<html dir="ltr"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18813">
<style title="owaParaStyle"><!--P {
        MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
--></style>
</head>
<body ocsi="x">
<div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma">I would like to second Mike's call for a BC member call to discuss the proposed charter as well as express my concern that there has been no response from the officers to this and similar requests
since the revised charter was first circulated.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">Philip S. Corwin<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Partner<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Butera & Andrews<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Suite 500<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Washington, DC 20004</font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black"><font face="arial black">202-347-6875 (office)</font><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">202-347-6876 (fax</font>)</span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font color="navy" size="2" face="Arial Black"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><font face="Arial Black">202-255-6172 (cell)</font></span></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 4.8pt 0in; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial Black"><em><i><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">"Luck is the residue of design."</span></font></i></em><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>--
Branch Rickey</span></font></font><font color="navy" size="2"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"></span></font></font></p>
</font></div>
</div>
<div style="DIRECTION: ltr" id="divRpF152215">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor [mike@haven2.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BC gnso<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Fwd: [bc-gnso] M O'Connor: Revised BC Charter - discussion and vote -- 2nd request<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>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: 0px"><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" color="#000000" size="3" face="Helvetica"><b>From:
</b></font><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size="3" face="Helvetica">"Mike O'Connor" <<a href="mailto:mike@haven2.com">mike@haven2.com</a>></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" color="#000000" size="3" face="Helvetica"><b>Date:
</b></font><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size="3" face="Helvetica">September 5, 2009 9:41:53 AM CDT</font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px"><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" color="#000000" size="3" face="Helvetica"><b>To:
</b></font><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size="3" face="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: 0px"><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica; COLOR: #000000" color="#000000" size="3" face="Helvetica"><b>Subject:
</b></font><font style="FONT: 12px Helvetica" size="3" face="Helvetica"><b>Re: [bc-gnso] M O'Connor: Revised BC Charter - discussion and vote</b></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
- - - - - - - - -<br>
phone <span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"></span>651-647-6109<br>
fax <span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"></span>866-280-2356<br>
web <span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"></span><a href="http://www.haven2.com" target="_blank">www.haven2.com</a><br>
handle<span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span">
<div>
<div>- - - - - - - - -</div>
<div>phone<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span">
</span>651-647-6109 </div>
<div>fax <span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"> </span>866-280-2356 </div>
<div>web<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span">
</span><a href="http://www.haven2.com" target="_blank">www.haven2.com</a></div>
<div>handle<span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class="Apple-tab-span"> </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>
</div>
</body>
</html>