Re: [bc-gnso] Declarations of Interest within the BC: New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group -- looking ahead

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

All

Just to be clear about participation.  If one reads the documents  
carefully the "points of contact" were designed to be specifically  
inclusive which is exactly the opposite of the way in which the IRT  
group was established.  One will also note that the points of contact  
are deliberately inclusive of all GNSO constituencies, the ccNSO, GAC  
and the GNSP Council.
The first meeting of the group -- which is open to observers and  
points of contact -- is next week.
Seen substantive questions/comments so that they can be incorporated  
into the work of the group, noting that the first efforts are to find  
points of agreement/consensus in a short, low resource impact way.
LIz
On 8 Nov 2009, at 01:25, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Marilyn S. Cade
>
> 202 360 1196  or   202 251 6787
> mscade@xxxxxxx or marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> I am reading the "expression of Interest' materials, that Mike  
> Palage thoughtfully forwarded to the BC list.
> While in general, I can see the merit of such a working group, it  
> needs to be open to participation by representatives of the CSG --  
> and those representatives need to be carefully chosen from members  
> who are not engaged in, consulting with, nor representing parties  
> with an interest in applying for a new gTLD.
>
> When a member develops a change in status and becomes affiliated  
> with registry applicants, that change then becomes a significant  
> change and creates a conflict of interest that needs to be   
> disclosed to the BC members.
> Frankly, I fully appreciate that it is getting very difficult to  
> find business representatives who are indeed business users -- and  
> not either consulting with registry applicants, or considering the  
> issue of becoming a 'brands' registry if they are a global brand.  I  
> am interested in identifying a few global brands representatives  
> within the BC to develop a paragraph for the Charter that might be  
> shared with members to see if we can carefully craft a  
> category/'guidance' on when a global brand holder becomes a  
> registry, and how they might still quality to be a BC member. Since  
> most global brands -- IF they become a registry--will do so as an  
> internally focused service -- their needs and roles will be very  
> different from a market facing registry.
> We don't want to blow the BC up over the evolution of change in the  
> development of new gTLDs; but we need to have some respect for the  
> unique role of business users, or we really aren't adhering to the  
> purpose, and intent of the existence of the BC.
> Still, for now, our charter [and the DRAFT Charter ] has certain  
> requirements.
> So, three requests:
>
> 1) all BC members who are now in a different status need to declare  
> their interests, and that needs to be disclosed to the BC members.
> 2) This group needs to be open to BC members who are not applicants,  
> or consulting or advising applicants, beyond a single member
> 3) The changes in the Charter that I proposed, and others supported  
> are still pending. Many of our members -- Ayesha, Zahid, David  
> Fares, Liesyl/Anders, Heather, myself, Steve, and possibly more --  
> will be leaving early to mid week for the IGF, which will take us  
> totally out of commission for work on the Charter for several days.
> Mikey and I had offered to work with Philip to complete drafting.  
> That offer stands, with the realistic perspective that I'm one of  
> the IGF'ers.
> Marilyn
> From: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bc-gnso] New gTLD Expression of Interest Working Group
> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:12:49 -0500
>
> Hello All:
>
> Could the BC leadership please update the membership on this  
> proposed Working Group for Expressions of Interests in connection  
> with new gTLDs.
> It appears that Minds + Machines and other “TLD promoters” have  
> proposed a Working Group for new gTLD Expressions of Interest.   
> While I have no objection to the creation of such a working group,  
> the proposal to limit participation to an apparent self-interested  
> group is rather concerning. Hopefully the new Council, and our  
> elected representatives will make sure that this Working Group is  
> open to all that wish to participate.
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-06nov09-en.pdf  
> (Doc #1)
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-draft-charter-06nov09-en.pdf 
>  (Doc #2)
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/eoiwg-to-icann-proposed-outputs-06nov09-en.pdf 
>  (Doc #3)
> I am concerned that the BC will only have one representative (See  
> Doc #2), and this self-selected group appears to have reached out  
> unilaterally to Susan Kawaguchi. While I think Susan would provide  
> an  excellent participant I think all interested members from the  
> Commercial Stakeholder Group should be able to participate.
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Palage