From touton@icann.org Tue Aug 6 01:25 MET 2002 X-UIDL: j!N!!Uhk!!R0b"!8P/"! Received: from santee.icann.org (santee.icann.org [192.0.35.122]) by balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA16150 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:25:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from icann.org (tagus.icann.org [192.0.35.90]) by santee.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g75NTFW19462; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:29:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3D4F0908.5080908@icann.org> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:23:52 -0700 From: Louis Touton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elisabeth Porteneuve CC: Diane Schroeder Subject: [Re: [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Length: 5474 Status: RO Elisabeth, I saw the message you just sent to Roger and copied to the nc-budget list (see below). As part of the agreement under which we are receiving preferential rates from Worldcom, we have agreed as follows: 13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Commencing on the date Customer executes this Agreement and continuing for a period of three (3) years from the termination of this Agreement, each party shall protect as confidential, and shall not disclose to any third party, any Confidential Information received from the disclosing party or otherwise discovered by the receiving party during the Term of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the pricing and terms of this Agreement . . . . This provision allows exchange of confidential information among ICANN personnel (including you, Roger, Names Council, etc.) but not to third parties. I'm concerned that "pricing" information is disclosed by making public the cost of individual calls, particularly since some of them are publicly archived and one can ascertain length, number of participants, etc. Thus, the public posting of the per-call cost may violate the agreement. (Aggregate costs such as the $8649.12 don't, in my view, meaningfully disclose pricing. Therefore those may be posted.) I'm not blaming you for this; we probably didn't make clear that the contract made the pricing confidential. But I think we should do what we can to correct the error. Is it possible to have the cc: to the nc-budget list deleted from the public archive? (I haven't seen an earlier posting of this information; if you are aware of one please let me know.) And we should also do what we can to ensure that those on the budget committee understand the confidential nature of the information. Please let me know what can be done! Best regards, Louis Touton -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:52:22 +0200 (MET DST) From: Elisabeth Porteneuve To: RCochetti@verisign.com CC: nc-budget@dnso.org Roger, At the last NC call, Ken Stubbs asked for clarification about the reimboursement of the NC teleconference expenses to ICANN. In mid-June (see attached), Diane Schroeder presented to Glen de St Gery the NC expenses owed to ICANN. The total amount was composed of two parts: (1) NC teleconferences for 8567.12 USD and (2) Glen hotel expenses in Marina del Rey in November 2001 for 707.24 USD Subsequently, those expenses has been presented to the Budget Committee for verification. After discussion, and to facilitate the ICANN's accounting, Glen reimboursed the cost of hotel, 707.24 USD, to Diane Schroeder (she is asking this reimboursement to the NC Budget Committee now). It seems to me that the Budget Committee asked the NC for approval of reimboursement for NC teleconferences for 8567.12 USD, and the NC accepted -- but I could not find it in archives. The action underway is to reimbourse NC expenses owed to ICANN. The details are: 22/12/2001::WorldCom::12/13/02 Call $ 2 787.99 22/01/2002::WorldCom::1/17/02 Call $ 1 918.96 22/01/2002::WorldCom::Rebate for Dec. $ (800.00) 22/02/2002::WorldCom::2/14/02 Call $ 1 409.47 31/03/2002::WorldCom::3/12/02 Call $ 930.32 31/03/2002::WorldCom::2/28/02 Call $ 357.34 22/04/2002::WorldCom::4/4/02 Call $ 718.69 22/04/2002::WorldCom::4/18/02 Call $ 649.62 22/04/2002::WorldCom::3/22/02 Call $ 594.73 ------------------------------------------------- Total DNSO owed to ICANN $ 8 567.12 Elisabeth -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "DNSO Secretariat" To: ; ; ; ; Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:29 AM Subject: DNSO expenses owed to ICANN > To: Roger Cochetti > NC Budget Committee Chair, > > > Paris, 14 June 2002 > > Dear Roger, > > Diane Schroeder, ICANN Financial Officer, is asking the Names Council > to reimburse several bills, which has been paid by ICANN between > December 2001 and April 2002 to cover the DNSO expenses. > The total amount is $9274.36, details are given in the attached file. > > Best regards, > > Glen de Saint Gery > > PJ: > Y2002.Jan-Apr.DNSO-owed-to-ICANN-invoice.doc > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Diane Schroeder > To: Glen van Oudenhove de Saint Gery > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:43 PM > Subject: ICANN Bills > > > Dear Glen - attached is a spreadsheet of the current amounts owed to > ICANN by the DNSO. This now totals $9274.36. As I explained in > an earlier e:mail, we need to have a procedure established for these > to be submitted and paid. I can provide backup for each call and > the hotel bill if needed. > Could you please talk to the appropriate people and let me know how > these will be handled. Our fiscal year ends June 30 2002 and these > need to be paid before that date. If anyone has any questions, > I'd be glad to answer them. > > This will continue to happen on a monthly basis since you are using > the WorldCom account. I appreciate the help. It is important to > resolve this issue if the DNSO is going to continue to use ICANN > accounts. > > Thank you. Diane > > From touton@icann.org Wed Aug 7 00:22 MET 2002 X-UIDL: Q)E"!&b9!!O7_!!=Y"#! Received: from santee.icann.org (santee.icann.org [192.0.35.122]) by balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA01866 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2002 00:22:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from icann.org (tagus.icann.org [192.0.35.90]) by santee.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g76MQrW30219; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 15:26:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3D504BE5.7070203@icann.org> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:21:25 -0700 From: Louis Touton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elisabeth Porteneuve CC: schroeder@icann.org Subject: [Re: [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call] References: <200208062202.AAA01720@balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Length: 9619 Status: RO Elisabeth, Thanks for your quick response. The constituency members are entitled to basic information about what they are paying for, and I think general information about (for example) Glen's expenses is appropriately posted. On the other hand, I don't see the need to spread private details about Glen--for example, what she likes to eat for breakfast, etc. I wouldn't see the need, for example, to post her receipts. Providing an appropriate way to deal with essentially private details is one reason for having a budget committee made up of NC members that can be trusted by the whole NC--so that they can review the private details and make sure expenses are appropriately being charged, etc. (In some ways this is similar to the DNSO voting process and having a watchdog committee.) Perhaps a non-publicly-archived nc-budget list should be established for the sole purpose of discussing/distributing private information. In all events, of course, fair summaries of expenses should be made public. On the Worldcom bills, as you note we have an agreement to keep the pricing confidential. While pricing may be something of an open secret among Worldcom and its competitors, and while Worldcom is unlikely to sue ICANN over this, I think that ICANN should endeavor to live up to its contracts whenever it can. That builds trust so that other entities will be willing to deal with ICANN, and provide it preferential rates. In the circumstances, I think it would be best to remove your posted note from the DNSO website, or to revise it to omit those lines that give the individual-call cost information. (Perhaps just replace those lines with "[details omitted]" or something like that.) Can you arrange for that to be done? I do think it would be wise to take some remedial action to remove this information before a Worldcom competitor finds it, rather than just planning to refrain from additional infractions in the future. Thanks so much for your help. Louis Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote: > Louis, > > No, I did not expect there is anything confidential in my message > to Roger + NC Budget. Otherwise I would not post. > > Upon reflection, it is still very incertain to deduce rate per minute > from few lines I quoted: > - the duration of connection vary for each participant > - the number of participants vary during the call > One participant of twenty is 5%, 10 minutes more or less is > another 5%, maths are pityless. At one moment Peter de Blanc > and myself we compared few teleconf providers from both sides > of Atlantic, their prices were well known and very close. > > Anyway, the rule is a rule, I will take it into account for the next > time. > > I am not sure I understand what you suggest me - to remove > my email from nc-budget archives ? > >>we can to correct the error. Is it possible to have the cc: to the >>nc-budget list deleted from the public archive? (I haven't seen an > > > I would suggest to leave it as it is - just a mistake, which > will not happen