RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Note:
- The ICANN nominating committee appointed 3 members to the GNSO Council
in June 2003
- the ICANN by-laws require each constituency to appoint 2
representatives to the GNSO to take up office at the conclusion of the
ICANN annual meeting in 2003
- the ICANN by-laws require a review of the GNSO WITHIN 1 year following
the adoption of the ICANN by-laws (15 Dec 2002)

I would expect based on recent responses from the ICANN General Counsel
in response to questions about the voting arrangements, that the Board
would not want to change the b-laws until the GNSO had been reviewed.
(see http://www.icann.org/legal/proposed-bylaws-corrections-31may03.htm)

The problem is that it is unlikely the review would be conducted prior
to the ICANN annual meeting in 2003.  The date for the annual meeting in
2003 has not been set, although it was assumed that this would be at the
meeting in Cathage.  Note that last year the annual meeting was in
December.

Changing the ICANN by-laws is not actually a function of the GNSO
Council.  

A possible option would be:
- to request a change in the transition article to allow 3
representatives until the end of the annual meeting in 2004
- request a change to the ICANN by-law to allow a review of the GNSO
council June 2004 (ie 12 months after the appointment of three members
to the council by the nominating committee, rather than 12 months after
the adoption of the by-laws)

A procedural approach maybe:
- a council member proposes a motion relating to the ICANN by-laws, with
a seconder
- an email vote is arranged on the motion
- if the motion is in favour of changing the by-laws in some way, we
could schedule a joint teleconference between the GNSO Council and the
ICANN Board to discuss

Such a procedure could occur outside the normal schedule of GNSO
meetings to discuss GNSO policy matters.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Chair