Ballot for a new BC Charter
Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
Hello, I, and other members, had been under the impression that there would be a set period to review the new updated draft charter, to allow for another round of comments and revisions, before going to a vote. Yet, now the officers seem to be calling for a vote on a seriously flawed charter. My company cannot support the draft charter, and will leave the constituency if it is adopted. While this will cause glee to certain members who seek to stifle free speech that counters their positions and who wish to use the BC as a mechanism to further their extremist positions that are not reflective of businesses, I think all should actually re-read what you're agreeing to if you accept the charter. I previously submitted comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html and many of the important concerns remain. In particular, referencing the latest draft: 1. Section 3.4.2 states membership can be reviewed if: "a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent, that contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency;" I said it before in my previous comments. This means that Constituency members would not be permitted to externally voice dissent or act against an adopted position of the BC. It's shocking that this provision survived a revision of the charter. Other constituencies do not have this provision, and for good reason. If a registrar or registry or IP holder feels strongly against something that their respective constituency votes for, they are not bound by that position as an organization --- they are free to submit their own comments to ICANN, or to the DOC/DOJ/NTIA, or to politicians, or in the courts if the matter is serious enough. The same holds for trade associations within the BC -- members of AIM, CADNA, ICA, ETNO, ICC, USCIB or WITSA are certainly not externally limited in their behaviour if they disagree with a position of their trade association. I don't see how *any* BC member can support 3.4.2, unless they are not actually reading the words that they're voting for, or they wish to engage in voluntary servitude. (2) There are so many other flaws in the charter, that one should simply re-read: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html most of which still ring true, despite the conference call we had. For example, positions all over the place are "appointed" instead of elected, use the "up to" language, deny an elected treasurer and secretary, is anti-free speech (truth is not important), etc. etc. Given the existing officers have failed to deliver an acceptable charter, I believe that the process going forward to create a new charter should consist of the formation of a committee of volunteer members (excluding the current officers) to draft a new charter. As a starting point, we (and I would volunteer to help take on the work) can use the City-Top Level Domain constituency charter, which was relatively balanced (although would need some modifications), see: http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-reda... Of course, after a new draft is prepared, the existing officers and all other members would be free to comment on it, before another round (or rounds) of revisions and ultimately a vote. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM, BC Secretariat <secretariat@bizconst.org> wrote:
Dear Members
Ballot on revised BC Charter
At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------------------------
We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information.
The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul.
Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard
BC Officers
I support George on the additional period for review. I also gathered the same from the Conference call but after the call there has been no call for additional comments including those from members who were not on the call. Waudo On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:59 -0400, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
I, and other members, had been under the impression that there would be a set period to review the new updated draft charter, to allow for another round of comments and revisions, before going to a vote. Yet, now the officers seem to be calling for a vote on a seriously flawed charter.
My company cannot support the draft charter, and will leave the constituency if it is adopted. While this will cause glee to certain members who seek to stifle free speech that counters their positions and who wish to use the BC as a mechanism to further their extremist positions that are not reflective of businesses, I think all should actually re-read what you're agreeing to if you accept the charter.
I previously submitted comments at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html
and many of the important concerns remain. In particular, referencing the latest draft:
1. Section 3.4.2 states membership can be reviewed if:
"a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent, that contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency;"
I said it before in my previous comments. This means that Constituency members would not be permitted to externally voice dissent or act against an adopted position of the BC. It's shocking that this provision survived a revision of the charter. Other constituencies do not have this provision, and for good reason. If a registrar or registry or IP holder feels strongly against something that their respective constituency votes for, they are not bound by that position as an organization --- they are free to submit their own comments to ICANN, or to the DOC/DOJ/NTIA, or to politicians, or in the courts if the matter is serious enough. The same holds for trade associations within the BC -- members of AIM, CADNA, ICA, ETNO, ICC, USCIB or WITSA are certainly not externally limited in their behaviour if they disagree with a position of their trade association.
I don't see how *any* BC member can support 3.4.2, unless they are not actually reading the words that they're voting for, or they wish to engage in voluntary servitude.
(2) There are so many other flaws in the charter, that one should simply re-read:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html
most of which still ring true, despite the conference call we had. For example, positions all over the place are "appointed" instead of elected, use the "up to" language, deny an elected treasurer and secretary, is anti-free speech (truth is not important), etc. etc.
Given the existing officers have failed to deliver an acceptable charter, I believe that the process going forward to create a new charter should consist of the formation of a committee of volunteer members (excluding the current officers) to draft a new charter. As a starting point, we (and I would volunteer to help take on the work) can use the City-Top Level Domain constituency charter, which was relatively balanced (although would need some modifications), see:
http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-reda...
Of course, after a new draft is prepared, the existing officers and all other members would be free to comment on it, before another round (or rounds) of revisions and ultimately a vote.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM, BC Secretariat <secretariat@bizconst.org> wrote:
Dear Members
Ballot on revised BC Charter
At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------------------------
We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information.
The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul.
Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard
BC Officers
I have two urgent questions about the proposed changes to the BC Charter, which are addressed to the three officers. First, my statement of concern: I am surprised to see that this version is presented for a vote, and also a vote that is one half the normal time of discussion/voting. Our normal vote period is 14 days. I fully appreciate that everyone is pressed for time and resources. However, it is distressing to see a vote called for a charter draft that most who have been actively participating, expected to be a discussion draft, for final changes. That was certainly what was the 'outcome' of the last BC call, according to my notes and understanding. While I have not had a chance to fully review the proposed draft, I am concerned about how to propose the changes that may still be needed. It seems to me unfair to present this draft as an open vote, without honoring the expectations of those who are actively engaging on providing input, to make further proposed changes in the draft. I have taken a look at one or two of the areas that I had originally objected to as 'subjective' and subject to interpretation, and based on this initial 'quick look', I see significant problems still remain in some areas: See 8.2.4, which discusses the right of the list administrator directly, or upon the request of one member of the Executive Committee to challenge or even suspend a member for 14 days, as the "administrator sees fit". The range of items that could lead to suspension include content that is repetitive or goes beyond relevant information or is overly lengthy. Item 8.2.5 addresses elections and seems to suggest that there is a 'returning officer' for the election. This seems to be problemmatic, since the officers are themselves subject to election. What is needed is a factual description of the steps that are needed to be undertaken. Item 15. This is now redrafted to propose that the previous officers will continue as caretakers to hold the new elections for the new executive committee. This is new, and probably well meant, but presents some challenges. If any of the previous officers are standing for election for new posts, they need to completely recuse themselves from involvement, and other previous officers can be seconded to fulfill such roles in the interim. Question to the Officers: Can the officers advise of how changes can be submitted to the present draft version? Question to the BC Members: Should we be calling for a 'provisional' charter, until we are able to work through the changes that are the significant variance points? I do want to express my appreciation for the mark up of this version of the DRAFT BC Charter. However, I had also asked for the marked up version for the previous draft, when all the substantive changes were added in. It would still have been helpful to see how much additional language was added to the original charter. Otherwise, we are left to do a line by line 'hand' comparison. Short voting period for something this important to the future of the BC: I am surprised to see this, especially since so many of the BC members are associations who need to take consultation with their own members. This time frame seems quite problematic. I understand that the Officers are noting that the Board wishes to have approved charters by Seoul. But, I am sure that it will not be well received if the charter is approved by some members, and openly opposed by others. There has to be a better approach. Our goal should be to have a BC Charter that has wide understanding, and broad support from the members. If we are able to remove subjectivity from the language throughout, and establish a stable and predictable, and neutral basis to the way that decisions are made, and then interpreted, we will have a charter that will help us to attract other associations and companies as members. I I have a request as well for more information which I understand that the Officers have: I understand that ICANN staff provided a minimally marked up version of a Charter, based on the existing charter, quite some time ago, to the BC officers. I would ask that the Officers provide that draft and all relevant correspondence with staff to the full BC membership as 'background resources'. That might be helpful to determine what language can be reverted to, if it is not possible to reach agreement on some necessary changes. I will continue my review of the new version of the BC Charter, and will post further comments later. Marilyn Cade From: secretariat@bizconst.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:08:40 +0200 Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
The ICA is concerned that BC members are being asked to vote within one week upon a very modestly revised proposed charter that has just been made available for review. However, without substantial further change the potential of proposed Section 3.4.2 to stifle free speech and the ability of individual BC members to pursue and protect their interests where they have a legitimate disagreement with a BC position on an ICANN policy issue is unacceptable and would require that we cast a vote against the Charter. Based upon comments made during the Constituency call to discuss the proposed Charter we expected to see far more sweeping changes to this Section than have been made. While members of trade and other professional organizations sometimes voluntarily resign from an organization when it takes a position that is unacceptable to them it is highly unusual to have members threatened with involuntary expulsion when they disagree with an organization's position on a given issue and pursue their own interests independently. If a conscientious effort is made to enforce this provision it will likely result in either a substantial diminution of BC members or a push toward vague and mushy positions on key policy issues. If any provision like this remains in the Charter we would advocate setting the bar for adopting positions on Policy issues at a much higher threshold than 51% of a 50% of total votes quorum, since that would allow for adoption of a Policy position by a mere 26% of total BC votes yet would subject members to potential discipline or expulsion for public disagreement with the adopted policy position. I have set forth some specific questions regarding the provisions of Section 3.4.2 below. 3.4.2 Review Membership may be reviewed by the Credentials Committee at any time, if there is a change in the circumstances of the member that may impact on its qualification for membership or if the member engages in inappropriate behaviour. A review may be done upon request by any member at the discretion of the Executive Committee. A review must include a thorough examination and may include a review of supporting documentation. A review is not limited to but may be indicated when: * a member takes action, beyond mere internal communication of dissent, that contravenes an adopted position of the Constituency and thus would be pursuing interests that may not be aligned with the Constituency; What is "mere internal communication of dissent"? Does this term solely cover dissent voiced within the confines of the BC or does it allow for communication of dissent within internal ICANN processes (which, by its nature, whether written or oral, becomes public and therefore could be regarded as external)? * a member by their action leads directly or indirectly to another member resigning from the Constituency; Why should a member be subject to discipline if their legitimate activities cause another member to depart from the BC - especially if it is only an indirect cause of the action? * a member acts as a spokesperson for another organisation whose interests are not aligned with the Constituency; As members are all corporations, trade association, or consultancies - that is, businesses - how could a business act as a spokesperson for another business? * a member acts in conflict to this Charter, or in particular acts in conflict with Articles 8 - 10 of this Charter; Without getting into the merits of Section 8-10, much of which seem vague and subjective, since a member can already be subject to 14 day suspension under Section 8 for such conduct as making a comment about a BC employee or contractor (and where else but within the BC would one make such comment?) or posting more than ten e-mails in a month (that is, 2.5 per week) even when the BC may be involved in vigorous internal debate on a policy issue, why is it necessary to have additional penalties, including expulsion, available? Also, as Section 9.5 states: 9.5 Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view; Does that mean that members on the losing side of a BC policy debate can seek disciplinary action against members of the majority if they believe that such members did not sincerely seek to understand their POV? (I realize that some of these comments may seem divorced from probable reality - but the reality is that we are being asked to vote on a Charter that literally says that a member can be disciplined for failing to see to understand another member's viewpoint.) * a member engages in acts which appear to be inappropriate for the stability, functionality or bona fide reputation of the Constituency; No question -- but "inappropriate" conduct damaging to the BC's "reputation" is an awfully subjective basis for discipline. * a member is or threatens to be a vexatious litigant; What is a "vexatious" litigant, as opposed to an ordinary litigant? And litigant against whom or what? * a member's circumstances are such that would be grounds for a refusal of an initial application. After such review the Credentials Committee by simple majority may apply the following depending on the circumstances: * a formal written warning; * a period of suspension of all Constituency privileges; * termination of membership in the Constituency. Such termination must be endorsed by the Executive Committee. Except for instances where the member would no longer qualify for membership, termination must be preceded by at least one other disciplinary action. Before any disciplinary action may take effect the member subject to the action will have: * an opportunity to review the complaint * an opportunity to provide a response to the Committee. Credentials and Executive Committee members who are affected by the disputed behavior will recuse themselves from the discipline process. Since a member's freedom of speech and ability to protect its interests are put at risk by this disciplinary process under rather vague and subjective standards, why is there no appeals process by which a member can seek review of what it considers inappropriate disciplinary action -- perhaps by the overall membership of the BC? All that said, I think our starting point should be an assumption