ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] Question regarding "HOUSE" meeting on Saturday/: Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter

  • To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Question regarding "HOUSE" meeting on Saturday/: Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
  • From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:29:10 -0400

Dear BC colleaguesLike some, I am headed to an airport for a 20+ hour flight 
--arriving late on Friday night in Seoul.
Re CHARTER Changes: I have followed up and inserted my earlier ideas and 
concepts into the version of v16 that has Sarah Deutsch's additions and 
includes the additions of some of the association members. 
I added back in the separate designation of a uniquely elected CSG 
representative, as the primary CSG rep, backed up by an alternate of either the 
Chair, or the V.C. of operations and finance.
I also added in some clarifications regarding fair and transparent treatment of 
members who offer services as a core business. While these are often called 
'consultants', for example, my own micro enterprise provides advice, strategy, 
and in some cases, what are called 'general consulting services'. We have had a 
tendency to have a category called consultants, which probably isn't necessary, 
unless we are seeking to recruit individuals who may not have incorporated 
businesses.  Sole proprietatorships may be a category.  Many constituencies do 
not allow individual members. I am  not clear from the charter on whether the 
BC does, or not, or whether we require all members to be incorporated as either 
a business, or trade association, or law firm, service provider, etc. 
The complexity of the changes embodied in the proposed charter are significant 
and deserve to be discussed. The original charter, which I helped to draft in 
2001 was MUCH simplier.  I understand that the Board requires documents two 
weeks in advance, and aren't expecting complex charter changes. 
Since we can't have a formal vote that is inclusive of all members before the 
end of the ICANN board meeting, and since the Board is discussing GNSO Reform 
on Saturday and Sunday, I'm not clear on what our plan is regarding 1) 
discussion of the charter 2) incorporation of proposed changes that are still 
coming in 3) establishing a voting schedule 4) holding elections to replace 
offices who are term limited, etc. 
Separately, I understand that there is a 'house meeting' on Saturday at 9 a.m.
Can the BC officers post the proposed agenda for that to the BC members? 
It would also be good to have a 'huddle' of BC members with the officers before 
the "house" meeting -- perhaps at 8 a.m.? Is that feasible? 
I arrive too late Friday evening to participate in a meeting, but can be 
available as of 7 a.m. on Saturday. 
Marilyn Cade 

From: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:50:46 -0400

et me first respond to Sarah's suggestion about some of what was in the marked 
up version of the Current BC Charter. I'll look at what Sarah did, and then  
comment on top of her comments on what is being called v.16. That won't happen 
until early Thursday, since I'm crashing on work related to broader ICANN 
comments re the meta issues of accountability, etc.  That way, Sarah's 
comments, my comments will all be in 'version v.16'. I think we have to try to 
have coherent and thoughtful discussions about some of these issues and they 
can't take place on the fly, or under a crisis time frame, or without the full 
ability of a broad and diverse group of members to participate.  Perhaps all of 
us can come away from the Seoul meeting with a better and broader understanding 
about schedules with a better understanding of how the GNSO restructuring is 
progressing, and what flexibility there is. 

Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification as to which draft Charter to comment upon
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:52:24 -0600
From: RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

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 


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


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 
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 
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 

Sarah B. 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Phone: 703-351-3044

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of HASSAN 
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

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

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

Posted on behalf of the BC 
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 
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.                             

Attachment: BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc
Description: MS-Word document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy