RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
- To: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
- From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:56:44 -0400
I echo Marilyn's analysis and hope that BC members can move on, put this
dispute behind us, but also collectively be more sensitive to process going
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
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
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.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:37
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.
PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.