ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter

  • To: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>, Jim Baskin <james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
  • From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:00:01 -0400

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.
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 BaskinVerizon

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy