[bc-gnso] Re: Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
marilynscade at hotmail.com
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 22 14:28:14 UTC 2009
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
Executive session
That may be limited to only
Mmbrs.
Sorry if confusing!
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:
> I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul.
>
> Marilyn’s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support:
> 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. 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 participat
> e in BC closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associa
> tions and consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC mem
> bers are responsible for disclosing any client relationships which a
> re material to the BC’s interest, both upon application, and upon re
> newal.
>
> Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “BC Closed S
> essions or in policy position development.”
>
> 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.).
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
>
> On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear BC colleagues
> Like some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight --
> arriving late on Friday night in Seoul.
>
> Re CHARTER Changes:
> I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and concepts into
> the version of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and includes
> the additions of some of the association members.
>
> I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG
> representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of
> either the Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance.
>
> I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent
> treatment of members who offer services as a core business. While
> these are often called 'consultants', for example, my own micro
> enterprise provides advice, strategy, and in some cases, what are
> called 'general consulting services'. We have had a tendency to have
> a category called consultants, which probably isn't necessary,
> unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have
> incorporated businesses. Sole proprietatorships may be a category.
> Many constituencies do not allow individual members. I am not clear
> from the charter on whether the BC does, or not, or whether we
> require all members to be incorporated as either a business, or
> trade association, or law firm, service provider, etc.
>
> The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are
> significant and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which
> I helped to draft in 2001 was MUCH simplier. I understand that the
> Board requires documents two weeks in advance, and aren't expecting
> complex charter changes.
>
> Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members
> before the end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is
> discussing GNSO Reform on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what
> our plan is regarding 1) discussion of the charter 2) incorporation
> of proposed changes that are still coming in 3) establishing a
> voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace offices who are term
> limited, etc.
>
> Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday
> at 9 a.m.
>
> Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC
> members?
>
> It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the
> officers before the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that
> feasible?
>
> I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but
> can be available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday.
>
> From: marilynscade at hotmail.com
> To: randerson at interborder.ca; bc-gnso at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to
> comment upon
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400
>
> et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in
> the marked up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what
> Sarah did, and then comment on top of her comments on what is being
> called v.16. That won't happen until early Thursday, since I'm
> crashing on work related to broader ICANN comments re the meta
> issues of accountability, etc.
>
> That way, Sarah's comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'.
>
> I think we have to try to have coherent and thoughtful discussions
> about some of these issues and they can't take place on the fly, or
> under a crisis time frame, or without the full ability of a broad
> and diverse group of members to participate. Perhaps all of us can
> come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader
> understanding about schedules with a better understanding of how the
> GNSO restructuring is progressing, and what flexibility there is.
> Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to
> comment upon
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600
> From: RAnderson at interborder.ca
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
>
>
> 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 200
> 9 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 compa
> ny do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be
> assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action t
> aken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other tha
> n 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 vi
> rus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication,
> e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthori
> zed parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please no
> tify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is a
> ssumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such
> as encryption) unless specifically requested.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
>
> <BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091022/4ac59f19/attachment.html>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list