[bc-gnso] BC charter v18

[Liz Williams]

Hello everyone

Just for clarity -- we are now only working on this draft?  We are not  
considering alternative documents?  We are discussing this in Seoul  
with a view to finalise to a vote in Seoul OR at a date just after?   
The Charter is then submitted to the Board ASAP as an agreed model?

It seems important that we move toward a version which has general  
support to enable us to make an orderly transition...

To that end, is someone preparing to move a motion and second the  
adoption of (say) version 19 of the Charter with a one week voting  
period?

Liz
On 23 Oct 2009, at 00:20, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:

>
> Thanks so much for the changes made thus far.  As I won't be in Seoul
> next week, I wanted to raise the following for your discussions:
>
> 1.  It appears that the draft still includes the "solidarity"  
> language,
> which reads: "When a member declares themselves as a Constituency
> member, they shall remain faithful to approved positions."  This vague
> language to "remain faithful to approved positions" should be toned  
> down
> to sound like more like a charter for a business organization (right  
> now
> it sounds a bit like a communist manifesto).  If the idea of  
> solidarity
> must remain in, I'd recommend amending it to say "When a member has
> voted for a position that has been approved by the Constituency, the
> member shall make best efforts to promote such positions in their  
> ICANN
> policymaking activities."
>
> 2. The "compliance with privacy laws" language is still problematic.
> Right now, it reads: "The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees
> and members of the Constituency shall ensure compliance with  
> prevailing
> privacy laws with respect to the care of personal data, and in
> particular shall not process such data beyond what is necessary for  
> the
> purposes for which it was originally collected."  First, what kind of
> personally identifiable or sensitive personal information will MEMBERS
> of the constituency have access to or be "processing"?  I'm not sure
> that members want to have access to sensitive personal information as
> part of their BC membership.  If the Executive Committee and  
> Secretariat
> want and agree to have access, then this would be fine.  I also note
> that it there are no uniform "prevailing privacy laws."  They differ
> wildly depending on the jurisdiction.  Perhaps the Secretariat and
> Executive Committee could agree to comply with the laws of their
> respective jurisdictions?
>
> 3. In Section 8.25, I'm sure we need special rules for elections, but
> does it really make sense for BC members to be paying the  
> Secretariat to
> police the list for repetitive content, and for the "posting of more
> messages than is proportionate to the issue or the responses from  
> other
> members thus overburdening others with one particular point of view:
> typically this may be more than three postings a day from a member or
> ten a month."   These provisions continue to appear to be over the top
> and are probably unnecessary.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
> Behalf
> Of BC Secretariat
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:44 AM
> To: BC gnso
> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18
>
> Posted on behalf of the Officers
>
> Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change.
> Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes.
> These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording  
> from
> Sarah.
>
> On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of  
> Sarah
> and Rick, there is no change.
> However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current
> charter.
> There have not been any significant issues with the current wording.
>
> Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are
> well taken and are already covered in article 5.1.
> The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we
> have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter
> which has the following article 8.1:
> "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal  
> procedures
> in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more  
> than
> 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as  
> defined
> in the ICANN Bylaws)".
>
> In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers  
> propose
> we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a
> vote immediately thereafter.
>
> BC Officers
>
>