RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Statements of Interest -- required from "Individual" participants

["Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am the Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of
MarkMonitor, Inc., a global enterprise brand protection company,
offering Anti-Phishing Solutions, Corporate Domain Registration
Services, and Online Trademark Protection Solutions.  MarkMonitor
specializes in detecting, monitoring and shutting-down phishing attacks
against the world's largest brands.  MarkMonitor is also an ICANN
accredited registrar.   At MarkMonitor, I am responsible for ICANN
policy and compliance matters, as well as its legal matters.
MarkMonitor is an active contributor to the APWG and is a member of the
Registrar's Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency.
MarkMonitor is interested in participating in this group to share its
experience and insight in tackling phishing attacks involving fast-flux
networks.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:35 PM
To: Adam Palmer; Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Statements of Interest -- required from
"Individual" participants


Hi Adam,

I'm copying the whole list with your note and this reply.  I hope 
that's OK.  I'm guessing others will be having the same question.

I think we should all do Statements of Interest, unless we've already 
got one posted (eg GNSO Counsellors and Board members).   I think 
it's better to over-disclose than to have a surprise somewhere down 
the line.  Again, it's fine to have an interest, just so we all know 
what it is.

Thanks for your question Adam,

m

At 01:29 PM 7/7/2008, Adam Palmer wrote:
>Mike,
>
>Hi!  Not to make this more complicated, but per your prior email am I
>correct that as a registry constituency rep that I am exempt from
>submitting a statement.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Adam Palmer
>Law & Policy Counsel
>.ORG, The Public Interest Registry
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:24 PM
>To: Fast Flux Workgroup
>Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Statements of Interest -- required
from
>"Individual" participants
>
>
>Carrying on this conversation with myself...
>
>Chuck Gomes came back with a clarification -- saying that I've got it
>right.   (Many thanks for the speedy reply, Chuck)
>
>a) Everybody should provide a Statement of Interest, unless you
>already have one on file
>
>b) It's perfectly reasonable to *have* an interest in the outcome
>
>c) We just need to know about it.
>
>So...  Take a look at the SOI's from me and Steve Crocker as
>examples.  They can be quite short, and only need to describe the
>personal or business interest you have in the outcome of our work.
>
>Carry on,
>
>m
>
>At 01:10 PM 7/7/2008, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>
> >It's always a bad sign when I'm replying to my own emails.
> >
> >Hang for a bit, people.  Glen and I are going to get some
> >clarification -- I'll be back once we've got the definitive word.
> >
> >Again, sorry for the false start.  Back soon,
> >
> >m
> >
> >At 12:45 PM 7/7/2008, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >
> >>I'm treading in pretty deep waters here, so some clarification by
> >>Smarter People would be helpful.  But I'm treating this the same
> >>way I would treat a Conflict of Interest statement if we were in
> >>the States -- with the proviso that it's OK to have an interest in
> >>the outcome, we just need to know about it.
> >>
> >>Glen?  Any words of wisdom from you or others at ICANN on this one?
> >>
> >>m
> >>
> >>At 12:39 PM 7/7/2008, Dave Piscitello wrote:
> >>>Clarification please.
> >>>
> >>>Do you want a statement of interest or a disclosure assuring that
> >>>neither I nor my company has a potential conflict of interest in
> >>>the work we are doing.
> >>>
> >>>If the former, my interest is to see that policies emerge from the
> >>>WG that assure (to the extent possible) that the DNS and
> >>>registration services are not used to abet malicious or criminal
> >>>activities. If policy recommendations emerge from the group, I am
> >>>also interested in assuring that they preserve the protocol
> >>>integrity and operational stability of the DNS. I do not believe
> >>>that recommendations from the group should impose constraints that
> >>>would interfere with legitimate uses of DNS protocol.
> >>>
> >>>If the latter, then I suspect I'll have to ask ICANN counsel.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On 7/7/08 12:40 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Hello again,
> >>>
> >>>This is a note aimed at those of you who are participating in this
> >>>Working Group as "individuals" rather than as Constituency
> >>>representatives.  We need "statements of interest" from you,
> >>>describing what (if any) interest you or your company have in the
> >>>work that we're doing.   Here's a link to a Google search that
turned
> >>>up a whole bunch of Statements of Interest from the GNSO web site
--
> >>>please use these as examples when you write yours.
> >>>
>
>>><http://www.google.com/search?q=site:gnso.icann.org+statement+of+inte
>rest>http://www.google.com/search?q=site:gnso.icann.org+statement+of+in
t
>erest
> >>>
> >>>Please understand -- it's fine if you or your company has an
interest
> >>>in what we're doing, we just need disclosure of that
> >>>interest.   Please post your SOI to this list (so that it makes its
> >>>way into the archive).  Glen will pick them off the list and post
> >>>them to a URL for inclusion in our Interim and Final reports.
> >>>
> >>>It would be very helpful if we could have these back before the
start
> >>>of the teleconference call this Friday.  Here's a list of the
people
> >>>who need to provide SOIs;
> >>>
> >>>Joe St. Sauver
> >>>Marc Perkel
> >>>Randy Vaughn
> >>>Rod Rasmussenn
> >>>
> >>>Thanks!
> >>>
> >>>m
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>voice: 651-647-6109
> >>>fax: 866-280-2356
> >>>
> >>>web: www.haven2.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> >>>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.6/1538 - Release Date:
> >>>7/7/2008 7:40 AM
> >>
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus
> >>Database: 270.4.6/1538 - Release Date: 7/7/2008 7:40 AM
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus
> >Database: 270.4.6/1538 - Release Date: 7/7/2008 7:40 AM
> >
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.6/1538 - Release Date: 
>7/7/2008 7:40 AM