- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Re: [bc-gnso] Parting is such sweet sorrow
by Marilyn Cade Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

George, thanks for all the hard work on analysis on many, many ICANN documents, and your over all commitment to ICANN. Your willingness to wade thru the Strat plan/operating plan/budget was always a very helpful resource to others who perhaps lacked your history and experience in those areas. I regret that you are making this decision. The Charter is still being discussed. Many members may not have had a chance to fully focus on the broader restructuring of the "House", and that there will, by necessity, be many changes yet to come. The contribution of keenly analytical minds is always helpful in understanding the "thicket" of ICANN docs. You will be missed. Best regards Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:39:58 To: <icann(a)leap.com> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org>; <secretariat(a)bizconst.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Parting is such sweet sorrow i'm very sorry to see you go George. i hope we can do something, as a constituency, that will make you and others feel more welcome here. it's been a pleasure working with you, as one cranky guy to another. :-) don't be a stranger. mikey On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:31 AM, George Kirikos wrote: > > Hi folks, > > After much thought, I've concluded my company is better off leaving > the BC. Please remove my company from the BC members list, mailing > list, and myself from the Responsibilies page of the website. > > It's clear that the charter that will be adopted will not reflect our > views. Staying within the BC would simply give the impression that the > BC and its officers has our continuing support, which is not the case. > The BC cannot legitimately represent the views of businesses when it > is captured, top-down, anti-democratic, and actively discourages > participation. For example (and not limited to these): > > (1) Look at how many times the words "appoint" continue to appear in > the charter, despite this being the 18th revision, and despite the > demand for more elected and thus accountable leaders (both on the list > and during the conference call). > > (2) Look at how 7.4 changes the percentages for a required vote from > 10% to 25% -- we saw that even when there was actual 10% division over > the IRT, there was no actual vote. This will institutionalize that > negative trend. > > (3) The categories of members has not been modified, despite repeated > assurances that this would be done when the charter was reformed. > > In other words, it'll be business as usual, and indeed in a worse > direction. > > I estimate that my company's pro-rata share of the existing BC reserve > amounts to approximately USD $2,500. I request that these funds be > donated in full to the United Way of Toronto -- > http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/ <http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/> . > > It's been a pleasure working with some of you. > > Try not to miss me too much. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/> - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

1 0

Parting is such sweet sorrow
by George Kirikos Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Hi folks, After much thought, I've concluded my company is better off leaving the BC. Please remove my company from the BC members list, mailing list, and myself from the Responsibilies page of the website. It's clear that the charter that will be adopted will not reflect our views. Staying within the BC would simply give the impression that the BC and its officers has our continuing support, which is not the case. The BC cannot legitimately represent the views of businesses when it is captured, top-down, anti-democratic, and actively discourages participation. For example (and not limited to these): (1) Look at how many times the words "appoint" continue to appear in the charter, despite this being the 18th revision, and despite the demand for more elected and thus accountable leaders (both on the list and during the conference call). (2) Look at how 7.4 changes the percentages for a required vote from 10% to 25% -- we saw that even when there was actual 10% division over the IRT, there was no actual vote. This will institutionalize that negative trend. (3) The categories of members has not been modified, despite repeated assurances that this would be done when the charter was reformed. In other words, it'll be business as usual, and indeed in a worse direction. I estimate that my company's pro-rata share of the existing BC reserve amounts to approximately USD $2,500. I request that these funds be donated in full to the United Way of Toronto -- http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/ . It's been a pleasure working with some of you. Try not to miss me too much. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 2

Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
by Rick Anderson Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even individuals participating in multiple constutuencies ("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.") In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise. Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place where they have full membership and voting etc? Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad practice. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson(a)interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon All, I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below. On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies. You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions. For example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can change. I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in the charter on expected standards of behavior. I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy issues. The role of the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally. Finally, I deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all. The language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient. Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only. I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely non-controversial. If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Dear colleagues, I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members. Best regards, Ayesha 3.3. Membership Criteria 3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1. 3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. Trade associations whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership. ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19 To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience. BC Officers This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

4 5

Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
by BC Secretariat Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Posted on behalf of the BC Officers Dear Members, Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon. For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the 'BC charter 2009 v16.doc' which is attached for members' convenience. BC Officers

6 6

Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by Phil Corwin Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Yes, I have been placed on the same mailing list by Glen, but I have also read that each constituency will get to appoint 3 members of the drafting team, so it is not clear to me whether being on the list just provides a monitoring function or allows one to actively participate in the process. That is what I am trying to ascertain. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 2026635347/Office 2022556172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ----- Original Message ----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> To: Phil Corwin Cc: BC gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Sent: Wed Oct 21 11:40:31 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] GNSO-related meetings, Seoul Hi Phil, On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: > By what process does the BC plan to select its 3 delegates to the GNSO > drafting team on trademark protection? I would like to volunteer for one of > those slots and believe I can contribute greatly to a final outcome that I was under the impression that GNSO workgroups are open to anyone. I think if you ask Glen, she'd put you on the mailing list. I'm already on that mailing list, see my first post at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/ The only way to prevent the same bad outcome as last time is to ensure maximum participation and transparency this time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

BC charter
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Posted on behalf of the Officers Dear Marilyn sorry to hear about your health issue and thank you for the time taken to propose new changes to the BC charter. Many of these require substantial member discussion and raise issues that we intentionally did not raise in the proposed text that the BC has been discussing for 7 months. For example, changes to member fee categories are intended to be part of the work of the new finance committee, balancing the impact of any change with the budget and call for fees. Additionally, the impact of any future merger with the ISP or IPC needs substantial debate. Today the IPC only allows votes for associations - is that the model we want to adopt for the BC ? Do they want us ? The ISP tell us no. There is no need to limit election dates given the unknown for changes. The BC can at any time vote for a new charter or CSG merger should that happen and at that point cut the term of previous elections. The present v16 of the charter submitted for member consideration last week: - is based on the current charter - factors in the staff considerations - factors in broad member input over the last 7 months - reverts the review section to the current charter (more or less) but with better due process. It would be more constructive to hear if there are any substantive parts of v16 with which members are still concerned , such as the recent comment from Ayesha Hassan of ICC. We need to proceed with a vote with due speed, in order to hold elections. BC Officers

2 1

Local times for remote participation
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Please find below the local times for the meetings in Seoul on Tuesday 27 October 2009. Gary CSG Meeting, 10.30 - 12.30 Seoul California 18.30 - 20.30 Alberta 19.30 - 21.30 DC/NY/Ottawa 21.30 - 23.30 London 01.30 - 03.30 Paris/Brussels/Malaga 02.30 - 04.30 BC Meeting, 14.00 - 16.30 Seoul California 22.00 - 00.30 Alberta 23.00 - 01.30 DC/NY/Ottawa 01.00 - 03.30 London 05.00 - 07.30 Paris/Brussels/Malaga 06.00 - 08.30

1 0

Remote participation, CSG meeting, Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Members I now have the dial-in details for the Commercial Stakeholders Group meeting in Seoul. Please contact me if you would like the details. I will compile a list of local time zones for both the CSG and BC meetings. Best wishes Gary

1 0

Re: Who will be in Seoul?
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Marilyn The latest list of BC members in Seoul is posted here http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00554.html with the addition of Chuck Warren. Gary

2 1

GNSO-related meetings, Seoul
by BC Secretariat Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Members Please find attached the GNSO-related meeting schedule in Seoul. Best wishes Gary

1 0