RE: [bc-gnso] Results of BC poll on DAGv4 comments

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would disagree that this exercise has proven the need to modify the BC 
Charter to allow the Constituency to adopt a "majority position" when a quorum 
( a majority of BC members) has failed to exercise its voting rights.

Rather, I believe it has illustrated the need to develop a process for the BC 
to take positions with a lead time substantially longer for review of a draft 
position than one week before the filing deadline, and geared toward finding 
the broadest possible consensus among BC members. That statement is in no way 
critical of the individuals who developed the draft position, but of the 
process. A longer lead time and a consensus-focused process is more likely to 
garner a higher voter turnout.


Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey



________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron 
Andruff
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:45 PM
To: 'Steve DelBianco'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Results of BC poll on DAGv4 comments

Thanks for this update, Steve.  And thanks to the Ex Comm for seeing this 
through on short notice according to our Charter.

Regarding the issue of quorum, I think this exercise has proven that we need to 
modify the BC Charter, as has been discussed in the past, to accommodate a 
lower threshold.  Clearly, it is difficult (particularly at this time of year) 
to gather enough members to meet such a high hurdle and thus we should add this 
element to the list when we do our Charter revision vis-à-vis aligning all of 
the Charters of the NCSG constituencies.

Thanks again for taking such expeditious action to enable the BC to post DAGv4 
Public Comments.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 3:29 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Results of BC poll on DAGv4 comments

From: Steve DelBianco, vice chair for policy coordination
To:      BC Members

( Background on this policy poll appears at the end of this email )

On 26-July, GNSO Secretariat (Glen de Saint Géry) downloaded and counted 
ballots for the two BC position statements on DAGv4.
Glen reported there were 24 (twenty four) votes (incl 1 abstention) in the 
bcvote@xxxxxxxxxxxx mailbox.
Glen opened, logged, and counted each vote. The results:
a)  With respect to the "Points 1-3" there were 18 votes of "Support" and 4 
votes of "Do not Support". (One person did not vote in this category)

b)  With respect to the "Rights Protection Mechanism" there were 18 votes of 
"Support" and 5 votes of "Do not Support".

***end of Glen's report***

24 ballots represents 47% of 51 eligible members.   While the BC poll shows 
significant majority support  (82% on points 1-3 and 78% on RPMs), we did not 
reach the quorum required by our Charter, Section 7.4:

A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of 
the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long 
as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% 
of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will 
decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a 
minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate.  
  http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm

Before the results were in, the Executive Committee approved a process in the 
event quorum was not achieved:
Since quorum was not achieved, the Executive Committee will submit the 2 
position statements to ICANN as minority positions, per Section 7.4 of the BC 
Charter.   That is, these positions were approved by a clear majority of those 
voting, but the number of voters was 2 short of the required quorum of 26 (50% 
of 51eligible voters).

On the attached position for "Points 1-3",  18 BC members voted to support, 4 
members voted "Do not Support," and there was 1 abstention.  [attach position]

On the attached position for "Rights Protection Mechanisms", 18 BC members 
voted to support, while 5 members voted "Do not Support."   [attach position]

Using the description above, we will post these 2 position documents to ICANN's 
public comment forum today.   Each comment includes a note explaining the 
voting and failure to reach quorum.

Last week, we alerted staff that the BC would be a few days late with our 
comments.


***  background emails below ***


From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:38:24 -0400
To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Documents and ballot for BC Comments on DAGv4 (poll closes noon EDT 
Friday 23-Jul-2010)

As described in our previous note (repeated below), the BC is now polling 
members to determine support for proposed comments on Draft Applicant Guidebook 
version 4 (DAGv4).

Attached are three documents:

*** Comment part 1: DAGv4 BC points 1-3.pdf
Points 1thru 3:  This proposed comment is a restatement of prior BC comments 
regarding: market differentiation; translations and IDN versions of gTLDs;  and 
community-based evaluation scoring.  Our Rapporteur Ron Andruff updated these 
prior comments to reflect some recommendations of the latest economic analysis 
provided to ICANN.

*** Comment part 2:  DAGv4 BC points on RPMs.pdf
Rights Protection Mechanisms.   Sarah Deutsch and Jon Nevett collaborated on 
this proposed comment, which is based upon the BC "minority statement" we 
approved and submitted on a previous draft of the DAG.

***  A blank ballot form:  BC Polling Form 20-Jul-2010.doc, where you can 
indicate support or non-support for each of these 2 proposed comments.


Voting instructions for BC members:

Attached is your ballot form.   Please complete your ballot and save the 
document to your local computer.   Then attach your saved ballot to an email 
and send to bcvote@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Please use the subject line "DAG4 Comments Vote".  You will receive an auto 
confirmation
of your email.

This mailbox will retain all the ballot emails.  Nobody on the Executive 
Committee has access to this mailbox at this time.

When the voting closes at 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010, we will 
arrange for our Secretariat (or another neutral party) to access and tally the 
ballots.

Reminder:  please submit your ballot by 12:00 noon EDT on Friday 23-July-2010.

Thanks to all who contributed to these draft comments.


------ Forwarded Message
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:14:38 -0400
To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <excomm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Process and polling for BC Comments on DAGv4

From: Marilyn Cade (BC Chair) and Steve DelBianco (vice chair for policy 
coordination)
to:      BC members

Comments on DAGv4 are due to ICANN on 21-July.  Ron Andruff volunteered to be 
BC Rapporteur and worked with Sarah Deutsch to circulate a draft on 14-July.

For the last week, about a dozen BC members debated and exchanged alternate 
drafts via email.  During that discussion,  at least 5 BC members expressed 
opposition to the comment draft.  If opposition reaches 15% of paid membership, 
section 7.4 in our Charter is triggered:

7.4. Approval where there is continued disagreement
Where the discussion mechanism indicates a split in the Constituency of more 
than 15% of the number of members, there will then be a vote (typically by 
e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of members will be 
eligible to vote.

A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% of 
the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so long 
as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum of 50% 
of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Executive Committee will 
decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking of the position or publication of a 
minority position is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate.
http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm

The ability of the BC to comment on DAG 4 is important to many of the members.

The time line has to be modified to do follow the polling process in our 
charter.

The majority of your executive committee supports giving a clean document to 
members to vote/poll in a shortened time frame.

We respect that some of you may not be in agreement with the decision. However, 
we see no other way to achieve a submission within a reasonable time frame. 
Although it will be 2 days late, it will be within a reasonable time frame to 
be considered by ICANN.

Ron Andruff is working with a few others on a clean document that he will 
distribute by 4pm EDT today.  The goal is to for this document to get as close 
as we can to a consensus that all BC members can vote on.

Ron may also distribute additional section(s) that would be subject to a 
separate vote.

We will then conduct a formal members poll to close by noon EDT, Friday 23-July.

We understand that this is not the best option.  But given time pressures, and 
the work that has gone into this from all members, we want to ensure that we do 
all we can to have as much agreement on a core submission as we can, and that 
we find ways to hear the voices and concerns of all members.

------ End of Forwarded Message