Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

fellow council members

i like  jeff's wording and would propose this as a modification to the
initial proposal proposal..

it is truly more positive and, i believe,  remains a reflection of the
sentiments of many .

sincerely

ken stubbs

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>;
<gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'council'" <council@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE


> Here is what I would recommend, which sounds much more positive.  I have
> still not decided on my position on this motion, but I thought this
> resolution sounds more palatable.
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
>
****************************************************************************
> *
>
> Whereas,
>    the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
> representatives
>  per Constituency on the GNSO Council".
>
>    Whereas,
>    ICANN core value 2.4 is:
>    - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
>  functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> levels
>  of policy development and decision-making".
>
>    Whereas,
>    ICANN core value 2.7 is:
>    - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that
>  (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
ensure
>  that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development
>  process."
>
>    Whereas,
>    by-law article XX.5.8 states:
>    "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each
>  of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO
>  Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."
>
>
>    The GNSO council resolves that:
>
>    Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core
> value 2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency as
> the majority of ICANN regions are
> represented.
>    .
>    Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core
> value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that
three
> representatives  improves the constituencies ability to share the workload
> of a council
>  member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to
>  more effectively communicate with multiple regions.
>
>    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes
>  in its review timetable:
>    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per
>  constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual
meeting
>  2004;
>    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: 'gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; council
> Subject: RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
>
>
> All,
>
> This is my personal opinion. I am not against this resolution.  In fact
the
> principle of having 3 representatives makes sense.
>
> However, if this resolution were to stand, I would have to oppose it
because
> I do not believe that the requirement of having 2 representatives is
> inconsistent with the existing bylaws (as stated in the resolution below).
> Whether it is inconsistent or not is a point of debate in which reasonable
> minds may differ.  In addition, arguments of efficiency are also
debatable.
> Lets not give the Board a topic to debate and give them just the bottom
line
> resolution.
>
> I want to support this concept.  Therefore, I would recommend that we
revise
> the motion.  I will send around my recommendation later on today.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:18 PM
> To: council
> Subject: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
>
>
> [To: Council@xxxxxxxx]
>
> At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO
Council
> list
>
> mercredi 13 août 2003 16:57
> À : gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-council@xxxxxxxx
> Objet : RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> I would like to present the following resolution
> to be discussed in the teleconference:
>
> Proposed Council resolution on Constituency representation to meet ICANN
> requirements on geographical diversity and   informed decision-making
>  Proposed by, in alphabetical order,
>    Antonio Harris
>    Ellen Shankman,
>    Philip Sheppard
>    Ken Stubbs
>
>    Whereas,
>    the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
> representatives
>  per Constituency on the GNSO Council".
>
>    Whereas,
>    ICANN core value 2.4 is:
>    - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the
>  functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> levels
>  of policy development and decision-making".
>
>    Whereas,
>    ICANN core value 2.7 is:
>    - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that
>  (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
ensure
>  that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development
>  process."
>
>    Whereas,
>    by-law article XX.5.8 states:
>    "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each
>  of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO
>  Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."
>
>
>    The GNSO council resolves that:
>
>    Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core
> value 2.4
>  on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency. With three
>  representatives per constituency, the majority of ICANN regions ARE
> represented.
>  With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented.
>
>    .
>    Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core
> value 2.7
>  on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three
> representatives
>  improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council
>  member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to
>  more effectively communicate with multiple regions.
>    .
>    There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two
representatives
>  rather than three.
>    .
>    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes
>  in its review timetable:
>    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per
>  constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual
meeting
>  2004;
>    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Harris
>
>
>