RE: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition...

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

It appears that Chung's email, with instruction on how to vote made clear and 
the appropriate deletation of proxy, would have been recorded... if received 
adn opened during the call. I can't tell whether it was received before the 
vote, but of course, we can't predict delays in the Internet with any accuracy. 
:-)  Ken's suggestions offer reasonable approaches to ensure that Chung's 
intent is recorded.

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:42 AM
To: Ken Stubbs; council; Bruce Tonkin
Cc: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition...


I second Ken's suggestion.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "council" <council@xxxxxxxx>; "Bruce Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:18 AM
Subject: [council] re: vote on GNSO council composition...


Mr Chairman...

because this message was received while the council was still in conference,
i would hope that the vote can amended to reflect chungs e-mail.

if the council vote cannot be amended to reflect this then i would hope that
chung's message be communicated along with the vote results

Thank you for your consideration

Ken Stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "council" <council@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE


> Message received during GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, and only
read after the teleconference.
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 14:31
> À : gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
>
>
> To all,
>
> I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three
> representatives per constituency.
> If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton Mueller.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chun Eung Hwi
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:55 +0200, GNSO SECRETARIAT
> <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > [To: Council@xxxxxxxx]
> >
> > At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO
> > Council
> > list
> >
> > mercredi 13 ao占�2003 16:57
> > 占� 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2-2166-2216
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>