Thanks, Liz. However, I think that we need to get the changes that were discussed on the call drafted into a draft charter. Also, there were discussions about having staged elections. The attached proposallooks too much like a 'flash cut' or changeover, but without yet having developed the changes in the draft Charter. At this point, with Seoul so close, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect to get everything done but we should have a redraft on the charter with changes discussed for consideration before Seoul. Since there are so few attendees from the BC in Seoul, I would like to have more discussion before hand, perhaps even with a cross constituency participation, so that everyone in the membership of the three groups has a good understanding of the proposed CSG. I don't think that a 'flash' cut with everyone being elected all at one time, especially for two years,can work out. We need more involvement from a broader set of members to discuss the changesand reach agreement on a charter for the BC, as well as understanding what the CSG is going to do, and how it will be supported. Realizing that Gary is leaving shortly, and will be greatly missed, it seems also time to have a briefing from the ICANN staff regarding staff support options Marilyn
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Follow up from last week's conference call Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:28:38 +0100
All
Further to our discussion last week about how to make the leap from the current structure to a new one, I have re-circulated a straw man proposal I sent around a couple of months ago.
It suggests a way forward which is easy to do, low impact on our systems and gives clear results quite quickly.
The only thing that would need to change in the document are the actual dates -- I proposed end of July to have a new slate of volunteers/elected people in place by Seoul. That's not going to happen but it could happen anytime shortly afterwards.
Liz