapphire Room beginning at 9 a.m. At 11:30 a.m. probably EVERYONE from the BC, as well as others, will be in Emerald, since Kurt Pritz is doing an update on the new gTLD process. It will be great to have a chance to talk to you and also to Chris Martin regarding both topics while you are both here in Seoul. thanks for making that offer via the BC list. One point: I wanted to note that on Wednesday at 11 a.m., there is also an important meeting related to the Nom Committee [NomComm] Presentation of the WG Report -- I believe that BC members may be interested in that report, since it has significant implications for how to improve the NomComm process and the NomComm. Mike, I am not sure if you have that meeting on your agenda already. That meeting, just so all understand, is at the same time as the GNSO Policy Council meeting, and also competes with the DNSSEC Workshop. For the convenience of the BC members and Mike, I've pasted that meeting below. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Review of the Nominating Committee: presentation of the WG reportDate: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 11:00 - 12:30WebcastAudiocast: Audio Streaming providedRoom: Garnet (L37)What it is | This is the presentation to community of the draft report of the Nominating Committee review Working Group, containing recommendations to the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board.Why it's important | The Nominating Committee review WG follows up on the independent review finalized at the end of 2007 by external consultants. The first positions expressed in 2008 by the WG needed to be validated once terminated the process of review of other key structures of ICANN, which are strictly interlinked with the review of the NomCom. The NomCom review WG has recently updated the initial findings from the early phases of the review and presents now its draft recommendations, for public consultation.The outcome of this review is particularly important in consideration of the high significance of the role plaid by the Nominating Committee of ICANN in terms of selection of individuals that will be called to play a key role of governance of the organization.Who should attend? Past and present Chairs and Members of the Nominating Committee: this will be a crucial occasion to interact with the WG after the workshops recently organized in Mexico City and in Sydney that allowed the WG to progress on its workMembers of the community interested in the review of key structures of the organization, and on the interlinks between this review and other key reviews of ICANNMembers of the Board, who will have an occasion to hear the voices of the interested members of the community before taking a decision on the measures proposed by the report of the WGAgenda details: Thomas Roessler (Chair NomCom review WG) and Marco Lorenzoni (Director, Organizational reviews): presentation of the WG reportMembers of the Board review WG: Jonathan Cohen, Steve Goldstein, Alejandro Pisanty: agenda items to be confirmedComments from participants: open microphone From: secretariat(a)bizconst.org To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Message from Mike Roberts Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:47:56 +0200 Posted on behalf of Mike Roberts Dear Colleagues - I am heading off to Seoul today as your elected representative to the 2010 NomCom. As noted in a previous message, I would appreciate hearing from you with regard to both your views on how to improve the NomCom process, as well as your suggestions for candidates to be recruited. I have not yet seen a message from staff with regard to the openings to be filled, but will pass that along when I do. I hope to talk to a number of you face to face in Seoul. Best regards, - Mike Roberts

1 0

Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Ron Andruff Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

4 3

Re: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by martinsutton＠hsbc.com Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

I can make both - Thanks Ron Martin Sutton Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence Ph: ++44 (0)20 7991 8074 Mob: ++44 (0)777 4556680 Sent from my BlackBerry ********************************* HSBC Holdings plc Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom Registered in England number 617987 ********************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Andruff" [randruff(a)rnapartners.com] Sent: 23/10/2009 23:39 AST To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; "'BC List'" <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here?
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

I can meet at 17 today. -----Original Message----- From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; "'BC List'" <bclist(a)bizconst.org> Sent: 10/23/2009 11:40 PM Subject: [bc-gnso] Can we have a huddle at 17:00 today for the BC Members who are here? Dear colleagues, It seems that there are about 18 or so BC members attending the meeting, from Gary's email. That is excellent turn out and offers a lot of input from membership regarding making decisions and maintaining interaction among the BC membership while here at Seoul. Therefore, I would like to suggest we huddle tonight to talk about many of the things that have surfaced in today's discussions. There are a lot of topics on the agenda for the BC that deserve membership discussion before the CSG meets on Tuesday a.m., at least informally. Clearly, these discussions should be held among all members, but in lieu of that possibility, a huddle with those present would give the BC Councilors some direction. It is tough to find time to 'huddle' as a constituency over the weekend, but I think that of the 17-18 members, most will be here by Sunday. There is a one hour time slot from 18:00 - 19:00 Sunday, after all the working groups, after the Joint GAC/GNSO meeting, and before the Councilors go off to their Board/Council dinner. I am recommending a huddle in the bar at 17:00 tonight; and another one tomorrow at 18:00. Can the BC members who are here please advise if they could attend? Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by Phil Corwin Oct. 24, 2009

Oct. 24, 2009

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 protects TM interests without abrogating the due process rights of registrants. Quite a number of domain investors belong to the BC so I would hope that the selection process results in a balanced delegation. Thanks Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org <owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 21 04:18:28 2009 Subject: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul Dear Members Please find attached the GNSO-related meeting schedule in Seoul. Best wishes Gary

3 2

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