<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">hm. i'm replying to my own emails.<div><br></div><div>but i haven't heard an answer to the question about "where are we at with the charter-revision process?" and it seems like the hour of decision approaches rapidly. i liked M Cade's suggestion that we schedule a member-call to discuss this, with Rob Hoggarth on the call to help with the process. but we're going to have to act quickly to get sufficient notice out for a call that's got to happen before the end of the week. or is there more room in the schedule?</div><div><br></div><div>i'm happy to help with the process of moving this forward, but somebody in authority needs to state that process and get things started.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>From: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">"Mike O'Connor" <<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>Date: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">September 5, 2009 9:41:53 AM CDT</font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>To: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>>, BC gnso <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Helvetica" size="3" color="#000000" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000"><b>Subject: </b></font><font face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica"><b>Re: [bc-gnso] M O'Connor: Revised BC Charter - discussion and vote</b></font></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><br></div> </div><div><br>i like that City Level TLD Constituency charter a lot, as a starting point.<br><br>where are we at on the "approve a new charter" process? are we still shooting for the end of next week? what process are we going to follow?<br><br>m<br><br><br>On Sep 3, 2009, at 2:10 PM, George Kirikos wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hello,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Mike O'Connor<<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">i have taken a run at a red-line that purely reflects my personal views,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">although i'm drawing on a number of experiences as a member of the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Credentials Committee. you'll see that my main interest tends to run toward<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">due-process although i've included a few other changes that i absorbed over<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">time.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">feel free to comment/revise/improve.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I agree with many of the concerns raised by Mike O'Connor in his<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">annotated and edited version of the draft charter.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">It might be best to start from scratch from a more solid foundation,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for example the City Top-Level Domain Constituency application had a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">good start, using the template provided by ICANN staff.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-redacted-01jun09.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-redacted-01jun09.pdf</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think if we started from that (with tweaks), we would end up in a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">better place than starting from the current draft presented earlier<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this week.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I was planning the series of "bite-sized" posts on all that's wrong<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with the current draft charter, but in light of Mike O'Connors massive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">number of changes (and instead of creating a revised version of a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">revised version), I'll simply list the 32 areas of concern I had<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">below.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Warning, long list ahead:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1. Change in the membership criteria so that domain parking is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">considered illegitimate, see line 3.1 and compare to section 3 of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">existing charter:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"active development of content, communications and commerce on their web sites"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Notice the words "active development of content", vs. the existing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">words "conduct business". Existing members like NameAdministration,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Parked.com, Mike O'Connor, the entire ICA, etc might be affected. Even<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">folks with live websites might be ensnared by this language, as who<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">decides how much development constitutes "active" vs.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"static/passive"?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">You'll note there are no prohibitions against groups whose<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">primary mission is IP-related, for example, and who properly belong in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the IP constituency, from joining the BC.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2. Credentials committee (section 3.4.1) is now "up to three members"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">whereas before it was "at least three paid-up members". And they're<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all still appointed.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">3. Credentials committee (3.4.2) "A review may be done upon request by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">any member at the discretion of the Executive Committee. A review is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not limited to but may be indicated when:" Before, it took at least<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">two paid up members to complain, with much higher standards (3.6 of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">old charter). Now' it's discretionary, and allows a review on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">any basis (i.e. "not limited to").<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">4. 3.4.2 says you're subject to discipline/review if "a member takes<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">action, beyond mere internal communication, that contravenes an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">adopted position of the Constituency and thus would seem to be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency;"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Obviously that's ridiculous, that means every member (not just<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">officers) has to agree with the constituency positions!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">5. 3.4.2 "a member by their action leads directly or indirectly to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">another member resigning from the Constituency;" This is suggesting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that members who resign suddenly have "standing" to make a dispute, a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">dispute they should have brought when they were a member. Obviously a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">no-go.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">6. "a member acts as a spokesperson for another organisation whose<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">interests may not be aligned with the Constituency;" That would seem<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to target a lot of people in this constituency, hmmm. It would also<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">give rise to the Officers being able to point to one as not being<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">aligned with the Constituency, when one really simply differs on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policy matters. Or, the Officers might think *they* are the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">constituency, i.e. if your interests are not aligned with the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">officers, then you are obviously someone who should be rooted out.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">7. 4.2: Still no elected Treasurer or elected Secretary.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">8. 4.2: "when present in whole or in part at a physical ICANN meeting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue statements on behalf of the Constituency, so long as they are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not in contradiction to existing BC Positions;"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This means the officers can now issue statements without votes, e.g.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">just like the IRT, as long as it doesn't contradict existing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">statements. That gives them much greater latitude to say anything they<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">personally want, without the support of the entire membership and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">without votes.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">9. 4.2. "select, and oversee the work of, a Secretariat;" Once again, this<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">keeps the appointed secretariat, without competition or attempts to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">manage affairs efficiently and economically, instead of having an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">accountable and elected Secretary<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">10. 