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

[philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]

Thanks Ayesha


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>