ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures

  • To: <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
  • From: "Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:42:28 -0600

I think the BC has more important things to do than descend into a prolonged 
argument over this, but it is time that the councillors understood that when 
there is a lack of consensus within the constituency it is not OK to simply 
proceed as if this were not true.

If this were the first time something like this had occurred, it would hardly 
have rated comment.  Let's hope it's the last and that we do not on the future 
have to go down the censure path as suggested.  We all have better things to do 
- but the time we put into this constituency is also important and that input 
not to be simply ignored.


Rick Anderson
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd
email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cell: (403) 830-1798
office: (403) 750-5535

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Marilyn Cade  <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Fri Jun 26 07:56:44 2009
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures

 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 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Marilyn Cade 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:25 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
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 
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. 

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.
 PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this 
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive 
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of 
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify 
sender at the above e-mail address.
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail 
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no 
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like 
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to 
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by 
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent 
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as 
encryption) unless specifically requested.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy