[bc-gnso] BC charter v19
Deutsch, Sarah B
sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com
Mon Oct 26 20:42:52 UTC 2009
I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious
consideration. The IPC has followed this model and it works well.
I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the
draft. Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the
language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN
community, the language remains unchanged. As Marilyn notes correctly
below, instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains
what the problem is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the
draft goes in the opposite direction by allowing executive committee
members a carve out from BC positions when they speak in their personal
capacity. If anyone has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity"
principle without the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or
privately, it should be executive committee members.
Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft
unchanged. No one has answered the fundamental question of whether
ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or
sensitive personal information (and what information that is) and how
ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such information. Other
BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to have any access to
sensitive personal information as part of our BC membership. As
mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing privacy laws"
is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on
jurisdiction. At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee
Members should be subject to this language assuming they may have access
to sensitive personal information.
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf
Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any
areas for the BC members of concern to me.
I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my
comments in this version.
However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as
the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected
positions. There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding
conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or
small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads,
as we all know. It does mean that coordination are important, of course.
A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have
only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers.
That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year
In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of
the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the
term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation
of a retained position, and the approach being proposed will allow
flexibility to either use contracted services or services from ICANN.
I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not
adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected
officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we
discuss when you would envision an executive committee member 'acting in
their individual capacity'? That might clear up the confusion for me on
I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator.
I'm not sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We
want to avoid creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to
make judgements about other members communications; I don't see that
function in other constituencies -- and suggest that we simply have
principled approaches to efficient communications.
We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m.
> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100
> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
> From: philip.sheppard at aim.be
> To: bc-gnso at icann.org
> I attach the latest version for discussion.
> I believe we are nearly there.
> It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been
> with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that
> to date unaltered.
> I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been
> for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso