Posted on behalf of the Officers Dear Marilyn sorry to hear about your health issue and thank you for the time taken to propose new changes to the BC charter. Many of these require substantial member discussion and raise issues that we intentionally did not raise in the proposed text that the BC has been discussing for 7 months. For example, changes to member fee categories are intended to be part of the work of the new finance committee, balancing the impact of any change with the budget and call for fees. Additionally, the impact of any future merger with the ISP or IPC needs substantial debate. Today the IPC only allows votes for associations - is that the model we want to adopt for the BC ? Do they want us ? The ISP tell us no. There is no need to limit election dates given the unknown for changes. The BC can at any time vote for a new charter or CSG merger should that happen and at that point cut the term of previous elections. The present v16 of the charter submitted for member consideration last week: - is based on the current charter - factors in the staff considerations - factors in broad member input over the last 7 months - reverts the review section to the current charter (more or less) but with better due process. It would be more constructive to hear if there are any substantive parts of v16 with which members are still concerned , such as the recent comment from Ayesha Hassan of ICC. We need to proceed with a vote with due speed, in order to hold elections. BC Officers
Hello, On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:20 AM, BC Secretariat wrote:
It would be more constructive to hear if there are any substantive parts of v16 with which members are still concerned , such as the recent comment from Ayesha Hassan of ICC.
Contrary to what you've suggested, there are 2 solid alternative charters that have been proposed, which *are* constructive input into the process. Marilyn's charter is explicitly based on the existing charter. The charter I posted was based on the CityTLD charter, which itself was based on the ICANN Staff "Model" charter
We need to proceed with a vote with due speed, in order to hold elections.
Under your approach, we've spent 7 months choosing between chicken, chicken with salad, chicken with pasta, spicy chicken, garlic chicken, and fried chicken. The ingredients are all the same, yet that's the only choice you imagine exists. Perhaps some of us strongly prefer fish or beef, and one shouldn't pretend that those options are not on the table for the constituency to comment and vote upon. If one wanted to be constructive, one would stop suggesting we can only have chicken dinners as we've had for the past 6 or 7 years. Tell us what you would like to change in the fish or beef menus that have been presented as alternatives. So far only the officers have presented negative views of Marilyn or my own draft charter. If that's the only opposition, i.e. those defending their own charter which is in its *16th* iteration, I would consider that very minor opposition, since those officers got it wrong at least 15 times previously. That input in hardly credible. I encourage people to read Marilyn's alternative charter and my own (based on the CityTLD charter): http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00564.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00544.html Perhaps those who have read all three can give a preference ranking for continuing discussion. For myself, that ranking is: 1. George's CityTLD-based charter ("Beef") 2. Marilyn's staff-based minimal mark-up charter ("Salmon") 3. Forget about charters, and merge with the IP+ISP ("Lobster") 4. Officers' 16th revised charter ("Chicken") Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (2)
-
BC Secretariat -
George Kirikos