[bc-gnso] From BC to CSG
icann at leap.com
Wed Oct 14 15:49:01 UTC 2009
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Dear Rick,
> it would be nice if you were not so impatient and spent more time reading
> material that has been communicated previously.
> BC officers are volunteers. I am working simultaneously on my day job.
I am impressed that you were able to find the time, with your day job
and all, to post a "formal request" to the GNSO Council list, on
behalf of BC, requesting travel funding to Seoul for yourself:
Was that formal request a result of a BC vote? Or were you a wee bit
"impatient" and simply made the request directly to the council
pretending it reflected the views of the constituency members? Just
like the IRT "support" statement made by the officers, despite the
required vote --- where was the "patience" of the officers then?
I think that BC members have expressed more than enough patience at
allowing officers to maintain their delusions of adequacy. If Rick and
others have questions, they deserve answers, or the officers should
step aside to let others perform those duties. Suggesting they've "not
read the material" is simply not good enough, when 2-way
communications is required, instead of 1-way (which the new
officer-drafted charter would institutionalize and thus why it is
opposed by many).
> To date, as has been stated in previous e-mails and previous meeting reports,
> dialogue with the CSG for greater integration has not yet started.
> The ISPs currently oppose explicit integration. The IPC is uncertain.
The ISP constituency hardly exists as a real and active constituency.
Their public and archived mailing list at:
reveals a total of roughly 100 emails in all of 2009, much of that
spent discussing travel and cocktails at ICANN events. They do not
even publish a list of their constituency members on their website (
http://www.ispcp.info/ ). The BC has had more than 500 posts in its
archive going back merely to the end of April, as a comparison.
I'm on the Registration Abuse Policies working group, with several
other BC members, and members of other constituencies, see the bottom
The number of ISP members equals......zero!
Why is the CSG providing the ISPs with the same number of votes as the BC?
This is comparable to the issue previously raised when we talked about
the AOC, and that the double weighted voting of the registrars and
registries needed to be corrected:
The NCUC had their votes reduced, even though they have far more
members than the CSG:
and have a very active mailing list (291 posts in the month of
September 2009 alone)
It's time the ISP (and IP) constituencies demonstrate they deserve the
number of votes they receive in the GSNO, and the same goes for the
Registrars and Registries. A merge of the CSG constituencies into a
single voice would be far superior for BC members than the current
More information about the Bc-gnso