<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5848" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009>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.</SPAN></FONT></DIV><SPAN class=068491720-26102009>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009>I see that the</SPAN> <SPAN
class=068491720-26102009>overly broad</SPAN> "solidarity" language<SPAN
class=068491720-26102009> still</SPAN> remains in<SPAN
class=068491720-26102009> 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.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009>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.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> As
mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with </SPAN>"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. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><SPAN class=068491720-26102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=068491720-26102009>Sarah</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV align=left><BR><FONT color=#000080><FONT face=Arial>Sarah B.
Deutsch<BR>Vice President & Associate General Counsel<BR>Verizon
Communications<BR>Phone: 703-351-3044<BR>Fax:
703-351-3670<BR>sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com<?xml:namespace prefix = o
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Marilyn
Cade<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Philip
Sheppard; bc - GNSO list<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter
v19<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><BR>Philip, thanks.<BR>a few initial comments, and then I'll read
through again and flag any areas for the BC members of concern to
me.<BR> <BR>I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of
my comments in this version.<BR>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. <BR> <BR>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. <BR> <BR>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. <BR> <BR>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.
<BR> <BR>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.<BR> <BR>We can briefly discuss the
CSG representative at the huddle this p.m.
<BR> <BR>Marilyn<BR> <BR><BR><BR> <BR>> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009
05:27:20 +0100<BR>> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19<BR>> From:
philip.sheppard@aim.be<BR>> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I
attach the latest version for discussion.<BR>> I believe we are nearly
there.<BR>> It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been
suggested<BR>> with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter
text that was<BR>> to date unaltered.<BR>> <BR>> I will pull out those
few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed<BR>> for discussion at
the BC meeting in Seoul.<BR>> <BR>> Philip<BR>> <BR></BODY></HTML>