RE: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter -- concerns about moving to a vote/with only a 7 day window for the vote

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have two urgent questions about the proposed changes to the BC Charter, which 
are addressed to the three officers.
First, my statement of concern:  I am surprised to see that this version is 
presented for a vote, and also a vote that is one half the normal time of 
discussion/voting. Our normal vote period is 14 days. 
I fully appreciate that everyone is pressed for time and resources. However, it 
is distressing to see a vote called for a charter draft that most who have been 
actively participating, expected to be a discussion draft, for final changes. 
That was certainly what was the 'outcome' of the last BC call, according to my 
notes and understanding. While I have not had a chance to fully review the 
proposed draft, I am concerned about how to propose the changes that may still 
be needed.  It seems to me unfair to present this draft as an open vote, 
without honoring the expectations of those who are actively engaging on 
providing input, to make further proposed changes in the draft. 
I have taken a look at one or two of the areas that I had originally objected 
to as 'subjective' and subject to interpretation, and based on this initial 
'quick look', I see significant problems still remain in some areas: 
See 8.2.4, which discusses the right of the list administrator directly, or 
upon the request of one member of the Executive Committee to challenge or even 
suspend a member for 14 days, as the "administrator sees fit". The range of 
items that could lead to suspension include content that is repetitive or goes 
beyond relevant information or is overly lengthy. 
Item 8.2.5 addresses elections and seems to suggest that there is a 'returning 
officer' for the election. This seems to be problemmatic, since the officers 
are themselves subject to election. What is needed is a factual description of 
the steps that are needed to be undertaken. 
Item 15. This is now redrafted to propose that the previous officers will 
continue as caretakers to hold the new elections for the new executive 
committee. This is new, and probably well meant, but presents some challenges.  
If any of the previous officers are standing for election for new posts, they 
need to completely recuse themselves from involvement, and other previous 
officers can be seconded to fulfill such roles in the interim. 
Question to the Officers: Can the officers advise of how changes can be 
submitted to the present draft version? Question to the BC Members: Should we 
be calling for a 'provisional' charter, until we are able to work through the 
changes that are the significant variance points? 

I do want to express my appreciation for the mark up of this version of the 
DRAFT BC Charter.  However, I had also asked for the marked up version for the 
previous draft, when all the substantive changes were added in. It would still 
have been helpful to see how much additional language was added to the original 
charter. Otherwise, we are left to do a line by line 'hand' comparison. 
Short voting period for something this important to the future of the BC: I am 
surprised to see this, especially since so many of the BC members are 
associations who need to take consultation with their own members. This time 
frame seems quite problematic. 
I understand that the Officers are noting that the Board wishes to have 
approved charters by Seoul. But, I am sure that it will not be well received if 
the charter is approved by some members, and openly opposed by others. There 
has to be a better approach. 

Our goal should be to have a BC Charter that has wide understanding, and broad 
support from the members. If we are able to remove subjectivity from the 
language throughout, and establish a stable and predictable, and neutral basis 
to the way that decisions are made, and then interpreted, we will have a 
charter that will help us to attract other associations and companies as 
members.  I 


I have a request as well for more information which I understand that the 
Officers have: I understand that ICANN staff provided a minimally marked up 
version of a Charter, based on the existing charter, quite some time ago, to 
the BC officers. I would ask that the Officers provide that draft and all 
relevant correspondence with staff to the full BC membership as 'background 
resources'.  That might be helpful to determine what language can be reverted 
to, if it is not possible to reach agreement on some necessary changes. 
I will continue my review of the new version of the BC Charter, and will post 
further comments later. 
Marilyn Cade 

From: secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:08:40 +0200











Dear 
Members
 
Ballot on revised BC 
Charter
 
At the request of 
the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 
7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. 
 
A 
majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A 
majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be 
adopted.
 
A ballot form is 
attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by 
the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. 
I 
will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots 
will be acknowledged.
 
The voting period 
closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot 
be accepted after this time.
 
Best 
wishes
Gary
----------------------------------------------------
 
We would like to ask 
all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC 
Charter.
A definitive PDF 
version is attached.
A Word version 
showing recent track changes is also provided for 
information.
 
The Charter 
accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the 
stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO 
council.
As such the BC will 
move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC 
Officers, to a separation of these roles.
There will be a new 
executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two 
representatives to the GNSO Council.
The Charter also 
includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning 
since the last Charter.
The officers have 
done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of 
those perspectives.
The Board has 
requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by 
Seoul.
 
Zahid 
Jamil
Mike 
Rodenbaugh
Philip 
Sheppard
 
BC 
Officers