RE: [bc-gnso] BC call next week

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a 5 p.m. Paris time call booked with the BC, but just a note: I am 
arriving in Paris at 6 a.m. and have business sessions and meetings booked all 
day. I will do my absolute best to be on the call at 5, but may be a few 
minutes late. 
I saw a great mark up from Mikey O'Connor earlier, and offered some suggested 
edits, of eliminating the outreach v.p., and having an Adm/operations/finance 
V.P., instead with the treasurer function reporting in there, and having 
outreach at the chair level as a 'committee'. 
While the purpose of this call is about improvements and ideas for future 
organization, can we put the topic of closed Council meetings on the end of hte 
call. I was shocked to see that the GNSO Council is planning closed meetings at 
the face to face meetings. 
I gently remind all that BC members who struggle to get funding to come to 
these meetings, and attend over the week ends, and work diligently to keep up 
to date, really need to expect openness and transparency from the elected 
reps.The change to any kind of closed meetings is a major change and would need 
consultation with the membership. I can see some times to go into executive 
session/which would be closed, or of course, the Council could return to its 
older practice of having dinner with each other to get acquainted... but 
otherwise, the time on Sat and Sun needs to include the members who pay the 
dues, and support any elected councilors.  This probably can be worked out very 
easily, but just hearing about closed meetings, without any feedback to the BC 
members is a little disconcerting. 





> From: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC call next week
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:13:19 -0700
> 
> 
> Has formal notice and conference information been sent for the call yet?
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Berry A. Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> 866.921.8891
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 02:57
> To: 'BC gnso'
> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC call next week
> 
> 
> Regarding part 1 of the BC call next week we plan to start the discussion
> with
> some broader principles / practicalities on these points.
> A few members provided personal comments already on list which has been
> helpful.
> If we can come to agreement on these, it will help inform some of the
> broader
> shaping questions raised in the new Charter.
>  
> Issue 1 - the balance between doers and members
> What is the right balance between the number of annually elected positions
> and
> the membership size ?
> Today (and for the last 10 years) it is 3/41 members.
> Draft charter changes it to 5/41 members.
> The draft charter also envisages other admin committees totalling with the
> elected positions 13/41.
> Do we have one-third of the BC membership ready to step into one of these
> volunteer positions? 
> What is the right balance between elected, appointed and ad hoc ? 
> Is there sufficient motivation to be a member volunteer for mostly
> non-policy
> work? 
> Should we scale this back ?
> 
> Issue 2 - election sequencing and time for discussion
> Is there a hierarchy of posts in the new charter for which we would want to
> have
> sequential elections?
> Should we attempt to elect reps and exec comm all at the same time and make
> them
> mutually exclusive?
> Or should we hold the reps election, then BC chair, then each vice chair?
> If the latter what nomination / discussion / election period is practical?
> If we followed one member proposal for 2 weeks of each and assume 7 separate
> elections we could be conducting elections for 42 weeks!
> What is the right balance?
> 
> Issue 3 - balance of independence
> As ICANN starts to offer more services what degree of independence do we
> want as
> a constituency?
> Do members wish to authorise the release of their private data to enable
> ICANN
> staff for instance in the future to run BC elections?
> Do members wish to entrust ICANN with the funds in the BC bank account? 
> Or should the ICANN toolbox be a basket of services that the exec comm can
> choose from? 
> 
> Issues 4 -  other points members wish to raise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>