Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> George,
> thank you for your recent post.
> I had forgotten your introductory message to the BC.
>
> Your comments on specifics of the IRT will help AIM as we too consider our
> response to this report.

In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "I'm not ready to make nice" ;)

Since I explained my context, and you opened the door to this debate,
why don't you explain exactly how fees to the Secretariat are set, and
why such a huge proportion of the BC budget goes to a no-bid contract
to an entity that you are a director of? The BC could easily be
transformed into a constituency open to companies for a membership fee
of less than $100/yr, or even for free. The BC has enormous reserves
which could be rebated back to members. Most of the services of the
secretariat can be done for free or at low cost, or by BC members
themselves or via ICANN staff (GNSO toolkit, etc.), or through the
Commercial Stakeholders group. ICANN will also be paying for most
travel fees:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelines-27may09-en.pdf

(page 2, GNSO: Increase in support to 23 travelers per meeting)

The BC has a clear choice, to be stuck in the past with a small number
of members paying excessive fees, that mostly go to one entity of
which Philip is a director. Or, it can be very lean and focused on
policy making, and open to all businesses, with low or no fees, and
with administrative tasks offloaded to ICANN, etc. and with secretary
and treasurer positions being elected.

The topic of GNSO reform and BC charter reform was placed last on
today's conference call agenda, presumably so that we'd run out of
time before it could be fully discussed. However, the issue is not
going to go away. To be explicit, I proposed (before an agenda was
even set) that 4 items be placed on today's meeting agenda:

1) That the BC charter be immediately amended to have elected
positions of Treasurer and Secretary, as previously discussed.

2) That past, current and future BC budgets (and indeed those of all
constituencies) be made public, in keeping with ICANN's goals of
maximum transparency.

3) That current and future BC budgets (put forward by an elected
Treasurer) require majority approval of all members (via weighted
voting).

4) That the Category 3 member level in the BC be defined as all
companies with fewer than 500 employees (in keeping with other
published definitions of small businesses, without references to
revenues).

I'd really like to see the justification why they would not be simple
common sense matters that would have unanimous support amongst the BC
membership, and easily handled first, before others "use up the clock"
and the meeting ends with unfinished business.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/