[bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx



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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 and http://blog.netchoice.org 
+1.202.420.7482 

On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798




From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
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@xxxxxxxxxxx




From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] 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 and http://blog.netchoice.org 
+1.202.420.7482 


<BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>