more. > > Actually, your message make me think that much more private information > is disclosed in nc-budget archives: monthly invoices from Glen > include expenses for travel, hotel, per diem, telephone or Internet > connectivity, etc. > Usually in real life such information is in accountant > office, never public. Difficult issue here, because the clear information > is due to members, those who pay. > > Best regards, > Elisabeth > -- > NB. I am slowly catching with various matters, have no much forces. > > > >>Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:23:52 -0700 >>From: Louis Touton >>To: Elisabeth Porteneuve >>CC: Diane Schroeder >>Subject: [Re: [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call] >> >>Elisabeth, >> >>I saw the message you just sent to Roger and copied to the nc-budget >>list (see below). As part of the agreement under which we are receiving >>preferential rates from Worldcom, we have agreed as follows: >> >> 13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Commencing on the date Customer >> executes this Agreement and continuing for a period of three (3) >> years from the termination of this Agreement, each party shall >> protect as confidential, and shall not disclose to any third party, >> any Confidential Information received from the disclosing party or >> otherwise discovered by the receiving party during the Term of this >> Agreement, including, but not limited to, the pricing and terms of >> this Agreement . . . . >> >>This provision allows exchange of confidential information among ICANN >>personnel (including you, Roger, Names Council, etc.) but not to third >>parties. I'm concerned that "pricing" information is disclosed by >>making public the cost of individual calls, particularly since some of >>them are publicly archived and one can ascertain length, number of >>participants, etc. Thus, the public posting of the per-call cost may >>violate the agreement. (Aggregate costs such as the $8649.12 don't, in >>my view, meaningfully disclose pricing. Therefore those may be posted.) >> >>I'm not blaming you for this; we probably didn't make clear that the >>contract made the pricing confidential. But I think we should do what >>we can to correct the error. Is it possible to have the cc: to the >>nc-budget list deleted from the public archive? (I haven't seen an >>earlier posting of this information; if you are aware of one please let >>me know.) And we should also do what we can to ensure that those on the >>budget committee understand the confidential nature of the information. >> >>Please let me know what can be done! >> >>Best regards, >> >>Louis Touton >> >>-------- Original Message -------- >>Subject: [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call >>Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:52:22 +0200 (MET DST) >>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve >>To: RCochetti@verisign.com >>CC: nc-budget@dnso.org >> >> >>Roger, >> >>At the last NC call, Ken Stubbs asked for clarification >>about the reimboursement of the NC teleconference expenses >>to ICANN. >> >>In mid-June (see attached), Diane Schroeder presented >>to Glen de St Gery the NC expenses owed to ICANN. >>The total amount was composed of two parts: >> (1) NC teleconferences for 8567.12 USD >>and (2) Glen hotel expenses in Marina del Rey in November 2001 >> for 707.24 USD >> >>Subsequently, those expenses has been presented to the >>Budget Committee for verification. >>After discussion, and to facilitate the ICANN's accounting, >>Glen reimboursed the cost of hotel, 707.24 USD, to Diane >>Schroeder (she is asking this reimboursement to the NC Budget >>Committee now). >> >>It seems to me that the Budget Committee asked the NC >>for approval of reimboursement for NC teleconferences >>for 8567.12 USD, and the NC accepted -- but I could not >>find it in archives. >>The action underway is to reimbourse NC expenses owed to ICANN. >> >>The details are: >> >> 22/12/2001::WorldCom::12/13/02 Call $ 2 787.99 >> 22/01/2002::WorldCom::1/17/02 Call $ 1 918.96 >> 22/01/2002::WorldCom::Rebate for Dec. $ (800.00) >> 22/02/2002::WorldCom::2/14/02 Call $ 1 409.47 >> 31/03/2002::WorldCom::3/12/02 Call $ 930.32 >> 31/03/2002::WorldCom::2/28/02 Call $ 357.34 >> 22/04/2002::WorldCom::4/4/02 Call $ 718.69 >> 22/04/2002::WorldCom::4/18/02 Call $ 649.62 >> 22/04/2002::WorldCom::3/22/02 Call $ 594.73 >>------------------------------------------------- >> Total DNSO owed to ICANN $ 8 567.12 >> >> >>Elisabeth >>-- >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "DNSO Secretariat" >>To: ; ; >>; ; >> >>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:29 AM >>Subject: DNSO expenses owed to ICANN >> >> >> > To: Roger Cochetti >> > NC Budget Committee Chair, >> > >> > >> > Paris, 14 June 2002 >> > >> > Dear Roger, >> > >> > Diane Schroeder, ICANN Financial Officer, is asking the Names Council >> > to reimburse several bills, which has been paid by ICANN between >> > December 2001 and April 2002 to cover the DNSO expenses. >> > The total amount is $9274.36, details are given in the attached file. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Glen de Saint Gery >> > >> > PJ: >> > Y2002.Jan-Apr.DNSO-owed-to-ICANN-invoice.doc >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Diane Schroeder >> > To: Glen van Oudenhove de Saint Gery >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 9:43 PM >> > Subject: ICANN Bills >> > >> > >> > Dear Glen - attached is a spreadsheet of the current amounts owed to >> > ICANN by the DNSO. This now totals $9274.36. As I explained in >> > an earlier e:mail, we need to have a procedure established for these >> > to be submitted and paid. I can provide backup for each call and >> > the hotel bill if needed. >> > Could you please talk to the appropriate people and let me know how >> > these will be handled. Our fiscal year ends June 30 2002 and these >> > need to be paid before that date. If anyone has any questions, >> > I'd be glad to answer them. >> > >> > This will continue to happen on a monthly basis since you are using >> > the WorldCom account. I appreciate the help. It is important to >> > resolve this issue if the DNSO is going to continue to use ICANN >> > accounts. >> > >> > Thank you. Diane >> > >> > >> >> >> > From owner-nc-budget@dnso.org Thu Aug 8 19:14 MET 2002 X-UIDL: o7T!!;h&#!P5!#!m^`"! Received: from dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239]) by balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA27802 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:14:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id TAA02258; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:17:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA02254 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:17:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27700 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:17:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD602C7CCFC@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Cochetti, Roger" To: DNSO Budget Committee Subject: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:17:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-nc-budget@dnso.org Precedence: bulk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 1292 Status: RO As you will see from Glen's attached explanation, ICANN management has requested that we reimburse them for their expenditure of $3,415.65 for Names Council teleconferences during May and June of this year. The expenses seem in order to me, and I ask that you indicate that you support, do not support or abstain on this expenditure. Thanks, Roger Cochetti Chair Names Council Budget Committee -----Original Message----- From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:dnso.secretariat@dnso.org] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:09 AM To: philip.sheppard@aim.be Cc: rcochetti@verisign.com Subject: Wcom teleconf invoices - April, May, June, 2002 Dear Roger and Philip, The World Com invoice dated June 22 contains the following DNSO calls: April 24 - 3716 minutes - $1104.66 May 2 - 2222 minutes - $660.52 May 14 - 2098 minutes - $623.68 May 29 - 1831 minutes - $457.75 June 6 - 1649 minutes - $412.25 June 17 - 2000 minutes - $578.96 The credit for Jan. has arrived and the DNSO portion of the credit is $422.17. The total owed to ICANN for May and June 2002 for teleconferences is: $3415.65. I have checked the dates and times and they are in order. Would it be possible to have these supported by the Budget committee and the Names Council so that ICANN can be paid. Thank you very much Glen From touton@icann.org Thu Aug 8 20:02 MET 2002 X-UIDL: ?Fn"!>8?"!O_O"!AM;"! Received: from santee.icann.org (santee.icann.org [192.0.35.122]) by balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28209 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:02:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from icann.org (tagus.icann.org [192.0.35.90]) by santee.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g78I68W24294; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:06:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D52B1BF.80009@icann.org> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 11:00:31 -0700 From: Louis Touton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dnso.secretariat@dnso.org CC: rcochetti@verisign.com, philip.sheppard@aim.be, Stuart Lynn , Elisabeth Porteneuve Subject: [Fwd: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Length: 4119 Status: RO Glen, A serious legal issue is raised by the following message from Roger (and to a lesser extent by a message sent by Elisabeth). I need your assistance in helping to remedy this situation. As part of the agreement under which we are receiving preferential rates from Worldcom, we have agreed as follows: 