[bc-gnso] RE: Returning to neutral corners

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, I’m not just going to sit here and take slams on this List.  As you know, 
in Brussels I missed one working session re Council work planning.  It was the 
first meeting on the first Saturday, after a long trip from California.  I 
attended around twenty other meetings over the next six days for the BC, 
volunteering at least 30 hours of my time that week, not including the travel 
time.   So while I regret missing that lone meeting, it certainly was not cause 
for any anxiety.

 

Nor is my ‘consultation uneven’.  I just refuse to give undue weight to the 
loudest and most omnipresent voices in the BC, at the expense of the silent 
many.  We have carefully designed process to devise policy statements so that 
everyone has a fair chance to comment, and not merely those who have the luxury 
of attending every ICANN meeting.  Group huddles at those meetings are no 
substitute for the BC’s policy development process – the ‘barriers’ in that 
process and in our Charter are there for good reason.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:09 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: Returning to neutral corners

 

Mike, Ron:

 

Is it necessary to devolve the discussion of the charter to a "did not, did 
too" shouting match?  

 

I suspect that some of Ron's view is driven by the without-notice absence of 
Mike at some of the meetings in Brussels and his uneven consultation.  I recall 
that many were anxious as they should have been.  

 

Likewise, I presume Mike is guarding the organizational lines that order the 
roles of the constituencies, council and board.  Worthy but a misdirection.  
Constituency officers and councilors are elected in the same way by the same 
people who likely expect cooperation.

 

As to my earlier email, I would like the constituency to focus on a manageable 
set of priorities, focused on eliminating barriers and promoting business 
opportunity for all -- sort of a rising tide lifts all boats metaphor.

 

Bottom line, carping ain't carpe diem.

 

Cheers (from a scorching San Francisco!),

 

John Berard

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, September 28, 2010 10:24 am
To: "'Ron Andruff'" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'bc - GNSO
list'" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>


Ron,

Procedural rules of Council need not be enshrined in our Charter. The
abstention process has already been discussed by ExComm and is in place in
the event Zahid or I have advance notice of an absence or abstention.

I do not believe that Zahid or I have any 'misconception' about Councilor's
roles, as they are clearly defined in the Charter. Any 'misconception' may
instead center around other roles, particularly the administrative Chair,
which rightly has no special role in policy development under our Charter.
In other words, the Chair cannot instruct the Councilors how to vote, nor
can the ExComm, and this is how it should be. Otherwise a small minority of
members, elected for roles that have little to do with policy development,
would have undue influence over the elected policy Councilors. It is up to
the Councilors to vote in accord with the wishes of the Constituency, as
judged from the Constituency's written policy positions and otherwise within
the elected Councilors' discretion.

If you are proposing to change that fundamental structure, then it is a very
large change that requires debate. So, what are you proposing?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ron Andruff
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:39 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter


Mike, Philip and all,

As part of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Work Team, I note that one
refinement to our Charter (under the new requirements) is that the revised
charters need to require constituency reps to advise their constituencies
when they will be absent or abstaining from a vote as all votes belong to
the constituencies not the councilors. This new procedure is required
because of the low voting thresholds within the new 'house' structure.

This amendment not only clarifies any misconception that the BC's councilors
can vote their personal wishes over those of the constituency, but
additionally provides a clearly defined mechanism to alert the ExComm when
councilors intend to abstain or be absent whenever votes are taken.

Separately, Sarah, I would also like to join you, Philip and others on the
drafting team working group.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:32 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] CSG charter and knock-on effects to BC charter


Sarah, 
thank you for your reply.
I wasn't aware I was making any accusations just a request.

You reminded us of your Brussels presentation:
"Welcome small working group to help to offer suggestions on language
options
and comments on draft text".

I volunteer for this small working group.

Who else is on it?
May I see the draft text?

Philip