Hello, On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

Issue 1 - the balance between doers and members What is the right balance between the number of annually elected positions and the membership size ? Today (and for the last 10 years) it is 3/41 = 7% Draft charter changes it to 5/41 =12%.

That's incorrect. Your draft charter changes it to "up to 5" -- it can still be as low as 3. See point #32 of prior analysis at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00376.html The CityTLD draft charter, which is preferred as a template, has the Executive Committee set to 8: http://gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/en/improvements/ctldc-petition-charter-reda... (see section 2.1.1, namely chair, vice chair, past chair, secretary, treasurer, membership officer, policy development committee chair and communications officer)

What is the right balance between elected, appointed and ad hoc ?

Positions should be democratically elected (and thus accountable), with power not concentrated in a handful of "kings and queens" who let it go to their heads.

Are there one third of the BC willing to volunteer their time to non-policy work?

As more of the workload is spread around, less time per person is required.

Is there sufficient motivation to be a member volunteer for mostly non-policy work?

If their work is seen as having an impact on improving the constituency, volunteers, giving becomes its own reward and motiviation.

Do members want one set of elections per year or several ?

One is sufficient.

What does it mean if we conduct an election but less than half the members vote?

The same as what it means when 1/2 the population doesn't vote in general elections. They're either too busy, uneducated on the issues being voted on, or are members for other reasons (i.e. to "monitor" issues, as opposed to being actively engaged in issues).

Issue 2 - balance of independence As ICANN starts to offer more services what degree of independence do we want as a constituency ?

Ultimately, it's policy issues that matter. Offloading administrivia to ICANN doesn't change our independence.

Do members wish to authorise the release of their private data to enable ICANN staff for instance in the future to run BC elections?

Yes.

Do members wish to entrust ICANN with the funds in the BC bank account ?

Most definitely, it's far better than the current situation. Even better would be to run the constituency more efficiently than today, so that large balances/reserves don't exist.

Or should the ICANN toolbox be a basket of services that the secretariat can choose from?

See above. Administrivia like mailing lists, conference calls, etc. are distractions from real policy work. The more of that which can be done by ICANN, the better. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

