[ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Danny, 

I'm happy to respond to some of the questions posed in your recent posting
to the GA, and cc'd to Stuart Lynn, and Philip Sheppard, regarding your view
that there are Charter and By-Law violations by the BC. 

You will not be surprised that I do not agree with you. I will respond to
those questions where I can answer without consultation with my fellow NC
reps. This is because of time limitations, and the fact that Philip Sheppard
is on holiday.  Upon his return, we will need to follow up further. 

In this response, I am responding as an individual NC representative and am
not trying to speak for Philip and Grant or the Secretariat.  

Your first question seems to address what industry sector I personally
represent. I feel well qualified to answer that without consultation with
anyone else.  :-)

You were concerned about whether AT&T and Clear were the "same" business
sector, e.g. telecommunications. You provided information about CLEAR's
business focus.  Let me clarify what is pretty well known in the industry
but may not be visible to you and others:  I am the director of policy and
advocacy for Internet and E-commerce within AT&T.  You describe me as a
"well known lobbyist" for telecommunications. I think you made two mistakes,
but they are easy to make, from a distance.  While I do lobby [among other
things] for AT&T, it is on Internet and E-Commerce issues. 

My actual business responsibilities for AT&T are much broader  than lobbying
[no offence intended to those who do lobby].  My job is focused on policy
development and advocacy on the Internet and E-commerce.  It includes
lobbying, but is not limited to that.   Of course, we all recognize that
AT&T is also a communications company, as well as a web hosting, business
user, and Internet company. 

Sometimes people think of AT&T as it "used to be".  Many changes have
happened over the past few years.   AT&T until recently owned a major
wireless company (just spun off); owns a broadband cable and high speed
broadband Internet company (spinning off); operates  telecommunications,
Internet backbone and access, and Internet/e-commerce BUS who build web
sites, engage in hosting, etc. I represent the latter two. As such, we are
business users to ICANN.

We do not, for instance, belong to the ISPCP Constituency.  Our focus at
ICANN is as a business user. 

I hope that helps to clarify one of the issues  you raised.

Secondly, the BC will hold an election in September for the BC reps to the
NC.    I expect to campaign for the election, and will seek support and
input from the broad BC constituency. Given our calendar of events, it isn't
useful to take up the membership's time until we return from Montevideo, and
of course, others will seek to and should stand for election as well. The
election process allows for nomination and election in an open process.
Let's focus on that once we get the board election out of the way. 

I am unclear of what your concerns are about having temporary representation
UNTIL AN ELECTION IS HELD, but would like to better understand it.  The BC
needed meaningful and hard working representation, willing to do a lot of
work, and I accepted the challenge. It is a lot of work, as is the GA chair.
As noted, elections will take place in September, 2001. 

The BC is a constituency. To participate as a member of the BC, one must
work within it's processes.  We welcome your input and insights, as a BC
member.  I hope that you will provide your comments within the BC process,
so that your input, as a member of the BC is reflected.  

Related to the At Large Study Committee Draft which I did the drafting on,
and sought comments from several BC members : it is 1) a draft 2) posted for
comments. So far, some of the comments are largely in agreement. There are
one or two which are in agreement in some areas, and not in agreement in
others.  I haven't seen any which are completely opposed to the draft, but
we have a few more days of input.  Let's see the process through and see
where there remain disagreements about the proposed position of the BC
related to the At Large Study Committee. 

And, Danny, let's give other BC members a chance to respond as well during
this period of consultation. 

I haven't addressed all of your questions, and I am the first to recognize
that.  

Regards, 

Marilyn

202-457-2106v
202-457-3051f
202-255-7348c
mcade@att.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html