[bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

Wed Oct 21 16:52:24 UTC 2009

I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even individuals participating in multiple constutuencies 

("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.")

In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise.

Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is the place where they have full membership and voting etc?

Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad practice.

cheers/Rick 

Rick Anderson 
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd 
email: randerson at interborder.ca 
cell: (403) 830-1798 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org 
To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso 
Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon 

All,

I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below.   On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.  

You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions.  For example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can change.  I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in the charter on expected standards of behavior. 

I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy issues.  The role of the vice chair for policy should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally.  Finally, I deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all.  The language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient.

Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only.  I also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely non-controversial.  If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration.  

Sarah

Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of HASSAN Ayesha
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM
To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

Dear colleagues,

I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members.

Best regards,

Ayesha

3.3. Membership Criteria

3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1.

3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in Article 3.1. 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.

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat
Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

Posted on behalf of the BC Officers

Dear Members,

Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should comment upon.  For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ convenience.

BC Officers

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.

Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091021/6208bcdc/attachment.html>