[bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 28 05:00:01 UTC 2009

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 at icann.org

From: lizawilliams at mac.com
To: james.f.baskin at 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.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20091028/53d322d5/attachment.html>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list