ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Scott M. McCormick" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
  • From: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:45:57 +0100 (CET)

Thanks Scott.

> 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

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy