ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: Marilyn's Comments on the v16 version of the draft Charter
  • From: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:28:14 -0400

Didn't mean assoc staff excluded. But that mmbrs who are other wise not eligible wld not be allowed to join of and when Are
Executive session
That may be limited to only
Sorry if confusing!

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 22, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am available for a Saturday morning meeting in Seoul.

Marilyn’s 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 BC’s interest, and will not be able to attend or participat e in BC closed sessions, or in policy position development. Associa tions and consulting groups and any other such groups who are BC mem bers are responsible for disclosing any client relationships which a re material to the BC’s interest, both upon application, and upon re newal.

Per the above, I would not be allowed to participate in “BC Closed S essions or in policy position development.”

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
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org

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.


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


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 B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670

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,


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 200 9 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 compa ny do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action t aken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other tha n 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 vi rus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthori zed parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please no tify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is a ssumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

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

<BC charter 2009 v16sd-Marilyn Cade mark up.doc>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy