<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>Marilyn just called to clarify that I had mis-interpreted her edits. She meant that any of my member <I><U>companies </U></I>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 companies.<BR>
<BR>
Glad that’s cleared-up. See you in Seoul.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 10/22/09 10:28 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <<a href="marilynscade@hotmail.com">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>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 <BR>
Executive session<BR>
That may be limited to only <BR>
Mmbrs.<BR>
Sorry if confusing!<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my iPhone<BR>
<BR>
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul.<BR>
<BR>
Marilyn’s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><FONT FACE="Times New Roman">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. <U>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. <BR>
</U><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman">Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “<I>BC Closed Sessions or in policy position development.</I>” <BR>
<BR>
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.).<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'><FONT FACE="Optima, Times New Roman"><BR>
-- <BR>
Steve DelBianco<BR>
Executive Director<BR>
NetChoice<BR>
<a href="http://www.NetChoice.org">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org">http://blog.netchoice.org</a> <BR>
+1.202.420.7482 <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>