In response to Philip Sheppard's request for members to respond to a few questions that he presented, my initial responses are below in CAPS. From: philip.sheppard@aim.be To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] BC charter revision - basic principles Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:14:51 +0200 In order to shape any conference call on the Charter I wonder if members would be kind enough to provide thoughts on the following. Background Today we have 41 members, 3 elected volunteer member officers, 3 appointed credentials committee, and 2 nom com appointees plus a part time secretariat. Additionally a number of members contribute to ad hoc policy and other task forces etc. Issue 1 - the balance between doers and members What is the right balance between the number of annually elected positions and the membership size ? Today (and for the last 10 years) it is 3/41 = 7% Draft charter changes it to 5/41 =12%. The draft charter also envisages other admin committees totalling with the elected positions 13/41 =32%. MSC: THE QUESTION MAY BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN "BALANCE" OF NUMBERS OF MEMBERS VERSUS ELECTED ROLES. ICANN IS A BOTTOM UP ORGANIZATION AND DISTRIBUTED WORK AND INVOLVEMENT WILL CREATE MORE AFFINITY AND SUPPORT TO THE BC. THERE ARE MORE WAYS TO LOOK AT ELECTED ROLES THAN AS 'DOERS'. THAT HAS TURNED OUT TO BE THE PRESENT REALITY, BUT THERE ARE OTHER MODELS, WHERE AN ELECTED POSITION /PERSON TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECRUITING AND SUPPORTING OTHERS' ENGAGEMENT. RELYING ON A PERCENTAGE WOULD MEAN THAT IF WE DOUBLED IN SIZE, WE WOULD DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS. :-) WE SHOULD THINK OF THIS AS TRYING TO ALLOCATE WORK ACROSS MORE THAN THE PRESENT THREE ELECTED POLICY COUNCILORS/OFFICERS, TO GET MORE INVOLVEMENT, LESSEN THE WORK LOAD, AND IMPROVE MEMBER PARTICIPATION. BUT MEMBERS SHOULD BE REALISTIC ABOUT THEIR WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO COMMIT TO FULFILL NEEDED TASKS. What is the right balance between elected, appointed and ad hoc ? IT WOULD BE BEST TO AVOID 'AD HOC' EXCEPT WHEN INDEED UNFORSEEN ROLES COME UP, AS THEY WILL. BUT EVEN IN THOSE CASES, MEMBERS SHOULD BE OFFERED A CHANCE TO VOLUNTEER. THE USE OF APPOINTMENTS IS A LITTLE STICKY. IT CAN CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF FAVORTISM,WHEN IN FACT THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE FEW 'WORKERS' WHO ARE ABLE TO OR WHO DO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK, NOT ONLY ON THEIR OWN POSITION, BUT IN THE BROADER INTEREST OF ALL MEMBERS. WHERE POSSIBLE AND PRACTICAL, ELECTIONS SHOULD BE USED; SOME CHANGES IN THE TIME FRAMES MAY ENABLE BROADER RECRUITMENT OF CANDIDATES. Are there one third of the BC willing to volunteer their time to non-policy work? SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE /MANAGEMENT TASKS WILL PROBABLY HAVE MORE VOLUNTEERS, BECAUSE THE WORK IS NOT SUBJECT MATTER SPECIFIC, IF OFTEN NOT AS TIME SENSITIVE, AND CAN BE DONE IN SMALLER CHUNKS OF TIME. Is there sufficient motivation to be a member volunteer for mostly non-policy work? WE HAVE SEEN MEMBERS VOLUNTEER FOR SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL REDESIGN ON THE GNSO; SOME OF THOSE VOLUNTEERS WERE ACCEPTED, AND HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED. iT WOULD SEEM SO. Do members want one set of elections per year or several ? I WOULD PREFER ELECTIONS FOR OFFICERS AT ONE TIME; AND OTHER ELECTIONS AS NEEDED AT DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE YEAR, BUT TO HAVE MORE TIME FOR NOMINATION PERIOD FOR ALL ELECTIONS. SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE FOR ANY BC ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO CONSULT THE MEMBERS REAGARDING ANY ELECTIONS THAT THEY THEMSELVES PARTICIPATE IN ON BELALF OF THE BC, E.G. ELECTION OF THE GNSO POLICY CHAIR, GNSO ELECTED BOARD SEATS. ANY ELECTED OFFICER IN ANY POSITION SHOULD TAKE RESONSIBILITY FOR UPDATING AND INFORMING THE BC MEMBERS OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THOSE POSITIONS, AND SEE, BC INPUT. FOR EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT BE FEASIBLE TO WORK COLLECTIVELY WITH OTHER CONSTITUENCIES TO IDENTIFY A SUITABLE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUENCIES PRESENT MEMBERSHIP WHO WOULD MAKE AN EXCELLENT ICANN BOARD CANDIDATE, WHO COULD BE NOMINATED, AND ELECTED VIA THE GNSO. RITA RODIN WAS AN OUTSIDE CANDIDATE AND WON THE ELECTION. THE BC MEMBERSHIP COULD GIVEN CAREFUL THOUGHT TO AN OUTSIDE CANDIDATE WHO COULD GAIN REGISTRY AND REGISTRAR SUPPORT, AS WELL AS ISP, BC, AND SOME OF THE NOM COMM REPS FOR ELECTION TO THE ICANN BOARD. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT INTERNAL PROCESSES REGARDING THOSE ELECTIONS ALSO NEEDS TO BECOME A MATTER OF FORMAL INTERNAL CONSULTATION. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPS WILL ALSO WANT TO What does it mean if we conduct an election but less than half the members vote? IN ANY COUNTRY WITHOUT MANDATORY VOTING, THERE ARE OFTEN LESS THAN HALF OF THE CITIZENS VOTING. MEMBERS ARE BUSY AND NEED MORE TIME TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH CANDIDATES, AND HAVE CANDIDATE INTERACTION. RIGHT NOW, THE PROCESS DOESN'T REALLY ENABLE THAT EASILY OR EFFECTIVELY. MEMBERS VOTE FOR CATEGORIES THEY KNOW, OR FOR SOMEONE THEY THINK IS LIKE THEM, RATHER THAN HAVING TIME TO ACTUALLY INTERACT WITH A CANDIDATE AND HEAR THEIR VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES. Issue 2 - balance of independence As ICANN starts to offer more services what degree of independence do we want as a constituency ? Do members wish to authorise the release of their private data to enable ICANN staff for instance in the future to run BC elections? Do members wish to entrust ICANN with the funds in the BC bank account ? Or should the ICANN toolbox be a basket of services that the secretariat can choose from? ICANN RESOURCES SHOULD PROVIDE AS MANY OF THE BACKGROUND FUNCTIONS AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING RUNNING ELECTIONS; PROVIDING A NEUTRAL SECRETARIAT/CONF. CALL SUPPORT, ETC. A TREASURER/ADMNISTRATIVE OFFICER CAN OVERSEE THESE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY ICANN CENTRALIZED SERVICES. I HAVE NO MORE CONCERN ABOUT RELEASING PRIVATE DATA TO ICANN THAN TO A CONTRACTED SECRETARIAT, OR A VOLUNTEER BC MEMBER. I EXPECT INTEGRITY FROM ALL OF THOSE. UTILIZING ICANN RESOURCES WHERE POSSIBLE WILL ALLOW THE BC TO USE DUES TO CREATE TRAVEL SUPPORT FOR ELECTED OFFICERS [COUNCILORS WILL BE FUNDED BY ICANN IT APPEARS]; AND TO SUPPORT OUTREACH EVENTS, ETC. END OF COMMENTS BY MARILYN CADE Knowing how members feel on these higher level issues may help us move forward and reach consensus on the shape of our future Charter Philip