[nc-transfer] RE: Time and call in information for Monday, 7/22/02 US date/time: 2:00 p.m. EST

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

Marilyn,

Can I ask who answered the Antitrust questions so that I may look them up in
the archives?  I do not mean to bring this up again, but when criminal laws
are possibly implicated, I would like to be 100% certain.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 1:16 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Rick Shera (E-mail); Erick Iriarte (E-mail);
Jamie Love (E-mail); Grant Forsyth (E-mail); Ross Rader (E-mail); Dan
Steinberg (E-mail); Mark McFadden (E-mail); Christine Russo (E-mail);
Jeff Neuman (E-mail); David Safran (E-mail)
Cc: Steve Metalitz (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Elisabeth Porteneuve
(E-mail); Tony Holmes (E-mail); Glen (E-mail); Louis Touton (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Time and call in information for Monday, 7/22/02 US
date/time: 2:00 p.m. EST


A few of you missed the time of the call, noted in the subject  line:

2:00 p.m. EST, US, through 4:00 p.m.

I added Louie as well... sorry, Louie, missed you on the first email.  A
couple of questions for you/Dan at the end of the original email. My
apologies for the spell check error in one of the questions. Should read:
Important enough... while I don't believe it a problem, I'd like some
feedback from the legal staff.

The other questions regarding the "anti-trust" which I believe have been
answered, answered, answered... sorry, got stuck there a bit, can be
answered AGAIN, so it is off the table and everyone feels comfortable.

 ONE MORE TIME: IF your constituency has concerns, you are responsible to
air them with the TF, so the TF can decide how/whether to address them.
These are important times for ICANN and its processes -- none of us wants to
be part of failing in our responsibilty nor contributing to the naysayers
about ICANN's ability to achieve its goals and perform its overall
responsibilities, regardless of where we come out on a particular decision.

Regards, Marilyn

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA  
> Sent:	Saturday, July 20, 2002 2:49 AM
> To:	Rick Shera (E-mail); Erick Iriarte (E-mail); Jamie Love (E-mail);
Grant Forsyth (E-mail); Ross Rader (E-mail); Dan Steinberg (E-mail); Mark
McFadden (E-mail); Christine Russo (E-mail); Jeff Neuman (E-mail); David
Safran (E-mail)
> Cc:	Steve Metalitz (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Elisabeth Porteneuve
(E-mail); Tony Holmes (E-mail); Glen (E-mail)
> Subject:	Time and call in information for Monday, 7/22/02 US
date/time:  2:00 p.m. EST
> 
> 
> Dear TR TF colleagues:
> 
> On 7/9 Marie Juliano notified you of the call and the dial in information.
It follows again for your convenience.
> 
> 201-368-8643
> Code:  170-407
> 
> In event of problem please call my cell:  202-25-7348. Marie is not in
this week. 
> 
> For anyone outside of the US who needs the operator to call them, please
reply to me personally... with contact number for operator. Dan, can you
resend me your contact number for the operator. 
> 
> Note: David is not available. The IPC may provide a guest attendee in his
place as an observer. SHOULD ANY OTHER CONSTIENCY NOT BE REPRESENTED, I WILL
EXTEND THE SAME COURTESY.  PLEASE CONTACT ME TO ARRANGE. NO SUBSTITUTIONS
WITHOUT CONTACTING ME FIRST, PLEASE.
> 
> Finally, I will mention a sensitive subject. I have been advised that one
of the constituencies is questioning the voting privileges of another
constituency. All TF members are eligible to vote. Please remember that the
rule is one entity/one vote. Some of you have two reps. you have one vote.
You need to advise me of who will cast your vote.
> 
> However, to the topic of voting rights:  Such challenges, should they be
under discussion and relate to the TF, should have been raised within the
TF.  Further, as chair, and someone who considers the integrity of the TF
work important, as I would hope you all would, if your constituency is
planning such a challenge at the NC on Wednesday, you really should advise
the TF of this. It isn't fair to the work of the TF, which has a robust
agenda, beyond WLS, to conduct such discussions externally, which will have
a negative impact on the trust level and internal cooperation of the TF, and
not advise the TF. This might be viewed as a strategy to affect the outcome
of a single vote, but it will also have the effect of undermining the Task
Force, and generally, the integrity of the policy development process. While
you might think it good for your constituency, it definitely is  not good
for the NC or ICANN.  
> 
> A final point. I plan to ask all TF members and the NC members to disclose
their relationships with, financial investments in, or any other status to
the affected parties, so that we can ensure that there are no challenges
later. > 
> 
> This request will be publicly posted, and the results publicly posted. I
intend for the TF report to be as unassailable on challenges like this as
possible.  I know you will all support this, since we are all committed to
the success of the TF in fulfilling its responsibilities. This says nothing
about what our recommendations are, where we may differ.
> Please join me in urging your constituency to support the disclosure at
the NC level for just this same purpose.  We don't want the community to be
able to criticize that anyone who votes hid a relationship, advisory or
otherwise.  
> 
> Note: Jeff Neuman has been appointed to replace Sloan Goan for the
registry constituency. The IPC has not yet notified me of a replacement for
Nick Wood. I have invited Steve Metalitz to join the call as an observer.
David Safran will be able to vote electronically, but cannot participate in
Monday's call. 
> 
> My present thinking is to undertake a discussion for an hour, including
the submission from the Registry Constituency, if it has relevant
information which has  not been previously discussed by the TF. At present,
Jeff advises me that he doesn't have a new proposal. I will hold 15 minutes
in the event they do provide a new submission.
> 
> I will present a short overview of the kinds of submissions and the
general themes they support.  
> 
> I have asked the ICANN staff to advise on a question about whether the WLS
could be considered an illegal lottery, based on an inquiry I received and
considered impotent enough to just get them to advise us.
> 
> Further, I have asked the ICANN staff to clarify a particular question. I
have been advised by a registrar that they have been advised that Registrars
cannot participate because the TF recommendation includes a discussion about
the costs area which ICANN has to approve.  Apparently, they have somehow
been under the impression that their participation raises anti-trust issues.
I have asked the ICANN staff to advise on that area.
> 
> Finally, I would like the ICANN staff to once again, to be available for
any other questions.  
> 
> At last, the voting process. 
> 
> I plan to vote the resolutions and their elements, individually.  that may
mean that Resolution I passes, but only two of its elements do. Or that
Resolution II passes, with only 3 elements.
> 
> It may mean that a substitute element amendment gets added to II. 
> 
> We will take a voice vote on the TF, with the idea that that is a straw
vote. We'll use a simple email response for the actual vote, returned to
Glen, the secretariat, who will keep tabs of the votes and record them and
post them. Voting will open Monday and close Tuesday.  The NC will be
presented with the recommendation on Wednesday.
> 
> I have seen no comments from any of your constituencies on the TF
recommendation. Should your constituency have concerns, they should post
them. It would be pretty bad form for your constituency/GA to wait until the
NC to spring concerns on the TF and each other at the NC level.  :-)  I am
sure that won't happen.  :-) Respect, after all, for both each other as
individuals, and for the process of working together, even when we disagree,
in a trustworthy environment, is key.
> 
> Marilyn Cade
>