[bc-gnso] Regarding additional changes to BC Charter
Scott M. McCormick
scott at mccormickict.com
Wed Oct 28 08:28:18 UTC 2009
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 at 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
> 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 Baskin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso