Posted on behalf of the Officers Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change. Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes. These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording from Sarah. On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of Sarah and Rick, there is no change. However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current charter. There have not been any significant issues with the current wording. Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are well taken and are already covered in article 5.1. The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter which has the following article 8.1: "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal procedures in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more than 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws)". In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers propose we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a vote immediately thereafter. BC Officers
Thanks so much for the changes made thus far. As I won't be in Seoul next week, I wanted to raise the following for your discussions: 1. It appears that the draft still includes the "solidarity" language, which reads: "When a member declares themselves as a Constituency member, they shall remain faithful to approved positions." This vague language to "remain faithful to approved positions" should be toned down to sound like more like a charter for a business organization (right now it sounds a bit like a communist manifesto). If the idea of solidarity must remain in, I'd recommend amending it to say "When a member has voted for a position that has been approved by the Constituency, the member shall make best efforts to promote such positions in their ICANN policymaking activities." 2. The "compliance with privacy laws" language is still problematic. Right now, it reads: "The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency shall ensure compliance with prevailing privacy laws with respect to the care of personal data, and in particular shall not process such data beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected." First, what kind of personally identifiable or sensitive personal information will MEMBERS of the constituency have access to or be "processing"? I'm not sure that members want to have access to sensitive personal information as part of their BC membership. If the Executive Committee and Secretariat want and agree to have access, then this would be fine. I also note that it there are no uniform "prevailing privacy laws." They differ wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Perhaps the Secretariat and Executive Committee could agree to comply with the laws of their respective jurisdictions? 3. In Section 8.25, I'm sure we need special rules for elections, but does it really make sense for BC members to be paying the Secretariat to police the list for repetitive content, and for the "posting of more messages than is proportionate to the issue or the responses from other members thus overburdening others with one particular point of view: typically this may be more than three postings a day from a member or ten a month." These provisions continue to appear to be over the top and are probably unnecessary. Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:44 AM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18 Posted on behalf of the Officers Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change. Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes. These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording from Sarah. On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of Sarah and Rick, there is no change. However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current charter. There have not been any significant issues with the current wording. Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are well taken and are already covered in article 5.1. The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter which has the following article 8.1: "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal procedures in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more than 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws)". In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers propose we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a vote immediately thereafter. BC Officers
Hello everyone Just for clarity -- we are now only working on this draft? We are not considering alternative documents? We are discussing this in Seoul with a view to finalise to a vote in Seoul OR at a date just after? The Charter is then submitted to the Board ASAP as an agreed model? It seems important that we move toward a version which has general support to enable us to make an orderly transition... To that end, is someone preparing to move a motion and second the adoption of (say) version 19 of the Charter with a one week voting period? Liz On 23 Oct 2009, at 00:20, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:
Thanks so much for the changes made thus far. As I won't be in Seoul next week, I wanted to raise the following for your discussions:
1. It appears that the draft still includes the "solidarity" language, which reads: "When a member declares themselves as a Constituency member, they shall remain faithful to approved positions." This vague language to "remain faithful to approved positions" should be toned down to sound like more like a charter for a business organization (right now it sounds a bit like a communist manifesto). If the idea of solidarity must remain in, I'd recommend amending it to say "When a member has voted for a position that has been approved by the Constituency, the member shall make best efforts to promote such positions in their ICANN policymaking activities."
2. The "compliance with privacy laws" language is still problematic. Right now, it reads: "The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency shall ensure compliance with prevailing privacy laws with respect to the care of personal data, and in particular shall not process such data beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected." First, what kind of personally identifiable or sensitive personal information will MEMBERS of the constituency have access to or be "processing"? I'm not sure that members want to have access to sensitive personal information as part of their BC membership. If the Executive Committee and Secretariat want and agree to have access, then this would be fine. I also note that it there are no uniform "prevailing privacy laws." They differ wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Perhaps the Secretariat and Executive Committee could agree to comply with the laws of their respective jurisdictions?
3. In Section 8.25, I'm sure we need special rules for elections, but does it really make sense for BC members to be paying the Secretariat to police the list for repetitive content, and for the "posting of more messages than is proportionate to the issue or the responses from other members thus overburdening others with one particular point of view: typically this may be more than three postings a day from a member or ten a month." These provisions continue to appear to be over the top and are probably unnecessary.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:44 AM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18
Posted on behalf of the Officers
Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change. Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes. These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording from Sarah.
On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of Sarah and Rick, there is no change. However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current charter. There have not been any significant issues with the current wording.
Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are well taken and are already covered in article 5.1. The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter which has the following article 8.1: "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal procedures in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more than 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws)".
In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers propose we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a vote immediately thereafter.
BC Officers
Liz, yes and yes. I will try to do an update of easy edits and group broader questions for our meeting Philip
Hello everyone
Just for clarity -- we are now only working on this draft? We are not considering alternative documents? We are discussing this in Seoul with a view to finalise to a vote in Seoul OR at a date just after? The Charter is then submitted to the Board ASAP as an agreed model?
It seems important that we move toward a version which has general support to enable us to make an orderly transition...
To that end, is someone preparing to move a motion and second the adoption of (say) version 19 of the Charter with a one week voting period?
Liz On 23 Oct 2009, at 00:20, Deutsch, Sarah B wrote:
Thanks so much for the changes made thus far. As I won't be in Seoul next week, I wanted to raise the following for your discussions:
1. It appears that the draft still includes the "solidarity" language, which reads: "When a member declares themselves as a Constituency member, they shall remain faithful to approved positions." This vague language to "remain faithful to approved positions" should be toned down to sound like more like a charter for a business organization (right now it sounds a bit like a communist manifesto). If the idea of solidarity must remain in, I'd recommend amending it to say "When a member has voted for a position that has been approved by the Constituency, the member shall make best efforts to promote such positions in their ICANN policymaking activities."
2. The "compliance with privacy laws" language is still problematic. Right now, it reads: "The Executive Committee, Secretariat, committees and members of the Constituency shall ensure compliance with prevailing privacy laws with respect to the care of personal data, and in particular shall not process such data beyond what is necessary for the purposes for which it was originally collected." First, what kind of personally identifiable or sensitive personal information will MEMBERS of the constituency have access to or be "processing"? I'm not sure that members want to have access to sensitive personal information as part of their BC membership. If the Executive Committee and Secretariat want and agree to have access, then this would be fine. I also note that it there are no uniform "prevailing privacy laws." They differ wildly depending on the jurisdiction. Perhaps the Secretariat and Executive Committee could agree to comply with the laws of their respective jurisdictions?
3. In Section 8.25, I'm sure we need special rules for elections, but does it really make sense for BC members to be paying the Secretariat to police the list for repetitive content, and for the "posting of more messages than is proportionate to the issue or the responses from other members thus overburdening others with one particular point of view: typically this may be more than three postings a day from a member or ten a month." These provisions continue to appear to be over the top and are probably unnecessary.
Sarah
Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:44 AM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter v18
Posted on behalf of the Officers
Sarah, Rick, Waudo thank you for your concrete suggestions for change. Attached is a v18 of the charter showing tracked changes. These changes include most of the helpful clarifications on wording from Sarah.
On the issue of divisional separation, given the opposite views of Sarah and Rick, there is no change. However, its worth noting, this is the same wording as the current charter. There have not been any significant issues with the current wording.
Waudo's points about regional separation for the two Council reps are well taken and are already covered in article 5.1. The reps are also technically from the CSG NOT the constituency, so we have to read this concept in line with the Board-adopted CSG charter which has the following article 8.1: "8.1 ensure that the Recognised Constituencies adopt internal procedures in selecting six (6) GNSO Council representatives such that no more than 3 of the 6 may be domiciled in the same "Geographic Region" (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws)".
In view of this late discussion on the BC charter, the Officers propose we continue discussion in Seoul next week, with a view to moving to a vote immediately thereafter.
BC Officers
participants (4)
-
BC Secretariat -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Liz Williams -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be