[bc-gnso] Re: Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
sdelbianco at netchoice.org
Thu Oct 22 14:59:16 UTC 2009
Marilyn just called to clarify that I had mis-interpreted her edits. She
meant that any of my member companies who are not BC-eligible should not be
attending any closed BC sessions. (and I agree). Marilyn did not intend to
exclude trade association execs whose membership included some non-BC
Glad that¹s cleared-up. See you in Seoul.
On 10/22/09 10:28 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Didn't mean assoc staff excluded. But that mmbrs who are other wise not
> eligible wld not be allowed to join of and when Are
> Executive session
> That may be limited to only
> Sorry if confusing!
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>> I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul.
>> Marilyn¹s 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 BC¹s 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 BC¹s interest, both upon application, and upon renewal.
>> Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in ³BC Closed Sessions
>> or in policy position development.²
>> 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
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso