A call to eliminate artificial barriers to BC participation

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

 All,
 I am a member in good-standing of the Commercial and Business Users 
Constituency (and will be even if the new charter is approved), but I oppose 
one specific section of the proposed new charter that will make participation 
harder for all small business in every global region.
 I refer to section “5.1.2 Ineligible Organizations” and its sub-section (b) 
which sets new limits on who can and cannot participate. It will deny 
membership to “Entities which derive more than 30 percent of annual revenue as 
a registry operator, registrar, or domain name reseller (collectively, 
'Contracted Parties').”
 The current Charter has a limit of 50 percent of such revenue. It is 
understood, though not clear, that the limit is not just on revenue derived as 
a “registry operator, registrar or domain name reseller” but in support of such 
contracted parties.
 The proposed charter change creates three problems that serve to disadvantage 
small business and will likely slow the growth of membership diversity, a key 
ICANN and community goal.
 First, it ignores the nature of the work. A consultant may have subject matter 
expertise (e.g., I have long worked on matters of privacy) which can be 
valuable to a contracted party without being related to the sale and management 
of domain names. 
 The proposed charter draws no such distinction. It should.
 Second, it ignores the fact that economic self-interest (which is harder to 
measure but a more meaningful metric of intent) often has less to do with 
annual revenue than with potential financial benefit derived from warrants or 
shares held in client companies.
 For larger companies, this may not much of a consideration, but for small 
consultancies, these are the bets we make on ourselves. They are not reflected 
in annual revenue until they are paid. But they certainly are motivation and a 
measure of economic self-interest. 
 The proposed charter draws no such distinction. It should.
 Third, a small business consultancy is, by definition, more susceptible to 
shifts in opportunity. The normal mix of project and on-going work makes it 
difficult, year-over-year, exactly to predict its revenue totals or know its 
client mix. Because of this, almost any revenue limit runs the risk of being 
too high, whipsawing eligibility. That is not a recipe for growth or stability.
 The proposed charter draws no such distinction. It should.
 The legacy revenue limit of 50 percent offered, at least, a degree of 
assurance against this instability. A limit of 30 percent more likely 
guarantees that instability.
 It is my request that the Board of ICANN reject the proposed charter until the 
charter eliminates any revenue limit on participation or, at the least, retains 
the previous revenue limit of 50 percent.
 Sincerely,
 
John Berard
Founder
Credible Context