[bc-gnso] BC charter revision - basic principles
icann at leap.com
Thu Sep 10 11:48:24 UTC 2009
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:
The CityTLD draft charter, which is preferred as a template, has the
Executive Committee set to 8:
(see section 2.1.1, namely chair, vice chair, past chair, secretary,
treasurer, membership officer, policy development committee chair and
> 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
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
> 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
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?
> 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.
More information about the Bc-gnso