RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter

["HASSAN Ayesha" <ayesha.hassan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear colleagues,

 

I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to
offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and
frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes
irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and
exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me:

"reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden
members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with
respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus
overburdening others with one particular point of view"

 

I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding:

"According to the Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful
to approved positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are
required to support such positions" It seems logical to me that
Counselors "are required to support such positions" equates to voting
with the consensus and direction of the BC"

 

Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is
helpful in someway.

 

Best regards,

Ayesha

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Scott M. McCormick
Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter

 

Hello everyone, 

 

I support Jim's suggestion as well.

 

In response to Marilyn's comments below,

 

1.) I move to remove the limit's on daily posts.  If we are to be
effective in our coordination, I see a limit on posts as a hinderance.
I realize we have call-ins to accomplish tasks, but as I have seen in
the last couple months (of which I have become a BC member) with a limit
of 3/day or 10/month.  How does anyone expect to accomplish anything in
a timely manner?  I would suggest we move to change the wording to state
something as such:

 

"reiterating of ones point of view excessively that may overburden
members by posting of more messages than is proportionate in length with
respect to an issue or the responses from other members thus
overburdening others with one particular point of view"

 

2.)  I was not present at this mornings meeting.  According to the
Charter 7.5, members are required to "remain faithful to approved
positions." AND "Members of the Executive Committee are required to
support such positions" It seems logical to me that Counselors "are
required to support such positions" equates to voting with the consensus
and direction of the BC.  Did I miss something?  

 

 

Scott M. McCormick
McCormick ICT International
mobile +1 443.691.2013
scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




 

On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:





Actually, I'm on board with Jim's suggestion.  I know that Sarah
Deutsch, his colleague had made several proposals for change, and
undoubtedly will want to ensure that they are all taken into account.

 

Once we make changes, I'm skeptical that we will, in fact, have the time
or bandwidth to make further changes, so we need to get this right. 

 

On the needed additional changes, I find it unfortunate that we didn't
read on through the rest of the Charter, and do the final check to
ensure that stuff that has been controversial and objected to by several
members. Let me identify two problem areas that have been raised and I
have repeatedly asked to have two changes made and in writing. 

 

1) remove the discussion on limits of number of posts. 

Explanation: the evidence of our need to work collaboratively, and in
real time, and to keep our remote members informed, we have all
collaborated on line to share information and to keep in touch. Every
member who has been helping to share information, including Mike R.;
Zahid; Marilyn and even Sarah, who isn't here can be 'sanctioned', or
even kicked off the mailing list according to that criteria/limitation
of only 3 per day/etc. 

 

I have asked repeatedly to have this changed. 

Thus, I consider this to be one of the things that should be changed.
It's a simple change. 

 

2) the list management section needs to be cut out as well.  Any
responsibility for an email list would belong in the :secretariat
service(s) which is addressed earlier. The IPC certainly took a VERY
high level approach without addressing this kind of detailed
intervention into the ability of the members to communicate. 

 

After what came out this morning in Council when one of our councilors
said that "according to the current BC Charter, councilors are not
required to vote as their constituency directs", I have one additional
change to the Charter. 

 

We need to add in a sentence that clearly states that the elected BC
Councilors are bound by the guidance of the BC membership. 

 

One more thing -- just an FYI for right now, but an important
consideration -- during the NomComm review and again in the Board
Review, there is a growing recognition of the need for recall
mechanisms. In fact, the ALAC is moving ahead with metrics for elected
reps, and even recall.

 

Let's give serious consideration to adding that in, and getting this
charter right. CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

From: lizawilliams@xxxxxxx
To: james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Charter
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:05:51 +0000

Hi Jim

 

I thought that we agreed  (I asked Philip to clarify that at the end)
was that Philip would capture the few changes that were made during the
meeting; finalise version 20; send that to the list with a timetable of
moving towards a vote quite shortly, based on the timing included in the
charter itself.

 

I urge us to move to a new structure soon so that we can stop talking
about process and get back to substantive policy work ASAP.

 

Liz

On 28 Oct 2009, at 04:01, Baskin, James F (Jim) wrote:

         

        Our BC agenda yesterday was very full. We had to cut off
discussion on some topics due to time constrains. It seems to me that we
still need to make a few more changes to the Charter before a final
vote.

         

        Jim Baskin

        Verizon