[bc-gnso] BC charter v19

Tue Oct 27 03:12:18 UTC 2009

I, too, support Sarah's comments.

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor

New York, New York 10001

www.rnapartners.com 

V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11

F:  +1 212 481 2859 

  _____  

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Mike O'Connor
Sent: 2009-10-26 18:03
To: Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19

i'm with Sarah on this.

let's get rid of the solidarity language and the privacy language if we can.

and, if we can't, let's resolve to take this up in "Charter II, The Sequel"
an entertainment event coming to theaters near you as soon as we have a new
executive committee in place.  :-)

mikey

On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:

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

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. 

Marilyn

> 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
> 

- - - - - - - - -

phone    651-647-6109  

fax                           866-280-2356  

web        www.haven2.com

handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091026/2a45c92a/attachment.html>