I, too, support Sarah’s comments.
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From:
Sent: 2009-10-26 18:03
To: Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc:
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC charter
v19
i'm with Sarah on this.
let's get rid of the solidarity language and the privacy language if we
can.
and, if we can't, let's resolve to take this up in "Charter II,
The Sequel" an entertainment event coming to theaters near you as soon as
we have a new executive committee in place. :-)
mikey
On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:
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
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
>
> Philip
>
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)