4.6. "To be eligible to stand as Chair or a Vice Chair the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">candidate must have been a member of the Constituency for at least the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">immediately preceding 12 months." This helps maintain dominance of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">incumbents, discouraging able and qualified newcomers.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">11. 4.7. Finance committee is appointed, unelected, and unaccountable<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(no vote on a budget, members can't ask to see the general ledger,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">etc.).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a) "up to 3 members" (and all appointed)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">b) "adopting the annual budget including the level of fees, as drafted<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by the Secretariat " Why should the Secretariat be drafting the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">budget, instead of putting out the duties for tender?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">c) "establishing a reserve equivalent to one year’s operating costs"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">This ensures that there's a perpetual balance held by the Secretariat,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that is never returned to the constituency members. It's like free<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">money, that is never going to be used or repaid. It should be held at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">least<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in an account held by ICANN, not by the Secretariat himself.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">d) "delegating to the Secretariat the day to day management of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">expenditure items within the budget" Basically no oversight, letting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the secretariat manage all the spending.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">12. 4.8 spells out the "duties" of the Secretariat, lol. The expanded<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">list went from the 4 items listed on 4.3 of the current charter, to now<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">list 12 tasks. Of course, this is basically trying to expand the list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to counter my posting at:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00314.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00314.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">which documented that the role of Secretariat is clerical in nature,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and doesn't take tens of thousands of Euros to do, on a "part-time"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">basis. It<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could be done for minimal cost, or even zero.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">13. 5.2: elections (and votes) still handled by the Secretariat,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rather than using a neutral platform like BigPulse.com, or open voting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as in workgroups<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">14. 6.1. " From time to time the Executive Committee on the advice of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the Vice Chair for policy coordination shall appoint members as issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">managers, hereafter referred to as Rapporteurs, to develop positions<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on relevant issues. " In other words, the EC controls who is rapporteur<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for an issue, via appointment, so we'll likely never see the ICA be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">rapporteur on the IRT, for example!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">15. It's now more difficult to compel a vote on issues. Section 7.3<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">now reads as "If there are at least 15% of members who oppose a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">position".....this compares to 3 in the current charter 7.3 which<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">REQUIRES a vote.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">16. Related to #15, section 7.4 boosts the standard to require a vote<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">from the current 10% of paid up members (which was achieved in the IRT<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">debate), to "a split in the Constituency of more than 25% of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">number of members". Thus, we'll almost never get votes on issues when<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there are divisions.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">17. Section 7.5 is obviously ridiculous "When a member declares<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">themselves as a Constituency member, they shall remain faithful to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">approved positions. " The new language removed the words "speaking in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the capacity of". One can be a constituency member, but openly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">disagree with the positions, as long as one isn't speaking on behalf<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the entire<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">constituency.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">18. 8.2.4 is against transparency and pro-censorship "content which is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">internal but sent to the publically-archived open list intended for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policy discussion" This ensures that the budget is always kept secret,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or that debates about other matters deemed "sensititve" are kept off<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the public mailing list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">19. 8.2.4 "content which makes personal allegations, or speculates on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">personal motives" Notice that truth itself is not a defence against<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">breaking this rule of false "civility." If a person does have a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">conflict of interest, you can't allege it, as it's "personal".<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Contrast this to how Mike Rodenbaugh questioned Dirk's "context" or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">how Philip Sheppard questioned mine. More speech leads to the truth,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not less. This charter shouldn't be drafted to discourage speech,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">especially true and honest speech.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">20. 8.2.4 "content about BC employees or contractors" All hail the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Supremo Secretariat! Thou shalt not question their authority or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">discuss them in any way! Even if it's fair comment.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">21. "content which infringes the intellectual property or privacy of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">third parties including members or past members or their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">representatives" This is very subjective, and "truth" should be an<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">absolute defence to anything related to free speech.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">22. "content which is repetitive or goes beyond relevant information<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or is overly lengthy" Subjective, no word limit. One could use:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.wordcounttool.com/">http://www.wordcounttool.com/</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to impose a hard limit. Contrast that with long posts the officers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">make on other lists, e.g.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07217.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07217.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07229.html">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07229.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Notice those are personal opinions, not voted upon by the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Constituency. Create a word limit, that everyone is obliged to follow.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Or, better, yet, enforce a standard format of posts, where each post<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">has an "Executive Summary" at the top, so that the gist of the message<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">can be obtained in a few lines, and people can delve into the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">micro-level details at their own discretion.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">23. "posting of more messages than is proportionate to the issue or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the responses from other members thus overburdening others with one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">particular point of view: typically this may be more than one posting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a day from a member or ten a month. This limit does not apply to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">forwarding of ICANN informational e-mails or communications from the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Executive Committee on BC business."