For the past few days, after the BC meeting, I have been consumed with issues re the overarching issues re security, the economic analysis, and malicious conduct.... I only realized there were five posts objecting when a BC fellow member summarized. Checking the web site, I also see George is correct regarding the percentage needed to require a vote. I do understand George's concerns, and his point. While I was on the Council, we had an instance or two where the Council or Board was making a decision, and we, as officers, in our individual capacity, signed onto a letter or resolution. They were very "unusual". I think the unusualness of such action remains. And should. But in this instance, I do think we have harmed our own integrity by publishing a statement when there is such a high level of dissent. When there is this level of dissent, the BC, as a constituency, really hasn't published statements at ICANN meetings. I do not wish to have a big debate about this; the BC has to address such differences via a trusted, transparent set of procedures. That is important regardless of the size of the members. And we must have mutual respect and regard for not only similarities, but differences. It happens that I supported the version of a statement that one of the members offered as a substitute. However, I understand the serious concerns. Marilyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: philip.sheppard@aim.be Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:37 To: <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures Firstly, I must say that I am dismayed about so much chit chat between the choice of three dramactically anodyne statements! Secondly, on process, there is a difference between the lengthy process of BC written positions papers, and a BC statement made at an ICANN meeting on a topic of current relevance in time for the Board meeting at the end of the week. The mechanism for the latter is that the officers present make best endeavours to take the pulse of the members at the meeting, bearing in mind existing policy positions. In addition when we can we take the pulse of members not present. Our conclusion of both sets of members was that the text we issued was the one best supported. I was merely the officer who posted it. Any BC member who disagrees may post in their own name their own positions. Philip PS I am travelling shortly and will not be responsing to list mails.