[bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

["Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am concerned about the point regarding the same companies and even 
individuals participating in multiple constutuencies 

("On a related topic, we think it is important to delete the section on 
"divisional separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited 
resources and should have the flexibility to have the same person or 
overlapping persons representing them on different constituencies.")

In my view we are going ever deeper down the wrong path here. The premise of 
ICANN's multiple constituency structure is to afford different voices a method 
to be heard, and to share knowledge, expertise and perspective with like-minded 
peers along with participating in the broader community. But the morphing of 
this into the idea that the same organization or even person can wear mutliple 
hats and participate as a registrar or registry one day and a user the next, 
this seems wrong to me and at odds with the premise.

Can we not find of way of permitting people to sit in and contribute up to a 
point in various constituencies - in the interests of cross-fertilization and 
acknowledging that the same organization can have different activities - while 
at the same time requiring each member organization to declare one or another 
area as their principle interest vis-a-vis ICANN and that that constituency is 
the place where they have full membership and voting etc?

Thus will get somewhat easier if/when we ever actually get on with creating the 
commercial group, but in the meantime, let's not more deeply embed a bad 
practice.

cheers/Rick 

Rick Anderson 
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd 
email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
cell: (403) 830-1798 


________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
To: HASSAN Ayesha ; BC Secretariat ; BC gnso 
Sent: Wed Oct 21 10:00:55 2009
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon 


All,

I would like to suggest some initial changes to version 16 of the draft 
charter, which includes the good change Ayesha inserted below.   On a related 
topic, we think it is important to delete the section on "divisional 
separation" as many BC members, large and small, have limited resources and 
should have the flexibility to have the same person or overlapping persons 
representing them on different constituencies.  
 
You'll see a number of other edits, including those that soften the tone of the 
charter, focusing more on reasonable practices and less on sanctions.  For 
example, although I understand the intent behind the "solidarity clause," the 
language about "remaining faithful to approved positions" is too vague and 
sounds somewhat totalitarian. Both companies and individuals' positions can 
change.  I don't think we need this language in light of the other language in 
the charter on expected standards of behavior. 
 
I also made changes to clarify that the Consitutency as a whole should decide 
which issues are priority policy issues.  The role of the vice chair for policy 
should more reasonably be to coordinate with members as to which policies are 
priorities, not to make those decisions unilaterally.  Finally, I deleted the 
provision about compliance with "prevailing privacy laws" since there are 
literally thousands of laws and regulations around the world and no one BC 
member can reasonably be expected to know them all.  The language requiring 
general compliance with the care of personal data should be sufficient.
 
Note that all of these are initial proposed changes to this document only.  I 
also liked the draft charter that Marilyn posted earlier and saw it as largely 
non-controversial.  If it is not feasible to work off the many good suggestions 
in her draft, Marilyn should be provided with the opportunity to insert the 
best aspects of that document into the current draft for further consideration. 
 
 
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 
HASSAN Ayesha
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:14 AM
To: BC Secretariat; BC gnso
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon



Dear colleagues,

 

I would like to suggest the addition of clear language in 3.3.2 to ensure that 
business associations like ICC and others who have members who belong to other 
ICANN constituencies are not excluded from BC membership because of the range 
of their membership. See suggested addition below in yellow highlighting and 
underlined. Text to this effect would ensure that business organizations like 
ICC, USCIB and others can remain BC members.

Best regards,

Ayesha

 

3.3. Membership Criteria

3.3.1 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other GNSO 
constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a 
specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to 
represent the interests of businesses described in Article 3.1.

 

3.3.2 To avoid conflicts of interest this excludes: not for profit entities 
excepting trade associations representing for profit entities; entities whose 
prime business is a registry, registry operator, prospective registry, 
registrar, reseller, other domain name supplier interests, or similar; other 
groups whose interests may not be aligned with business users described in 
Article 3.1. Trade associations whose members may also include 
companies/associations that belong to or could belong to any of the other ICANN 
constituencies are not excluded from BC membership.

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of BC 
Secretariat
Sent: mercredi 21 octobre 2009 11:19
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon

 

Posted on behalf of the BC Officers

 

 

Dear Members,

 

Consequent to some queries regarding which draft of the Charter members should 
comment upon.  For clarification and to save the little time left in terms of 
the Charter submission please note that the Charter under discussion and for 
comments is the ‘BC charter 2009 v16.doc’ which is attached for members’ 
convenience.

 

BC Officers

 

 


 
 
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this 
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive 
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of 
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify 
sender at the above e-mail address.
 
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail 
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no 
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like 
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to 
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by 
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent 
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as 
encryption) unless specifically requested.