Thanks so much for the changes made thus far. As I won't be in Seoul
next week, I wanted to raise the following for your discussions:
1. It appears that the draft still includes the "solidarity"
language,
which reads: "When a member declares themselves as a Constituency
member, they shall remain faithful to approved positions." This vague
language to "remain faithful to approved positions" should be toned
down
to sound like more like a charter for a business organization (right
now
it sounds a bit like a communist manifesto). If the idea of
solidarity
must remain in, I'd recommend amending it to say "When a member has
voted for a position that has been approved by the Constituency, the
member shall make best efforts to promote such positions in their
ICANN
policymaking activities."
2. The "compliance with privacy laws" language is still problematic.
Right now, it reads: "The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees
and members of the Constituency shall ensure compliance with
prevailing
privacy laws with respect to the care of personal data, and in
particular shall not process such data beyond what is necessary for
the
purposes for which it was originally collected." First, what kind of
personally identifiable or sensitive personal information will MEMBERS
of the constituency have access to or be "processing"? I'm not sure
that members want to have access to sensitive personal information as
part of their BC membership. If the Executive Committee and
Secretariat
want and agree to have access, then this would be fine. I also note
that it there are no uniform "prevailing privacy laws." They differ
wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Perhaps the Secretariat and
Executive Committee could agree to comply with the laws of their
respective jurisdictions?
3. In Section 8.25, I'm sure we need special rules for elections, but
does it really make sense for BC members to be paying the
Secretariat to
police the list for repetitive content, and for the "posting of more
messages than is proportionate to the issue or the responses from
other
members thus overburdening others with one particular point of view:
typically this may be more than three postings a day from a member or
ten a month." These provisions continue to appear to be over the top
and are probably unnecessary.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
Of BC Secretariat
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:44 AM
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18
Posted on behalf of the Officers
Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change.
Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes.
These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording
from
Sarah.
On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of
Sarah
and Rick, there is no change.
However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current
charter.
There have not been any significant issues with the current wording.
Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are
well taken and are already covered in article 5.1.
The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we
have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter
which has the following article 8.1:
"8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal
procedures
in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more
than
3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as
defined
in the ICANN Bylaws)".
In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers
propose
we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a
vote immediately thereafter.
BC Officers