RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in the marked 
up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what Sarah did, and then  
comment on top of her comments on what is being called v.16. That won't happen 
until early Thursday, since I'm crashing on work related to broader ICANN 
comments re the meta issues of accountability, etc.  That way, Sarah's 
comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'. I think we have to try to 
have coherent and thoughtful discussions about some of these issues and they 
can't take place on the fly, or under a crisis time frame, or without the full 
ability of a broad and diverse group of members to participate.  Perhaps all of 
us can come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader understanding 
about schedules with a better understanding of how the GNSO restructuring is 
progressing, and what flexibility there is. 





Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600
From: RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx














I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even 
individuals participating in multiple constutuencies 

("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on 
"divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited 
resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or 
overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.")

In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here.  The premise of 
ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method 
to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded 
peers along with participating in the broader community.  But the morphing of 
this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple 
hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, 
this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise.

Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a 
point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and 
acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while 
at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another 
area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is 
the place where they have full membership and voting etc?

Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the 
commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad 
practice.

cheers/Rick

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





From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso 
Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon



All,

I 
would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft charter, 
which includes the good change Ayesha 
inserted below.   On a related 
topic, we think it is important to delete the section on 
"divisional separation" as 
many BC members, large and 
small, have limited resources and should have the flexibility to have the same 
person 
or overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.  
 
You'll see a number of other edits, including those 
that soften the tone of the charter, 
focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions.  For 
example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the 
language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and 
sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can 
change.  I don't think we need this language in light of the other language 
in the charter on expected standards of 
behavior. 
 
I also made changes to clarify that the 
Consitutency as a whole should decide which issues are priority policy 
issues.  The role of the vice chair for policy should more 
reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are 
priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally.  Finally, I 
deleted the provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since 
there are literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world 
and no one BC member can reasonably be expected to know them all.  The 
language requiring general compliance with the care of personal data should 
be sufficient.
 
Note that all of 
these are initial proposed changes to this document only.  I also liked the 
draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely 
non-controversial.  If it is not feasible to work off the many good 
suggestions in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity 
to insert the best aspects of that document into the current draft for further 
consideration.  
 
Sarah
 

Sarah B. 
Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon 
Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 
703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
 



From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HASSAN 
Ayesha
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM
To: BC 
Secretariat; BC gnso
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which 
draft Charter to comment upon




Dear 
colleagues,
 
I would like to suggest the addition 
of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that business associations like ICC and 
others who have members who belong to other ICANN constituencies are not 
excluded from BC membership because of the range of their membership. See 
suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and underlined. Text to this 
effect would ensure that business organizations like ICC, USCIB and others can 
remain BC members.
Best 
regards,
Ayesha
 
3.3. Membership Criteria
3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria 
of other GNSO constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the 
interests 
of a specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to 
represent the interests of businesses described in Article 
3.1.
 
3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not 
for profit entities excepting trade associations representing for profit 
entities; entities whose prime business is a registry, registry operator, 
prospective registry, registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier 
interests, 
or similar; other groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users 
described in Article 3.1. Trade associations 
whose members may also include companies/associations that belong to or could 
belong to any of the other ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC 
membership.
 
 




From: 
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of BC 
Secretariat
Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 
11:19
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to 
which draft Charter to comment upon
 

Posted on behalf of the BC 
Officers
 
 
Dear Members,
 
Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the 
Charter members should comment upon.  For clarification and to save the 
little time left in terms of the Charter submission please note that the 
Charter 
under discussion and for comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is 
attached for members’ convenience.
 
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.