Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The privacy requirements shld not exceed ICANN's own requirements. Members can 
decide to display their contact details, or not, in the membership list. 

However, elected and appointed officers or councilors, nomcomm appointees, 
credentials committee reps, etc.,  cannot choose to fail to provide contact 
information to members. The BC can provide a BC email address if the elected 
officers/appointed officers/reps prefer to do that, as the Bd does... 

Finally, the BC charter is MUCH more detailed than other groups charters and 
goes into prescription on many things others do not address. Why are we not 
looking at the other charters as I have asked numerous times to try to have a 
streamlined charter, and then move contentious items off to a post election 
process?

Secondly, we really cannot move to 25 per cent on raising objections - let's do 
the math. 

41 members-25 % = 10 members. there are 18 attending people/but not 18 unique 
entities  at Seoul and three active parties  following remotely and posting - 
David Fares, Sarah Deustch/with her company here as well, and Mikey. You must 
assume that that "we" are the most active of the members. 

So, according to V19's proposal, by moving to 25% to raise objections that 
would trigger a vote, we are asking for too high a threshhold to at least get 
an opportunity to consider a change in a draft position or ensure that the full 
membership considers and acclaims support, or opposition to positions. 

Let's keep 10% for now and debate whether to raise that at a next stage. 

But I will reask the question again- is the charter v19 too detailed? I would 
venture that the mere fact that we got up to v16 before any discussion and are 
even AT a v19 is a very bad "indicator". 

I spoke to a member of the BC recently who might be expected to have read the 
Charter - because that person is with an association member. That person asked 
me to explain the charter to them, and acknowledged that they didn't have time 
to study it..... I say that with the interest of supporting members needs, not 
to be critical. 

We need to try to make this a transitional charter-- if we have details that 
are raising the degree of concern across this number of members, then remove 
those areas, have a streamlined charter. Hold the elections, and creat a 
charter redrafting team. 

Marilyn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:53:57 
To: <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19

1024x768 Clean false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 
 
I would like to propose some alternative language in regards the following: 
  
7.5. Solidarity 
Whenever a member speaks publicly within or to the ICANN community meetings and 
indicates to others that they are a Constituency member, it is likely that 
their view, statement or conduct may be interpreted by the ICANN community to 
be a Constituency approved position.  As such, members are expected, when 
communicating on such occasions to ensure that their statement(s) and conduct 
do not undermine, prejudice or detract from an approved Constituency 
position(s).  This will not affect a member's right to communicate their own 
view, if distinct from an approved Constituency position(s) by clarifying that 
such a statement may differ from and does not reflect the approved Constituency 
position.  Members of the Executive Committee are required to support approved 
constituency positions at all times. Both Members and Executive Committee 
Members may communicate dissent to a Constituency position providing they make 
it clear they are communicating in their personal capacity. 
  
  
  
10. Privacy of personal data 
The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the 
Constituency will ensure privacy of member's and/or their representatives' 
personal or personally identifiable data, and in particular shall not deal with 
such data in a manner beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it 
was originally collected.  Members may also decide to make such additional 
aspects of their data available for disclosure and may consent to any such 
disclosure by waiving such privacy requirements. 
  
[Maybe we could list/identify what sort of data we are targeting even if don't 
necessarily put it into the draft it may help with explaining to all us members 
what we mean.] 
  
  
  
  
 
  
Sincerely, 
  
Zahid Jamil 
Barrister-at-law 
Jamil & Jamil 
Barristers-at-law 
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe 
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan 
Cell: +923008238230 
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 
Fax: +92 21 5655026 
www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 
  
Notice / Disclaimer 
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited. 
  
 
 
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Deutsch, Sarah B
 Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:43 AM
 To: Marilyn Cade; Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 
  
I concur that the idea of a one year term should be given serious 
consideration.  The IPC has followed this model and it works well. 

 I see that the overly broad "solidarity" language still remains in the 
draft.  Despite suggestions to try to figure how how more accurately the 
language to situations where members are speaking publicly to the ICANN 
community, the language remains unchanged.   As Marilyn notes correctly below, 
instead of drafting solidarity language that actually explains what the problem 
is and how to implement it in a narrow manner, the draft goes in the opposite 
direction by allowing executive committee members a carve out from BC positions 
when they speak in their personal capacity.  If anyone has an obligation to 
adhere to the "solidarity" principle without the opportunity to give mixed 
messages publicly or privately, it should be executive committee members. 
  
Finally, I note that the troubling privacy language remains in the draft 
unchanged.  No one has answered the fundamental question of whether ordinary BC 
members will be gaining access to personally identifiable or sensitive personal 
information (and what information that is) and how ordinary BC members are 
allegedly "processing" such information. Other BC members can weigh in, but we 
do not want to have any access to sensitive personal information as part of our 
BC membership.  As mentioned earlier, requiring compliance with "prevailing 
privacy laws" is meaningless since such laws differ signficantly depending on 
jurisdiction.  At a minimum ONLY the Secretariat and Exec Committee Members 
should be subject to this language assuming they may have access to sensitive 
personal information. 
  
  
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 
Marilyn Cade
 Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:25 AM
 To: Philip Sheppard; bc - GNSO list
 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19 

 Philip, thanks.
 a few initial comments, and then I'll read through again and flag any areas 
for the BC members of concern to me.
  
 I appreciate that you have now been able to incorporate some of my comments in 
this version.
 However, I had asked to have a specially designated elected member as the 
primary CSG rep, and I'd like that added into the list of elected positions.  
There seems clear merit to distributing work, and avoiding conflicts of 
interests by putting too many roles into a single party, or small number of 
individuals. Spreading work, makes lighter work loads, as we all know. It does 
mean that coordination are important, of course. 
  
 A change that I feel strongly about is that the officers should have only one 
year terms, with a term limit of no more than three yaers.  That is what the 
IPC does, and it seems prudent to move to one year terms. 
  
 In 4.8, we need to make the description consistent within the body of the 
section to secretariat services, rather than continue to use the term 
"Secretariat", since the members haven't supported a continuation of a retained 
position, and the approach being proposed will allow flexibility to either use 
contracted services or services from ICANN. 
  
 I see that this now proposes that executive committee members need not adhere 
to the BC position. This goes too far. If one is an elected officer, then one 
has a duty to adhere to the BC position. Can we discuss when you would envision 
an executive committee member 'acting in their individual capacity'? That might 
clear up the confusion for me on that one. 
  
 I see that this charter is continuing to propose a list administrator. I'm not 
sure that is a separate function from 'secretariat services'. We want to avoid 
creating someone who is the 'email police', who has to make judgements about 
other members communications; I don't see that function in other constituencies 
-- and suggest that we simply have principled approaches to efficient 
communications.
  
 We can briefly discuss the CSG representative at the huddle this p.m. 
  
 Marilyn
  
 
 
  
 > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:27:20 +0100
 > Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v19
 > From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
 > To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
 > 
 > 
 > I attach the latest version for discussion.
 > I believe we are nearly there.
 > It factors in the majority of clarifying redrafts that have been suggested
 > with the exception of redrafts that replaced current charter text that was
 > to date unaltered.
 > 
 > I will pull out those few remaining bigger changes that have been proposed
 > for discussion at the BC meeting in Seoul.
 > 
 > Philip
 >