<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/
- To: "'marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Seoul meetings/
- From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:48:22 -0400
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@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve Delbianco
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
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@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
<<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/><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@xxxxxxxxxxx>marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: <http://hotmail.com/> <mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <http://icann.org/>
<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: <http://interborder.ca/> <mailto:randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cell: (403) 830-1798
________________________________
From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
<http://verizon.com/><mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
[<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx><mailto: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: <http://icann.org/> <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
[<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx><mailto: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/><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>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|