ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


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

[bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter

  • To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:15:05 -0400

I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul.

Marilyn¹s edits include one item that NetChoice cannot support:
> 3.2.2 Subject to Articles 3.3 and 3.4, any organization such as a trade
> association representing entities described in 3.2.1. 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,
> but are required to maintain the focus on business user perspectives and
> positions; any such members would be viewed as having a conflict of interest
> with the BC¹s interest, and will not be able to attend or participate in BC
> closed sessions, or in policy position development.  Associations and
> consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC members are responsible
> for disclosing any client relationships which are material to the BC¹s
> interest, both upon application, and upon renewal.
> 
Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in ³BC Closed Sessions
or in policy position development.²

In my 4 years on the BC I have regularly disclosed the fact that I have
members in the Registry constituency and in the IP Constituency.    I have
consistently advocated positions that are common to both my BC and non-BC
member companies.   Where there are conflicts among my members, I have often
advocated the BC position (WHOIS, eliminating tasting, preventing abuse in
new TLDs, etc.).

Within the BC, I will continue to disclose membership and to represent only
those interests beneficial to BC members.    But if I would not be allowed
to participate in policy development, I see no point in remaining part of
the BC. 

-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482 

On 10/22/09 9:29 AM, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear BC colleagues
> Like 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.
> 
> 
> 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
> 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.doc¹ which is attached for members¹
> 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 sender¹s 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 sender¹s 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.
>        
> 
> -- 
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482 
> 

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



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy