[bc-gnso] BC charter v19

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 27 01:39:52 UTC 2009

The privacy requirements shld not exceed ICANN's own requirements. Members can decide to display their contact details, or not, in the membership list. 

However, elected and appointed officers or councilors, nomcomm appointees, credentials committee reps, etc.,  cannot choose to fail to provide contact information to members. The BC can provide a BC email address if the elected officers/appointed officers/reps prefer to do that, as the Bd does... 

Finally, the BC charter is MUCH more detailed than other groups charters and goes into prescription on many things others do not address. Why are we not looking at the other charters as I have asked numerous times to try to have a streamlined charter, and then move contentious items off to a post election process?

Secondly, we really cannot move to 25 per cent on raising objections - let's do the math. 

41 members-25 % = 10 members. there are 18 attending people/but not 18 unique entities  at Seoul and three active parties  following remotely and posting - David Fares, Sarah Deustch/with her company here as well, and Mikey. You must assume that that "we" are the most active of the members. 

So, according to V19's proposal, by moving to 25% to raise objections that would trigger a vote, we are asking for too high a threshhold to at least get an opportunity to consider a change in a draft position or ensure that the full membership considers and acclaims support, or opposition to positions. 

Let's keep 10% for now and debate whether to raise that at a next stage. 

But I will reask the question again- is the charter v19 too detailed? I would venture that the mere fact that we got up to v16 before any discussion and are even AT a v19 is a very bad "indicator". 

I spoke to a member of the BC recently who might be expected to have read the Charter - because that person is with an association member. That person asked me to explain the charter to them, and acknowledged that they didn't have time to study it..... I say that with the interest of supporting members needs, not to be critical. 

We need to try to make this a transitional charter-- if we have details that are raising the degree of concern across this number of members, then remove those areas, have a streamlined charter. Hold the elections, and creat a charter redrafting team. 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Zahid Jamil <zahid at dndrc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:53:57 
To: <sarah.b.deutsch at verizon.com>; <marilynscade at hotmail.com>; <philip.sheppard at aim.be>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19

1024x768 Clean false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 
I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 
7.5. Solidarity 
Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to be a Constituency approved position.  As such, members are expected, when communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency position(s).  This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency position.  Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 
10. Privacy of personal data 
The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected.  Members may also decide to make such additional aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. 
[Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members what we mean.] 
Zahid Jamil 
Jamil & Jamil 
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe 
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan 
Cell: +923008238230 
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 
Fax: +92 21 5655026 
www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 
Notice / Disclaimer 
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited. 
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B
 Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM
 To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 
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
 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 Marilyn Cade
 Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM
 To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 

 Philip, thanks.
 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 terms. 
 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 that one. 
 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 suggested
 > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was
 > to date unaltered.
 > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed
 > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul.
 > Philip

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list