Colleagues,

 

I am still working through the Charter.  Regarding solidarity though, I suggest that we rephrase the language to ensure that when a member is representing the BC that they are faithful to approved BC positions..  I am not sure that we need the more in-depth language.

 

Thanks,

David

 

 

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.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
>