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
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
I'm with Jim on this. I understood that we will see the next iteration, v20, following which we will submit (hopefully) our last set of comments. I would suggest that we have a member call to discuss open issues once we have digested v20, then finalize. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: 2009-10-28 00:06 To: Baskin, James F (Jim) Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC Charter 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
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@icann.org From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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 BaskinVerizon
Hello everyone I would caution that everyone's views be included in the final version. Residual disagreement will remain on many issues. What we ought to be looking for now is consensus on tolerable additions/ deletions for a new charter that gets us to a new operating model. We all know that consensus means being able to live with what our colleagues propose rather than agree on everything. We don't need to have everything completely perfect before we vote and we can note that some things may need further discussion, say, next July. In fact, it may be a good idea to have a review cycle at the end of the first set of terms of new officers so we can fine tune and adjust to new circumstances. So, could I suggest that we move quickly to a best effort reflected in v 20 of the charter, commit to a review cycle in a year's time to adjust, vote on the charter and then start thinking about something else. This isn't global warming or world hunger and we need to make sure we expend appropriate effort that enables us to work effectively. Liz On 28 Oct 2009, at 05:00, 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@icann.org
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
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@mccormickict.com 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@icann.org
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
Dear colleagues, I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me: "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" I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding: "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" Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is helpful in someway. Best regards, Ayesha ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Scott M. McCormick Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter 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@mccormickict.com 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@icann.org From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
Thanks Ayesha
Dear colleagues,
I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me:
"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"
I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding:
"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"
Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is helpful in someway.
Best regards,
Ayesha
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Scott M. McCormick Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
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@mccormickict.com
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@icann.org
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
Hey guys. Where's our lunch today? -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of philip.sheppard@aim.be Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:54 PM To: HASSAN Ayesha Cc: Scott M. McCormick; Marilyn Cade; Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter Thanks Ayesha
Dear colleagues,
I may be out of sync with ongoing discussions in Seoul, but wanted to offer support for proposed language regarding the number of posts and frequency of posts that helps keep discussions focused, minimizes irrelevant posts, but also allows for appropriate communication and exchange, so the proposed text below seems reasonable to me:
"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"
I also agree with Scott and others' logic regarding:
"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"
Again, apologies if I am out of sync with developments, and hope this is helpful in someway.
Best regards,
Ayesha
________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Scott M. McCormick Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2009 09:28 To: Marilyn Cade Cc: Liz Williams; Jim Baskin; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
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@mccormickict.com
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@icann.org
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
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@mccormickict.com
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@icann.org
From: lizawilliams@mac.com To: james.f.baskin@verizon.com 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
participants (8)
-
Baskin, James F (Jim) -
Christopher Martin -
HASSAN Ayesha -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be -
Ron Andruff -
Scott M. McCormick