ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] 3 Council members or 2?

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
  • From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:04:42 -0400
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency
issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC 
members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current 
plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per 

In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which
we have rarely been able to generate regular and
informed participation by all three GNSO Council members.
We look forward with relief to the prospect of only 
needing two members to devote so much time to 
GNSO Council activities. 

But we believe the argument applies equally well to the
other constituencies, because we note that in almost
all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC,
which is actually has the most diversified interests) all 
three representatives vote the same way. What, then,
is the point of having three representatives? 

If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC,
IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting
differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would
feel differently about this. But the record shows that 
invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way 
regardless of what region they are from on every significant 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>