13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Commencing on the date Customer executes this Agreement and continuing for a period of three (3) years from the termination of this Agreement, each party shall protect as confidential, and shall not disclose to any third party, any Confidential Information received from the disclosing party or otherwise discovered by the receiving party during the Term of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the pricing and terms of this Agreement . . . . Roger's message, which was copied to the publicly archived nc-budget list, pretty clearly appears to disclose pricing information and to violate our agreement with Worldcom. While this information is appropriately shared with the DNSO Budget committee (they are not, in my view, third parties for this purpose), it is not appropriate that they be posted on the Internet available to third parties. I'm confident that this was not intentional on Roger's or Elisabeth's part, but I believe that it is now necessary to take prompt action to remedy the situation. Accordingly, please IMMEDIATELY take the following actions: 1. Have the following messages removed from the DNSO website archive of the nc-budget mailing list: a. 2002 Aug 06 [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call Elisabeth Porteneuve b. 2002 Aug 08 [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES Cochetti, Roger (I suggest that these messages can, if desired, be re-issued without including information that would reveal pricing information.) 2. Temporarily disable public archiving on messages to the nc-budget list. 3. Send a message to all nc-budget members advising them that the pricing information is confidential and must not be posted on publicly archived lists. 4. Once the members have understood the restriction, public archiving can safely be re-enabled. Thanks so much for your help. As you can appreciate, it is important that ICANN be able to live up to its contractal commitments. Best regards, Louis Touton ICANN General Counsel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:17:54 -0400 From: "Cochetti, Roger" To: DNSO Budget Committee As you will see from Glen's attached explanation, ICANN management has requested that we reimburse them for their expenditure of $3,415.65 for Names Council teleconferences during May and June of this year. The expenses seem in order to me, and I ask that you indicate that you support, do not support or abstain on this expenditure. Thanks, Roger Cochetti Chair Names Council Budget Committee -----Original Message----- From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:dnso.secretariat@dnso.org] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:09 AM To: philip.sheppard@aim.be Cc: rcochetti@verisign.com Subject: Wcom teleconf invoices - April, May, June, 2002 Dear Roger and Philip, The World Com invoice dated June 22 contains the following DNSO calls: April 24 - 3716 minutes - $1104.66 May 2 - 2222 minutes - $660.52 May 14 - 2098 minutes - $623.68 May 29 - 1831 minutes - $457.75 June 6 - 1649 minutes - $412.25 June 17 - 2000 minutes - $578.96 The credit for Jan. has arrived and the DNSO portion of the credit is $422.17. The total owed to ICANN for May and June 2002 for teleconferences is: $3415.65. I have checked the dates and times and they are in order. Would it be possible to have these supported by the Budget committee and the Names Council so that ICANN can be paid. Thank you very much Glen From RCochetti@verisign.com Thu Aug 8 20:30 MET 2002 X-UIDL: kb5!!~,S"!PQL"!OO(#! Received: from heron.verisign.com (heron.verisign.com [216.168.233.95]) by balsa.cetp.ipsl.fr (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA28520 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:30:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com (vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com [216.168.234.29]) by heron.verisign.com (nsi_0.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA03990; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vsvapostalgw2.prod.netsol.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:34:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD602C7CD03@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com> From: "Cochetti, Roger" To: "'Louis Touton'" , dnso.secretariat@dnso.org Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be, Stuart Lynn , Elisabeth Porteneuve Subject: RE: [Fwd: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COU NCIL TELECONFERENCES] Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:34:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 5525 Status: RO Louis- Thanks for catching this so quickly. I now understand the problem entirely and, somewhat to my embarrassment, did not understand that 1) the details of ICANN's WCOM rates were subject to confidentiality; and 2) my note to the BC was publicly posted (yes I should have remembered that!) Anyway, your correction (take down the public posting) seems exactly correct. For the future, I think that the best way to head this off is for each of us (Diane, you, Glen, me, BC members, etc.) to a) be sensitive to the confidential nature of this information and to label it as confidential; and b) pass along this confidential information only to the extent that it is necessary to do so (In this case, I don't think the BC wanted or needed the detailed justification. They only needed to know that someone had gone over it and that it was available for inspection if they wanted to inspect the raw data.) I'll give you a call on this later today, Roger Roger J. Cochetti Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer VeriSign rcochetti@verisign.com 202-973-6600 -----Original Message----- From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 2:01 PM To: dnso.secretariat@dnso.org Cc: rcochetti@verisign.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; Stuart Lynn; Elisabeth Porteneuve Subject: [Fwd: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES] Glen, A serious legal issue is raised by the following message from Roger (and to a lesser extent by a message sent by Elisabeth). I need your assistance in helping to remedy this situation. As part of the agreement under which we are receiving preferential rates from Worldcom, we have agreed as follows: 13. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Commencing on the date Customer executes this Agreement and continuing for a period of three (3) years from the termination of this Agreement, each party shall protect as confidential, and shall not disclose to any third party, any Confidential Information received from the disclosing party or otherwise discovered by the receiving party during the Term of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the pricing and terms of this Agreement . . . . Roger's message, which was copied to the publicly archived nc-budget list, pretty clearly appears to disclose pricing information and to violate our agreement with Worldcom. While this information is appropriately shared with the DNSO Budget committee (they are not, in my view, third parties for this purpose), it is not appropriate that they be posted on the Internet available to third parties. I'm confident that this was not intentional on Roger's or Elisabeth's part, but I believe that it is now necessary to take prompt action to remedy the situation. Accordingly, please IMMEDIATELY take the following actions: 1. Have the following messages removed from the DNSO website archive of the nc-budget mailing list: a. 2002 Aug 06 [nc-budget] Owed to ICANN - re: action last NC call Elisabeth Porteneuve b. 2002 Aug 08 [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES Cochetti, Roger (I suggest that these messages can, if desired, be re-issued without including information that would reveal pricing information.) 2. Temporarily disable public archiving on messages to the nc-budget list. 3. Send a message to all nc-budget members advising them that the pricing information is confidential and must not be posted on publicly archived lists. 4. Once the members have understood the restriction, public archiving can safely be re-enabled. Thanks so much for your help. As you can appreciate, it is important that ICANN be able to live up to its contractal commitments. Best regards, Louis Touton ICANN General Counsel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [nc-budget] PAYMENT OF $3415.65. TO ICANN FOR NAMES COUNCIL TELECONFERENCES Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:17:54 -0400 From: "Cochetti, Roger" To: DNSO Budget Committee As you will see from Glen's attached explanation, ICANN management has requested that we reimburse them for their expenditure of $3,415.65 for Names Council teleconferences during May and June of this year. The expenses seem in order to me, and I ask that you indicate that you support, do not support or abstain on this expenditure. Thanks, Roger Cochetti Chair Names Council Budget Committee -----Original Message----- From: DNSO Secretariat [mailto:dnso.secretariat@dnso.org] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:09 AM To: philip.sheppard@aim.be Cc: rcochetti@verisign.com Subject: Wcom teleconf invoices - April, May, June, 2002 Dear Roger and Philip, The World Com invoice dated June 22 contains the following DNSO calls: April 24 - 3716 minutes - $1104.66 May 2 - 2222 minutes - $660.52 May 14 - 2098 minutes - $623.68 May 29 - 1831 minutes - $457.75 June 6 - 1649 minutes - $412.25 June 17 - 2000 minutes - $578.96 The credit for Jan. has arrived and the DNSO portion of the credit is $422.17. The total owed to ICANN for May and June 2002 for teleconferences is: $3415.65. I have checked the dates and times and they are in order. Would it be possible to have these supported by the Budget committee and the Names Council so that ICANN can be paid. Thank you very much Glen