[bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul. Marilyn¹s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support: > 3.2.2 Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, any organization such as a trade > association representing entities described in 3.2.1. 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, > but are required to maintain the focus on business user perspectives and > positions; any such members would be viewed as having a conflict of interest > with the BC¹s interest, and will not be able to attend or participate in BC > closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associations and > consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC members are responsible > for disclosing any client relationships which are material to the BC¹s > interest, both upon application, and upon renewal. > Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in ³BC Closed Sessions or in policy position development.² In my 4 years on the BC I have regularly disclosed the fact that I have members in the Registry constituency and in the IP Constituency. I have consistently advocated positions that are common to both my BC and non-BC member companies. Where there are conflicts among my members, I have often advocated the BC position (WHOIS, eliminating tasting, preventing abuse in new TLDs, etc.). Within the BC, I will continue to disclose membership and to represent only those interests beneficial to BC members. But if I would not be allowed to participate in policy development, I see no point in remaining part of the BC. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear BC colleagues > Like some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight --arriving late on > Friday night in Seoul. > > Re CHARTER Changes: > I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and concepts into the version > of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and includes the additions of some > of the association members. > > I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG > representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of either > the Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance. > > I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent treatment > of members who offer services as a core business. While these are often called > 'consultants', for example, my own micro enterprise provides advice, strategy, > and in some cases, what are called 'general consulting services'. We have had > a tendency to have a category called consultants, which probably isn't > necessary, unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have > incorporated businesses. Sole proprietatorships may be a category. Many > constituencies do not allow individual members. I am not clear from the > charter on whether the BC does, or not, or whether we require all members to > be incorporated as either a business, or trade association, or law firm, > service provider, etc. > > The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are significant > and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which I helped to draft in > 2001 was MUCH simplier. I understand that the Board requires documents two > weeks in advance, and aren't expecting complex charter changes. > > Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members before the > end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is discussing GNSO Reform > on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what our plan is regarding 1) > discussion of the charter 2) incorporation of proposed changes that are still > coming in 3) establishing a voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace > offices who are term limited, etc. > > Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday at 9 a.m. > > Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC members? > > It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the officers > before the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that feasible? > > I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but can be > available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday. > > > From: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx > To: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400 > > 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.doc¹ which is attached for members¹ > 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 sender¹s 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 sender¹s 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. > > > -- > Steve DelBianco > Executive Director > NetChoice > http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org > +1.202.420.7482 > Attachment:
BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc
|