<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter
- To: "Deutsch,Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:46:32 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>As a former and present member of the Business
Constituency and as someone whose first ICANN meeting was Rome in the Spring of
'04, I cannot help but see the charter discussion as both essential and
distracting.</div><div><br></div><div>Essential, because in the process-driven
world of ICANN where an undotted "i" or uncrossed "t" can get a prudent
proposal dismissed, the charter is, as they say,
table-stakes.</div><div><br></div><div>Distracting, because as the BC seeks to
grow and influence on behalf of its membership's interests, the exercise gets
the BC no closer to being a "must have" for international business or settling
on a workable set of priorities.</div><div><br></div><div>I will be in
Washington, D.C. for the charter discussions and in support of the work Sarah
and others have done, but my view is to raise it to the highest level of
generality that satisfies the organizational requirement without sucking all
the air out of the Constituency.
</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black;
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter<br>
From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <<a
href="mailto:sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx";>sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Fri, September 24, 2010 1:51 pm<br>
To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <<a
href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</a>>, bc - GNSO list<br>
<<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
Just to weigh in here, we have a deadline to work on our CSG Charter revisions.
It looks like we've tweaked the timing of the BC meeting in October to discuss
the CSG Charter first thing in the morning with the CSG reps and any others who
wish to attend. This timing will make sure that those of you who don't want to
be tortured by this discussion don't have to attend so early. Of course,
anyone who is interested is more than welcome to join. Again, just to
reiterate our discussion of this topic in Brussels, the CSG Charter should be a
noncontroversial exercise. It will be high level document leaving much of the
actual policy decisionmaking to each Constituency.<br>
<br>
Mikey is correct that the BC Charter was only supposed to be an interim
document. The same new GNSO Structural Improvements/Operating Procedures,
which our Councilors voted in favor of now require us to update the BC Charter.
Mikey lists below an excellent summary of many of the issues that need to be
addressed. In addition, some of the other areas these procedures now require
us to address include adding provisions about term limits, transparency,
financial accountability and record keeping, voting remedies, etc.<br>
<br>
This is not to say we need to scrap the current Charter we all worked so hard
to create. It will primarily be an exercise of updating and adding. <br>
<br>
Philip asks whether the BC has better things to do and whether some of the
elected officers have "sufficient experience" to work on the BC Charter update.
I've only been the CSG rep for a short time, but I think we realize that we
are all volunteers here. I personally have nearly 25 years working as an
attorney on many legal issues that are much more complicated than a Charter
update. My recommendation is that since we are required to update our Charter
anyway, it seems to make sense to take a shot at it now. We can talk to other
constituencies, ask questions of ICANN staff and make sure that this is an
open, collaborative and cordial process. Or we could wait and hope that next
year's officers have "sufficient experience." <br>
<br>
Sarah<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sarah B. Deutsch <br>
Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>
Verizon Communications <br>
Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>
Fax: 703-351-3670 <br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>] On
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor<br>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:39 AM<br>
To: bc - GNSO list<br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter<br>
<br>
<br>
hi all,<br>
<br>
i've read through our current charter just to remind myself of the major issues
we were working on when we drafted it. my sense when we passed it on up the
chain was that it was an interim document that was going to get revised once we
had a better feel for the CSG charter (one "layer" above us in the GNSO) and
after we'd had some experience with its day-to-day implementation (the kinds of
things that i bet Chris has on his list).<br>
<br>
so i'll join the chorus that is saying that this review of our charter is a
Good Thing, and that this is about the right time to do it.<br>
<br>
here are some of the big issues that i recall (hastily constructed after a
quick reading, i'm probably missing a few);<br>
<br>
-- membership -- whether/how consultants and new-gTLD-applicants fit in our
membership focus. <br>
<br>
-- disclosure -- whether consultants/lawyers/etc. needed to disclose their
clients and the interests of those clients (we've got a new framework from the
GNSO to incorporate into this one)<br>
<br>
-- Credentials Committee -- processes for members to appeal if their
application is denied, and processes for disciplining members <br>
<br>
-- GNSO Council representatives -- the "each constituency elects 2" structure
was an interim thing awaiting decisions further up the food-chain<br>
<br>
-- Executive Committee -- this charter created the Executive Committee and
their roles out of thin air, so there well may be a number of tweaks that need
to be applied based on experience<br>
<br>
-- Finance and Policy Committees -- again, created from whole cloth.
experience may be a good teacher here as well.<br>
<br>
-- Policy-development process -- thresholds for adopting policy positions,
process, etc.<br>
<br>
-- role and supervision of the Secretariat -- this was substantially changed,
again experience may be a good teacher<br>
<br>
-- standards of behavior -- a very tough issue that may be informed by
subsequent work of various players<br>
<br>
-- the level of accountability, authority and responsibility that apply to (and
between) Council reps, Excom members and the constituency -- this one clearly
needs work and clarification<br>
<br>
as i say, this is just the highlights through a foggy memory -- but i think
it's a reasonable starting point for an "issues list" for discussion. i'm not
sure we need to revisit all of these, but i'm perfectly fine with the decision
by our leadership to take a look at the charter now that we've had some
experience with it.<br>
<br>
mikey<br>
<br>
- - - - - - - - -<br>
phone 651-647-6109 <br>
fax 866-280-2356 <br>
web <a href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a><br>
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|