RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Marilyn and Grant make persuasive arguments in favor of their 
position, particularly regarding the pressure to "find someone" 
from a third region. 

But this argument could be turned on its head. GNSO 
Constituencies, when they have only two reps, may want to 
make sure that regions outside NA and EU get to hold them once in
a while. 

As Marilyn puts it:

>>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx> 07/13/03 09:34AM >>>
>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. 

Exactly. This means that the diversity of perspectives can be taken into 
account regardless of whether there are two or three formal representatives. 
The constituency structures ought to provide representation to ALL the
regions - at least, ours (NCUC's) does. And our new NCUC charter will 
impose "term limits" on GNSO Council reps.  

As Grant suggests, the unified position generally emerges after
internal deliberations in the constituencies. ALL regions are 
represented in those deliberations, not just three. And that is 
better, no?

Bottom line for me is, I don't think this is going to make a lot of
difference either way. From a strictly NCUC point of view, we would
rather put two people on the Council who really participate (and take
responsibility for rounding up others for task forces, etc.) than have 
"three" representatives, one of whom is a phantom. Your mileage 
may vary.

--MM

p.s. Grant, I am shocked, shocked, to see you publicly disassociating
yourself from the first-world, white anglo male caucus. What is the
world coming to? 

(True, we honkeys could never agree on IPR protection, 
Whois, TLDs, at-large representation, and GNSO procedure. But our 
unified world-domination did extend to the selection of wine at Council 
dinners once in a while.)