Re: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter

["waudo siganga" <emailsignet@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support George on the additional period for review. I also gathered
the same from the Conference call but after the call there has been no
call for additional comments including those from members who were not
on the call.

Waudo
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:59 -0400, "George Kirikos" <icann@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I, and other members, had been under the impression that there would
> be a set period to review the new updated draft charter, to allow for
> another round of comments and revisions, before going to a vote. Yet,
> now the officers seem to be calling for a vote on a seriously flawed
> charter.
> 
> My company cannot support the draft charter, and will leave the
> constituency if it is adopted. While this will cause glee to certain
> members who seek to stifle free speech that counters their positions
> and who wish to use the BC as a mechanism to further their extremist
> positions that are not reflective of businesses, I think all should
> actually re-read what you're agreeing to if you accept the charter.
> 
> I previously submitted comments at:
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html
> 
> and many of the important concerns remain. In particular, referencing
> the latest draft:
> 
> 1. Section 3.4.2 states membership can be reviewed if:
> 
> "a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent,
> that  contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus
> would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the
> Constituency;"
> 
> I said it before in my previous comments. This means that Constituency
> members would not be permitted to externally voice dissent or act
> against an adopted position of the BC. It's shocking that this
> provision survived a revision of the charter. Other constituencies do
> not have this provision, and for good reason. If a registrar or
> registry or IP holder feels strongly against something that their
> respective constituency votes for, they are not bound by that position
> as an organization --- they are free to submit their own comments to
> ICANN, or to the DOC/DOJ/NTIA, or to politicians, or in the courts if
> the matter is serious enough. The same holds for trade associations
> within the BC -- members of AIM, CADNA, ICA, ETNO, ICC, USCIB or WITSA
> are certainly not externally limited in their behaviour if they
> disagree with a position of their trade association.
> 
> I don't see how *any* BC member can support 3.4.2, unless they are not
> actually reading the words that they're voting for, or they wish to
> engage in voluntary servitude.
> 
> (2) There are so many other flaws in the charter, that one should
> simply re-read:
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html
> 
> most of which still ring true, despite the conference call we had. For
> example, positions all over the place are "appointed" instead of
> elected, use the "up to" language, deny an elected treasurer and
> secretary, is anti-free speech (truth is not important), etc. etc.
> 
> Given the existing officers have failed to deliver an acceptable
> charter, I believe that the process going forward to create a new
> charter should consist of the formation of a committee of volunteer
> members (excluding the current officers) to draft a new charter. As a
> starting point, we (and I would volunteer to help take on the work)
> can use the City-Top Level Domain constituency charter, which was
> relatively balanced (although would need some modifications), see:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-redacted-01jun09.pdf
> 
> Of course, after a new draft is prepared, the existing officers and
> all other members would be free to comment on it, before another round
> (or rounds) of revisions and ultimately a vote.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM, BC Secretariat
> <secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Members
> >
> > Ballot on revised BC Charter
> >
> > At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I
> > have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
> >
> > A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority
> > non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
> >
> > A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote
> > should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation
> > or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your
> > ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
> >
> > The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October
> > 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Gary
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the
> > attached revised BC Charter.
> > A definitive PDF version is attached.
> > A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for
> > information.
> >
> > The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in
> > which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council.
> > As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO
> > representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles.
> > There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in
> > addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council.
> > The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN
> > staff based on learning since the last Charter.
> > The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives
> > given the diversity of those perspectives.
> > The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by
> > Seoul.
> >
> > Zahid Jamil
> > Mike Rodenbaugh
> > Philip Sheppard
> >
> > BC Officers