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
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] 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@verizon.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] 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@aim.be
> To: bc-gnso@icann.org
>
>
> 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
>