Please give some thought to whether you think that the approach of the Board /staff taking notes in various forums and then taking up 40 minutes to announce what they heard and what they are doing about it meets your needs. I think it is a good idea, but they allow only 20 minutes to comment, in 2 min slots, which means only 10 people get to respond. Perhaps it is a good idea but should be a time slot of its own? This week's agenda has been incredibly full. It is challenging to imagine how members of the community can speak. Also, the strange item on the Forum about community of volunteers is put forward by NPOC, without support from other groups and is not a clear intent/purposed item. It is a time slot that you may want to consider as one you may make points in, but you will have to try to put them into the concept of how participants/stakeholders interact or work, or are attracted to ICANN for participation and engagement. One thought about what I'm hearing as a strange sort of 'word' divide: terminology for participants: Volunteers: I do not consider you, or others, or myself volunteers. We are participants in building and creating a governance organization -- ICANN, and in developing polices for coordination of the unique identifiers, and these decisions are affecting both social and economic, and political issues externally. :-) It's hard work, isn't it? But vital. For some, using the term 'volunteer' may sound trivilizing; for others, it is a badge of honor. BUT, it is a word that is creating a 'thought' divide -- between civil society and contracted parties. Contracted parties are also building and contributing to ICANN and many of them spend as much time on good work on Internet governance and ICANN governance [or more] than some of us do. Perhaps another word which is more broadly inclusive and respective of all may be needed -- how about stakeholder? Marilyn =================From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW: draft BC comment on ICANN's proposed rules for TM Matching Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:38:35 +0000 As discussed during yesterday's BC meeting in Toronto, Elisa Cooper has proposed a comment regarding ICANN's proposed plan for matching rules for names entered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN's Public Comment page for the proposed matching rules is here. The Matching Rules document we are commenting on is here. Below is the BC comment proposed by Elisa Cooper: Subject: Trademark Clearinghouse Matching Rules for “@” and “&” Upon review of the possible methods for translating “@” and “&” as described in the “Explanatory Memorandum: Implementing the Matching Rules”, the Business Constituency requests that the languages for translations of “@” and “&” be chosen on a per-record basis by the trademark owner. The memorandum suggests that the language of translations should be based upon the official language(s) of the trademark registry. Restricting translations to the official language of the trademark registry is problematic, particularly for global brands or for trademarks registered in countries where there is no official language. Furthermore, requiring that translations of “@” and “&” match the official language of the trademark registry would likely result in additional costs to brand owners for additional submissions of the same mark to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Initial comments closed 16-Oct. At least one comment (link) refers to the language restriction, so the BC could file a reply comment by the Reply closing date of 7-Nov. That gives us enough time to allow our regular 14-day review and approval period. So, please reply all with your questions or suggestions regarding this draft, before 30-Oct-2012. Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination Business Constituency