[bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter

["Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a ridiculous provision, a clumsy attempt at stifling discussion.  My 
company would never agree to have its own actions and statements bound by the 
charter of an association it belongs to, no seripus business could or would.

 Let's just disband the BC and get on with the new CSG.  We have stalled on 
that long enough, and it is where we need to apply our energies and focus.  It 
has been a very long time since the BC was an effective means for the provision 
of our input to the BC, it has become a private fiefdom of a very small number 
of individuals.
 
We vote against the adoption of this charter.

cheers/Rick

Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798


----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Oct 13 07:59:15 2009
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter

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

 
 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this 
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive 
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of 
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify 
sender at the above e-mail address.
 
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail 
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no 
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like 
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to 
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by 
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent 
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as 
encryption) unless specifically requested.