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
Sarah B.
Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon
Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax:
703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
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,
Ayesha
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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] 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 2009 v16.doc’ which is
attached for members’ convenience.
BC Officers