hi all, i've incorporated a few comments on the charter-draft into this new version. so where are we at on approving a new charter? don't we need to keep pushing forward on this? mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
Thanks for the input Mike. Working now on a date for a call - will advise once feedback received from officers in other time zones. Philip
Mike, thanks so much. I have some different changes, but like much of what you've done. One area I had flagged as a real concern was the subjectivity with which a member could be expelled. We need to avoid subjectivity. Also, frankly, we can't ask for the kind of solidarity for members that we ask for for elected reps, whomever they are. Associations can't pledge to this kind of solidarity, nor can major corporations. And as an SME, I can't, either. I may be in a minority position, and according to ICANN's bylaws, my minority position can be documented and included in the final reports. This seems to say that I would be bound to advocate against my minority position, because I am a BC member. I would think that would simply be that officers and elected policy councilors are bound by solidarity, and that members have to factually describe the 'official BC position, but can state that they individually were not in agreement. I'm wondering how USCIB, or TechAmerica or ICC would be able to pledge to that requirement. That is worth a bit more discussion, but when I send such language to outside counsel, I get waves of 'caution'. ;-) I will try to make some suggestions re mark up this week end. To summarize, I'd like to cut out the VC for outreach, or whatever that term was completely, and have a VC for Adm/operations, put the treasurer functions under that VC, and have outreach a committee function, not a 'VC' function. Also the Cred. Committee cannot be engaged in outreach and recruitment. :-) Positions should be elected wherever possible, but we need to be fairer about the nomination and election processes to enable more people who are new to the organization to gain visibility and get engaged. :-) We can do that by having two week nomination periods, with actual conf. calls to 'meet the candidates', not just written statements. They are the 'cops', not the recruiters. We should have a committee of members who have materials and can all do outreach to their respective communities for joining the BC. that committee can report to the Chair. This will build membership that are interested in ICANN overall, as well as in policy in the GNSO. The VC of Policy is GNSO policy related. The participation in the CSG couldl be the VC Adm/Operations, with the chair as alternate. The Policy VC will have plenty to do related to the GNSO POlicy Council and the internal support to policy development processes, WGs, etc. etc.
From: mike@haven2.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] where are we at on a new charter? Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:27:06 -0500
hi all,
i've incorporated a few comments on the charter-draft into this new version.
so where are we at on approving a new charter? don't we need to keep pushing forward on this?
mikey
Hi Mike, (1) I submitted comments previously at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00345.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html I don't think your revised draft reflected all my concerns. I think the better foundation is to use someone else's template, like the City Top-Level Domain Constituency's draft. (2) Marilyn and others called for a conference call long ago with ICANN staff. (3) Another approach would be to seriously consider joining up with the IP and ISP constituencies to form a superconstituency. Even Mike Rodenbaugh has bemoaned the situation that: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00416.html "WE DO NOT HAVE MANY MEMBERS PARTICIPATING SUBSTANTIALLY TO ANY BC-RELATED WORK TODAY" "FEW ENGAGE IN THAT NOW." If one looks at the archive of the ISP constituency mailing list: http://www.ispcp.info/abt-mail.html http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/ they've had not a single post to their mailing list in all of 2009. It'd be better to roll-up the 3 constituencies into one large and vibrant "Commercial Stakeholders" constituency, rather than have disjoint, weak and ineffective small constituencies with low participation. Some prefer to be a big fish in a small pond, but we'd serve business better if instead they learned to be a small fish in a big pond, and maybe they'd even rise to become a "big fish in a big pond." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
hi all,
i've incorporated a few comments on the charter-draft into this new version.
so where are we at on approving a new charter? don't we need to keep pushing forward on this?
mikey
- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
participants (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Marilyn Cade -
Mike O'Connor -
Philip Sheppard