Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

Liz, yes and yes.
I will try to do an update of easy edits and group broader questions for
our meeting
Philip

>
> Hello everyone
>
> Just for clarity -- we are now only working on this draft?  We are not
> considering alternative documents?  We are discussing this in Seoul
> with a view to finalise to a vote in Seoul OR at a date just after?
> The Charter is then submitted to the Board ASAP as an agreed model?
>
> It seems important that we move toward a version which has general
> support to enable us to make an orderly transition...
>
> To that end, is someone preparing to move a motion and second the
> adoption of (say) version 19 of the Charter with a one week voting
> period?
>
> Liz
> On 23 Oct 2009, at 00:20, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>