BC statement and procedures
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1bca27b66cce3159005f95d1bf184ac8.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I think the BC has more important things to do than descend into a prolonged argument over this, but it is time that the councillors understood that when there is a lack of consensus within the constituency it is not OK to simply proceed as if this were not true. If this were the first time something like this had occurred, it would hardly have rated comment. Let's hope it's the last and that we do not on the future have to go down the censure path as suggested. We all have better things to do - but the time we put into this constituency is also important and that input not to be simply ignored. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson@interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Sent: Fri Jun 26 07:56:44 2009 Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures I echo Marilyn's analysis and hope that BC members can move on, put this dispute behind us, but also collectively be more sensitive to process going forward. Sarah -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:25 AM To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures 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. This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1e3625ade5828a7874330938baf0d27b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello, On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Rick Anderson<RAnderson@interborder.ca> wrote:
I think the BC has more important things to do than descend into a prolonged argument over this, but it is time that the councillors understood that when there is a lack of consensus within the constituency it is not OK to simply proceed as if this were not true.
Correct. It was my recollection from the BC meeting (someone correct me if I am wrong, or send an MP3 recording if one was made) in Sydney that no BC position was going to be taken because the constituency was obviously divided, but instead the members would submit statements individually. That's why I was surprised when suddenly Philip posted an initial statement at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00152.html which was one sided, and did not reflect the deep divisions that existed, instead calling it a "huge step forward." I believe Ayesha and I, acting reasonably, could have combined our two statements in a manner that would have captured the consensus of the entire constituency and was properly worded. This could have happened by the comments deadline of early July. There's a certain irony that we're having a debate about "due process" of our constituency position when those same "due process" issues came up in the IRT report. The folks who would trample over the rights of domain registrants are the same folks who would trample over the rights of their fellow BC members who wish to engage in dialogue and solid policymaking work.
If this were the first time something like this had occurred, it would hardly have rated comment. Let's hope it's the last and that we do not on the future have to go down the censure path as suggested. We all have better things to do - but the time we put into this constituency is also important and that input not to be simply ignored.
What I found most disturbing is that the "end product" of some people seems to simply be to get a position out as quickly as possible, and not engage in dialogue between members. That dialogue would encourage people to THINK about their positions, elaborate on their positions, explain their own thinking, listen to the views of others, and modify their own views if they're convinced by the others in the group. Recall the "12 Angry Men" metaphor I employed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00188.html The way our officers have operated in a high-handed fashion, the accused would be found guilty summarily, and the jurors wouldn't have thought twice about their suspicions that the accused might be not guilty. Instead of a 96 minute masterpiece of a film, it would have been over in the first 5 minutes. If this constituency is becoming like "Twitter", where input is in 140 character chunks, and attention spams and dialogue are simply superficial, that's a step in the wrong direction. Better policy outcomes are achieved from deeper dialogue and thoughtful analysis, otherwise we become a constituency of "twits." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos
-
Rick Anderson