RE: [bc-gnso] Revised CSG Charter

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All:

I think George raises some valid points. 

The creation of new constituencies must lie with the ICANN board, empowering
existing constituencies with a veto authority does not scale. 

With regard to his "behavioral expectations" concern, I want to look at that
one a little more closely, but do agree that squeaky wheels should never be
excluded from the ICANN process.

Best regards,

Michael





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:05 AM
To: BC gnso
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Revised CSG Charter


Hello,

Section 4.2 of the proposed CSG charter effectively gives each
existing constituency a veto over the creation of new ones:

"4.2 Membership shall also be open to any additional constituency
recognised by ICANN?s Board under its by-laws, provided that such
constituency, as determined by the unanimous consent of the
signatories to this charter, is representative of commercial user
interests which for the purposes of definition are distinct from and
exclude registry and prospective registry, registrar, re-seller or
other domain name supplier interests."

and is already being opposed elsewhere, e.g. in the NCUC:

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0907&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&O=D&P=5
824

I believe that clause should be entirely dropped, as it's really up to
the ICANN Board to decide, not existing constituencies.

Also, section 1.3.3 regarding "behavioural expectations", contains the
clauses "adhering to ICANN Bylaws/Policies; supporting the bottom-up
consensus model;" which might cause a conflict of interest between
members of constituencies, as they'd need to put ICANN's interests
ahead of their own organizational interests. This would mean, for
example, that they couldn't advocate certain positions to NTIA/DOC.
That's fine for Board members, but not for constituency members. This
topic was already beaten to death in the ALAC, see:

http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005507.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005513.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005516.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005518.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005526.html
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20
09q2/005528.html

Thus, I'd suggest either that part be amended to ensure that members
can continue to represent the interests of their own organizations
above all without limitation and without censorship, or the words
should simply be deleted.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Philip Sheppard<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> During the Sydney meeting, we were advised that the Board had reviewed the
> Transitional Charter for the Commercial Stakeholders Group ("CSG") that we
> submitted early this year and that the Board was recommending changes to
our
> draft.  The changes were minimal (a useful new article 1.3). Accordingly,
> the drafting committee that put together the original Transitional Charter
> met and decided to accept the Board's suggested revisions.
>
> In addition, we have adjusted the dates found in the document to reflect
the
> shifting of the seating of the new GNSO Council from June to October.  Our
> newly revised draft is attached.  For your convenience, all changes are
> highlighted in red text.
>
> To expedite matters, we ask that only objections to this draft be voiced
on
> or before COB, EDT Friday, July 17, 2009.  If no objections are voiced, we
> will jointly submit this along with the other members of the CSG.
>
> Philip Sheppard for the BC
> J Scott Evans for IPC
> Tony Holmes for ISP
>
>
>