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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

I would caution that everyone's views be included in the final  
version.  Residual disagreement will remain on many issues.  What we  
ought to be looking for now is consensus on tolerable additions/ 
deletions for a new charter that gets us to a new operating model.  We  
all know that consensus means being able to live with what our  
colleagues propose rather than agree on everything.
We don't need to have everything completely perfect before we vote and  
we can note that some things may need further discussion, say, next  
July.  In fact, it may be a good idea to have a review cycle at the  
end of the first set of terms of new officers so we can fine tune and  
adjust to new circumstances.
So, could I suggest that we move quickly to a best effort reflected in  
v 20 of the charter, commit to a review cycle in a year's time to  
adjust, vote on the charter and then start thinking about something  
else.
This isn't global warming or world hunger and we need to make sure we  
expend appropriate effort that enables us to work effectively.
Liz
On 28 Oct 2009, at 05:00, 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