Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the past few days, after the BC meeting, I have been consumed with issues 
re the overarching issues re security, the economic analysis, and malicious 
conduct.... I only realized there were five posts objecting when a BC fellow 
member summarized. 

Checking the web site, I also see George is correct regarding the percentage 
needed to require a vote. 

I do understand George's concerns, and his point. While I was on the Council, 
we had an instance or two where the Council or Board was making a decision, and 
we, as officers, in our individual capacity, signed onto a letter or 
resolution. They were very "unusual". I think the unusualness of such action 
remains. And should. 

 But in this instance, I do think we have harmed our own integrity by 
publishing a statement when there is such a high level of dissent. 

 When there is this level of dissent, the BC, as a constituency,  really hasn't 
published statements at ICANN meetings. 

I do not wish to have a big debate about this; the BC has to address such 
differences via a trusted, transparent set of procedures. 
That is important regardless of the size of the members. And we must have 
mutual respect and regard for not only similarities, but differences. 
It happens that I supported the version of a statement that one of the members 
offered as a substitute. However, I understand the serious concerns. 


Marilyn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:37 
To: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures


Firstly, I must say that I am dismayed about so much chit chat between the
 choice of three dramactically anodyne statements!
 
 
 Secondly, on process, there is a difference between the lengthy process of
 BC written positions papers, and a BC statement made at an ICANN meeting
 on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting at the end
 of the week.
 
 The mechanism for the latter is that the officers present make best
 endeavours to take the pulse of the members at the meeting, bearing in
 mind existing policy positions. In addition when we can we take the pulse
 of members not present.  Our conclusion of both sets of members was that
 the text we issued was the one best supported. I was merely the officer
 who posted it.
 
 Any BC member who disagrees may post in their own name their own positions.
 
 
 Philip
 
 PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.