TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council@xxxxxxxx]

Forwarded as requested. Dial in number and participant code have been sent
to Michael Palage as well.
Glen

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 07:23
À : Glen De Saint Gery; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE


Glen,

Could you please forward this email to the Names Council mailing list and
provide me information on the dial-in listen only ports for tomorrow's Names
Council meeting.

Thanks in advance.

Mike


Hello Name Council Members:

I will be trying to join your teleconference today via a listen port if it
is available. As the Board may be required to take action upon this proposed
resolution, I would ask that you consider my "personal" comments during your
deliberation of this resolution.

I agree that the resolution's restatement of ICANN's core values as set
forth in ICANN's by-laws, however, I see no nexus for the proposition that
three Names Council representatives are more consistent with ICANN's core
values that two Names Council representatives.

Additionally, I see no basis for the proposition that three Names Council
representatives are more "effective" that two Names Council representatives,
since the Names Council has never operated with two representatives. On what
data are you basing this proposition. Would it not be prudent to allow the
ICANN By-laws that were properly and thoroughly vetted to be implemented
prior to requesting the Board to change them.

Some additional data points for consideration. If the Names Council and
respective constituencies are truly concerned about outreach and global
participation I would encourage them to review the NCUC proposed new charter
which provides for Regional Representatives. see,
http://dnso.ipsl.fr/constituency/ncdnh/20030731.NCUC-charter.html. I submit
to this council that adherence to ICANN's core values as set forth in your
resolution should start and remained focused at the constituency level.
ICANN as we all know is a bottoms-up organization, thus ICANN's core values
should be most strongly supported at the constituency level.  Moreover,
based on my experience and review of the various constituency by-laws, the
Names Council representatives are responsible to act as directed by the
constituency thus further undermining the need for three representatives as
opposed to two.

Finally, I was in attendance during the ICANN regional meeting in Berlin
(1999) when the individual domain name holders constituency sought
accreditation by the Board. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts over the
years to have this constituency recognized there has been no additional
constituencies recognized by ICANN since 1999. I believe that by shrinking
the Names Council to two representatives per constituency as per the
by-laws, this will enable potentially new constituencies to come into
existence as envisioned by the by-laws.

Although there currently exists a voting balance between users and
providers, there may be the need for more balance between commercial versus
non-commercial users. Specifically, there are three commercial user
constituencies (Business, ISP, and IP) and only one non-commercial user
constituency.

Just some personal comments that I thought I would share.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage








> -----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
>
>