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In other words, Officers can post as much as they want, but members are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">limited to 10 posts a months! And 1 per day. Basically, the BC list<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">will be a deadzone, no real debates. Contrast that with healthy lists<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">like the NCUC, which had 217 messages just in August alone.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0908&L=ncuc-discuss&F=&S=&O=D&H=0&D=0&T=0">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0908&L=ncuc-discuss&F=&S=&O=D&H=0&D=0&T=0</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Just for the record, my posting at present is 4 per week, on average,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">since the list has gone public. People that can't manage their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">incoming email at such a low level should remove themselves from the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">constituency. Alternatively, one could create a "digest list" which is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">weekly, low traffic, and only contains summaries of the week's events,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">instead of compelling inactive members from reading the main list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">24. 8.2.6 -- return of the secret "internal mailing list" in order to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">engage in censorship of the BC budget, discipline, and other sensitive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">debates. We obviously voted against that, and for transparency<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">instead.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">25. The actual link to the "Respectful Online Communications" document<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of ICANN (which prefers "civility" instead of honest speech) is at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication.pdf">http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication.pdf</a> (not at<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the link at Section 9. See prior discussion on ALAC at:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005518.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005518.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005526.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005526.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005528.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005528.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005522.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009q2/005522.html</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">26. 9.8 "Refrain from filing any legal actions against the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Constituency." Unenforceable, people should act responsibly and they<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">won't get sued.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">27. "11. Any disputes under this Charter will be decided upon by the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Executive Committee whose decision will be final. " No appeal<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mechanism, all hail our illustrious leaders!<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">28. Section 12: "Category 3" members are still decided based on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">revenues, instead of the more proper metric of number of employees.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Most real definitions of small businesses are 300 or less employees,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or 100 or less employees.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Alternatively, membership levels, votes, and fees could be set by the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">number of domains registered by the organization, e.g.:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1 vote: 0 to 10 domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2 votes: 11 to 100 domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">3 votes: 101 to 1000 domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">4 votes: 1,001 to 10,000 domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">5 votes: 10,001 to 100,000 domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">6 votes: 100,001 to 1 million domains<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">7 votes: 1 million+ domains (no private companies own this many, yet)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(and for proper disclosure, my company would end up with 3 votes with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">just over 500 domains, so this would put me in the middle under the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">above logarithmic scale; many others would end up at 5, or even 6<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">votes)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Trade associations could be tossed somewhere in the middle, perhaps<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">based on number of companies they represent or another metric (one<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">couldn't just add up the domains of their members, as their members<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">don't really often have direct input in debates, and often companies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are in multiple trade associations, or in a trade association AND a BC<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">member, etc.).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">29. "No refund of membership fees will be given to a member resigning<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of their own volition. A pro-rata refund will be provided to a member<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">removed by disciplinary action subject to the member supplying the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Secretariat with banking information within 30 days of their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">removal."This document spent a lot of time thinking about disciplining<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">people. It spent little time on due process, i.e. protecting ordinary<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">members from the capricious actions of the officers. Power and rights<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">belong to the ordinary members, to protect them from abuse of power by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"kings." History has taught us that's who needs protection the most,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ordinary citizens.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">30. Section 14. "This Charter may be amended from time to time.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Proposals for amendment that are not supported by the Executive<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Committee require a proposer and expressions of support from 25% of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">paid-up members." This means that the Executive have lower standards<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for pushing through changes than anyone else.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">31. Section 15: "All articles of this revised Charter shall take<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">effect immediately following an affirmative vote of the Constituency."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">In other words, even if the Charter hasn't been approved by ICANN's<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Board, which does need to approve the charter, they'll act on it<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">anyhow.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">32. Section 4.2 doesn't prevent the "council members" from being<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">selected from the "Chair" or "Vice-chairs", thus instead of having 5<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or 6 members in the executive committee, it might only be 3, like<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">today. Better to spread the power and workload around a bit more, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">deepen the "bench" of talent serving the constituency.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As I said above, it's probably best to start from scratch with another<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">constituency's charter as the template, rather than try to keep<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">modifying this one.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sincerely,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">George Kirikos<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">416-588-0269<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br></blockquote><br>- - - - - - - - -<br>phone <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>651-647-6109<br>fax <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>866-280-2356<br>web <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a><br>handle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>- - - - - - - - -</div><div>phone<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>651-647-6109 </div><div>fax <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>866-280-2356 </div><div>web<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a></div><div>handle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</div></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span> </div><br></div></body></html>