RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>]

I will be on part of tomorrow's call if possible and maybe be able to present 
this
in person, but just in case, I wish to call something to the Council's 
attention. It depends on how the call
proceeds in terms of timing. As some of you know, I have a family medical 
situation to manage tomorrow which 
affects my availability. 

However, I will do my best.

First, let me be clear that I support a resolution which will ensure that there 
are
three reps per constituency. Should I not be on the call, I have given a proxy. 

I am not sure why you would say that you would oppose the resolution, Jeff. It 
sounds like you are proposing
a modification to the resolution.  :-)  I hope that is what you were intending 
to convey.  

I can support some changes in the language of the resolution as long as the 
intent of the resolution is clear.
Thanks for the rewording effort. 

However, I note one other change which I think is needed in the motion, in 
order to ensure clarity.
I have been off line most of the week, due to the medical situation mentioned 
above, so didn't have a chance to review the motion until now. My apologies for 
late comments. 

I suggest a change, as noted below. I have pasted below, a segment from the 
original resolution where I propose a change for clarity. 
PRESENT LANGUAGE READS:
" 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."

I suggest that 1., as drafted should be modified as follows/additions IN CAPS:
PROPOSED LANGUAGE: 

"  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, WHICH 
SHOULD INCLUDE AMONG OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, A RECOMMENDATION 
REGARDING NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:53 PM
To: 'Antonio Harris'; Neuman, Jeff; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
'council'
Subject: RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE


Already know the answer to your last question... It would be me :) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:37 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'council'
Subject: Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE


Jeff,

This is ok with me. I hope we can count on
your support also, as it would avoid your
having to decide which of your constituency
three reps must step down on October 1 ?

Regards

Tony Harris

----- 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 3:04 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