ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

  • To: <council@xxxxxxxx>, <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?
  • From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:34:55 -0400
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcNIwblWnwDJLuPlQj6KR/r8wJnvnAAfjhpQ
  • Thread-topic: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

Dear Councilors

The issue of how a representative votes is not the same issue as
the diversity of perspective which has gone into the development of 
a position. Constituencies are all very diverse in their perspectives.
It may be that each of us thinks our own constituency is so unique
that perhaps it is hard to understand the diversity of other constituencies.
:-) But, recognizing each constituency has uniqueness and diversity within
its membership is a place to start. Some consultations lead to positions within
constituencies; these undoubtedly guide the votes of the elected 

Milton is right that there is a significant amount of work to be done. In fact,
as we look ahead, our next year at ICANN will be a busy policy year, that is 
The Business Constituency  has found that having three elected reps
familiar with the work of Council, and the rest of the work of ICANN,
helps us to inform our members better about issues, and to work back
into the constituency to ensure that they can comment on positions/policy as it 
is being developed, etc.
We have additional concerns -- and strong ones, about diversity on many fronts. 

Reducing the number of representatives to two limits 
1) geographic diversity for the constituencies 
2) diversity of perspectives within the constancies
3) will undoubtedly affect gender diversity as well as cultural diversity

Let me discuss 3 a bit more: So far, it has been easier, if I may speculate, 
and this is
a visual observation, not a fact based one, to find Americans and Europeans who 
been able to take on the work of the Council. We have all worked hard to ensure 
we can also have our third representative from one of the other regions, and 
that has
been very good for the Council, and for ICANN as a whole, to have the broadest 
participation in the work of Council.  

It is often a fact that both time and availability of resources means that 
within a constituency, those
who can afford to take on Council work are from the most developed economies. 
But, by ensuring that one of
the representatives is form a third region, the constituencies all do the due 
diligence needed to find someone
interested, willing, and supportable by the constituency. And, if a 
constituency needs to support that third member's
participation in some way, they are free to do that. 

To deny the constituencies the representative ness this represents sets the 
Council back, and sets ICANN back.

It is tempting for others to want to impose a framework of their own comfort 
upon Council. That
seems to be what the ERC and the Board have done.  Whatever the rationale which 
the Board used in its deliberations, it was not a bottom up dialogue.  Council 
has been functioning quite well in its work.  The Board is 
NOT Council, and vice versa. 

There may come a time when the Council would itself make a decision which 
changes how representative ness,
or representation is undertaken and make such a recommendation. I do not see 
that time as now, just as we enter the work phase of a reformed ICANN.


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 6:05 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxx; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

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 >>>