that members of the BC, who have chosen to pay dues and expend time on BC activities, in a belief that such participation improves the overall functioning of ICANN and business community interests broadly defined, should be assumed to be represented by responsible adults who know how to conduct themselves in a civil manner and will generally work toward consensus. I simply don't see how subjecting members or potential BC members to significant disciple under vague and subjective standards, and by threatening members with expulsion when they are on the losing end of a BC policy debate and continue, as any business would, to pursue their own interest, can possibly help expand the membership ranks or reputation of the BC. Involuntary suspension or expulsion of a duly admitted BC member should be reserved for only the most extreme and clearly defined circumstances - that the nature of its business has changed to the extent where it would no longer be eligible for admission, it has been convicted of a criminal offense, has made undocumented charges against another member that appear libelous, etc. Trying to enforce standards of behavior of professionals over policy disagreements really goes too far and threatens to saddle the BC with a reputation that will marginalize it.. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
hi all, i'd like to join the chorus of people who are raising concerns about this charter, and the process by which it is going to be adopted. sorry i'm so late to the party but i'm ferrying my son's car to him and have been on the road all day. Philip, i volunteered to help with revisions to the charter but didn't hear from you last week. i just want to make it clear to the group that i wasn't involved in preparing this draft and don't support it. like others, i find it still doesn't address the due-process concerns that have been raised and were discussed on the member teleconference. i'll try to get back on the list with some more constructive suggestions once i've had a chance to look things over, but this charter's a non-starter in my view. mikey On Oct 13, 2009, at 7:08 AM, BC Secretariat wrote:
Dear Members
Ballot on revised BC Charter
At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------------------------
We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information.
The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice- chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul.
Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard
BC Officers<BC charter 2009 final for vote.pdf><BC charter 2009 v15.doc><Ballot Form Charter 2009.doc>
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Before we all go ahead and force a vote, it seems that enough substantive and process concerns have been raised about the draft to reconsider the next steps. On process alone, the seven day turnaround time will not work well for many companies and especially for associations who need to consult with their members. On substance, it seems that the most productive task at this point would be to work on a more streamlined, neutral charter. Also, can someone explain the timing of when (if at all) the BC may eventually merge into a larger constituency? Thanks, 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 BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
I add my voice to the call for more work to be done on the charter revisions before any vote is taken. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: 2009-10-13 20:08 To: BC Secretariat; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Before we all go ahead and force a vote, it seems that enough substantive and process concerns have been raised about the draft to reconsider the next steps. On process alone, the seven day turnaround time will not work well for many companies and especially for associations who need to consult with their members. On substance, it seems that the most productive task at this point would be to work on a more streamlined, neutral charter. Also, can someone explain the timing of when (if at all) the BC may eventually merge into a larger constituency? Thanks, 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 BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
I too add my voice to this call for additional work before a vote. Best regards, Ayesha ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: mercredi 14 octobre 2009 10:22 To: 'BC Secretariat'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter I add my voice to the call for more work to be done on the charter revisions before any vote is taken. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: 2009-10-13 20:08 To: BC Secretariat; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Before we all go ahead and force a vote, it seems that enough substantive and process concerns have been raised about the draft to reconsider the next steps. On process alone, the seven day turnaround time will not work well for many companies and especially for associations who need to consult with their members. On substance, it seems that the most productive task at this point would be to work on a more streamlined, neutral charter. Also, can someone explain the timing of when (if at all) the BC may eventually merge into a larger constituency? Thanks, 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 BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter Dear Members Ballot on revised BC Charter At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter. A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted. A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged. The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time. Best wishes Gary ---------------------------------------------------- We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information. The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice-chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul. Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard BC Officers
The officers are discussing this and will revert to members as soon as time zone delays allow. There are certain knock-on effects of not voting before Seoul to consider.
Hello, On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
The officers are discussing this and will revert to members as soon as time zone delays allow. There are certain knock-on effects of not voting before Seoul to consider.
And really, whose fault is that? The members who submit comments immediately upon receipt of the draft charters? Or the officers have been delaying charter reform for months. If it means that the officers don't get a free trip to wine and dine in Seoul, I can live with that. If it means we temporarily lose our voting rights in the GNSO, I can also live with that, given that the IP and ISP constituencies routinely vote the exact same way we do. Two BC members have explicitly asked about/demanded that we merge into the larger constituency (i.e. joining the IP and ISP constituencies into one superconstituency), and I'd echo their points: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00523.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00519.html Another member has asked for the "minimally marked up" version of the charter that ICANN staff provided long ago: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00520.html When you "revert to members", don't ignore these questions like you typically do. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
hello all, given that time is short, and we need to have a charter in place at Seoul, how about this for an idea? - put forth at least two competing charters and vote between them, rather than on just one. maybe one of the proposed charters could be based on the staff-supplied charter template? either way the vote comes out, we'll have a charter (plus a sense of which charter approach the group prefers). - approve an instruction to the (new) officers that we revise that interim charter in an orderly/thoughtful/less-harried way over the next three (two? six?) months just a quick thought before jumping back into my submarine (er, car) for another rainy day of driving to New Orleans. mikey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter
Dear Members
Ballot on revised BC Charter
At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------------------------
We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information.
The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice- chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul.
Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard
BC Officers
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Mikey Great that you have a long drive -- it stimulates the brain cells. I like this idea as it gives incentives for those that have opposing/ different/alternative ideas to present them in a cogent and complete way given that it seems a vote now is premature. It assumes that there is some kind of election to enable this to move forward? Best wishes and drive carefully. Liz On 14 Oct 2009, at 14:05, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hello all,
given that time is short, and we need to have a charter in place at Seoul, how about this for an idea?
- put forth at least two competing charters and vote between them, rather than on just one. maybe one of the proposed charters could be based on the staff-supplied charter template? either way the vote comes out, we'll have a charter (plus a sense of which charter approach the group prefers).
- approve an instruction to the (new) officers that we revise that interim charter in an orderly/thoughtful/less-harried way over the next three (two? six?) months
just a quick thought before jumping back into my submarine (er, car) for another rainy day of driving to New Orleans.
mikey
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of BC Secretariat Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 8:09 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Ballot for a new BC Charter
Dear Members
Ballot on revised BC Charter
At the request of the BC Officers and with reference to the message below, I have today opened a 7-day voting period for the newly revised BC Charter.
A majority approval vote means the new Charter will be adopted. A majority non-approval vote means the Charter will not be adopted.
A ballot form is attached. Each member organisation has one vote. The vote should be placed by the principle BC contact for the membership organsiation or by notified proxy. I will apply weighted voting when I receive your ballot form. All ballots will be acknowledged.
The voting period closes at midnight in your time zone on Monday 19 October 2009. Ballots cannot be accepted after this time.
Best wishes Gary ----------------------------------------------------
We would like to ask all members to cast their vote in favour of the attached revised BC Charter. A definitive PDF version is attached. A Word version showing recent track changes is also provided for information.
The Charter accommodates necessary changes for the re-structured GNSO in which the stakeholder groups provide representatives to the GNSO council. As such the BC will move from a situation in which its three GNSO representatives were also BC Officers, to a separation of these roles. There will be a new executive committee with a chair and two vice- chairs in addition to the two representatives to the GNSO Council. The Charter also includes other changes recommended by members and ICANN staff based on learning since the last Charter. The officers have done their best to accommodate all member perspectives given the diversity of those perspectives. The Board has requested Constituencies complete work on Charter revision by Seoul.
Zahid Jamil Mike Rodenbaugh Philip Sheppard
BC Officers
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
participants (11)
-
BC Secretariat -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
George Kirikos -
HASSAN Ayesha -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike O'Connor -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff -
waudo siganga