Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'm with Sarah on this.

let's get rid of the solidarity language and the privacy language if  
we can.
and, if we can't, let's resolve to take this up in "Charter II, The  
Sequel" an entertainment event coming to theaters near you as soon as  
we have a new executive committee in place.  :-)
mikey


On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:

> I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious  
> consideration.  The IPC has followed this model and it works well.
> I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in  
> the draft.  Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more  
> accurately the language to situations where members are speaking  
> publicly to the ICANN community, the language remains unchanged.    
> As Marilyn notes correctly below, instead of drafting solidarity  
> language that actually explains what the problem is and how to  
> implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite  
> direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from  
> BC positions when they speak in their personal capacity.  If anyone  
> has an obligation to adhere to the "solidarity" principle without  
> the opportunity to give mixed messages publicly or privately, it  
> should be executive committee members.
> Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the  
> draft unchanged.  No one has answered the fundamental question of  
> whether ordinary BC members will be gaining access to personally  
> identifiable or sensitive personal information (and what information  
> that is) and how ordinary BC members are allegedly "processing" such  
> information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we do not want to  
> have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our BC  
> membership.  As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance  
> with"prevailing privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ  
> signficantly depending on jurisdiction.  At a minimum ONLY the  
> Secretariat and Exec Committee Members should be subject to this  
> language assuming they may have access to sensitive personal  
> information.
>
> 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 Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
>
>
> Philip, thanks.
> a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag  
> any areas for the BC members of concern to me.
> I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my  
> comments in this version.
> However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member  
> as the primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of  
> elected positions.  There seems clear merit to distributing work,  
> and avoiding conflicts of interests by putting too many roles into a  
> single party, or small number of individuals. Spreading work, makes  
> lighter work loads, as we all know. It does mean that coordination  
> are important, of course.
> A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have  
> only one year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers.   
> That is what the IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year  
> terms.
> In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body  
> of the section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use  
> the term "Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a  
> continuation of a retained position, and the approach being proposed  
> will allow flexibility to either use contracted services or services  
> from ICANN.
> I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need  
> not adhere to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an  
> elected officer, then one has a duty to adhere to the BC position.  
> Can we discuss when you would envision an executive committee member  
> 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might clear up the  
> confusion for me on that one.
> I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list  
> administrator. I'm not sure that is a separate function from  
> 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid creating someone who is the  
> 'email police', who has to make judgements about other members  
> communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies --  
> and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient  
> communications.
> We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m.
>
> Marilyn
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100
> > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
> > From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> > To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > I attach the latest version for discussion.
> > I believe we are nearly there.
> > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been  
> suggested
> > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text  
> that was
> > to date unaltered.
> >
> > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been  
> proposed
> > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul.
> >
> > Philip
> >
- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109
fax             866-280-2356
web     www.haven2.com
handle	OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,  
Google, etc.)