[bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
Scott M. McCormick
scott at mccormickict.com
Fri Oct 23 13:47:04 UTC 2009
Sorry if I missed a previous e-mail, as I saw something about a BC
Saturday morning meeting suggested. Is there a meeting planned for
tomorrow morning?
Thanks,
- Scott
On Oct 22, 2009, at 11:15 PM, 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/20091023/9e2e9742/attachment.html>
More information about the Bc-gnso
mailing list