RE: [council] Reminder regarding terms of office

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Amadeu:

I think we have both seen much stranger things happen in ICANN than my
latest suggestion. In KL you talked about how the Board says nothing while
all the negotiations take place in the hallways. That bothers me as much as
it does yourself. If you look at the minutes, I am one of the more vocal
Board member beside Vint. In fact Vint has made several comments in the past
about me always wanting to interject. That is one of the reasons I always
try to sit in your old board seat to uphold your noble tradition.

Although I may make infrequent posts to the Names Council list, I in fact
engage in regular contact with Names Council reps and various members of the
constituencies. It is this regular contact that allows be to keep track with
the ins and out of the domain name industry. I figured a public post to the
names council list was more inline with ICANN's open and transparent
mandate, as opposed to a private post to Bruce or other Names Council reps.

Despite being on the Board, I am still as you are aware active in both the
Registrar and IP constituency. Plus I try to keep in regular contact with
the business and ISP community. Much like yourself when I am done my turn on
the Board, I am heading back to the good old GNSO. That is one of the
reasons I try to listen in on all the council calls. My grandmother always
use to say, be nice to the people going up the ladder because your going to
have to see them on the way down the ladder :-)

The purpose of the suggestion was that I saw it as futile for the GNSO to
operate on perpetual one year extensions. As Thomas Keller said this makes
it very difficult for constituencies to plan elections.

With regard to the three vs. two argument. I like yourself was a strong
advocate of a smaller names council to facilitate consensus building. That
was in fact the formal reason give by the Evolution and Reform Committee,
"Each was to select two voting members to the Council. We believed that this
balance was important to create the maximum incentives for the creation of a
consensus position." See
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s
ep02.htm

Listed below are reasons why I believe a rather strong argument can be made
that three representatives are better than two despite the original guidance
from the evolution and reform process.

#1) The smaller council representative was to allow for future
constituencies. How many new constituencies have been recognized since ICANN
2.0 - ZERO. How many new constituencies have been recognized from ICANN
1.0 - ZERO. Therefore, the argument/fear of a super sized Names Council has
never nor will never materialize.

#2) The ALAC was suppose to provide a forum for greater individual
participation within the ICANN structure. Although the ALAC has made some
postive strides, it is still a far way off from the body as originally
envisioned by the Evolution and Reform process. Therefore, the GNSO remains
the only meaningful forum where an individual can attempt to make a positive
impact on ICANN policy forumulation. Given that reality, I believe allowing
for greater participation at the Names Council level is justified.

#3) Despite the push for a smaller councils, the ccNSO in their by-laws
elected for three representatives per region, NOT two. Why should the ccNSO
be afforded greater diverse representation that the GNSO. One of the
arguements first put forward by Philip Sheppard during the evolution and
reform process was the need to increase geographic diversity. See the
following thread between him and Joe Simms. I believe the arguments that
Philip put forward have upheld over time. See
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00384.html.

#4) Despite promises of additional staff support when ICANN's budget was
substantially increased to the 8.6 million dollar level under ICANN
Evolution and Reform, there has not been the necessary staff support
delivered to meet this need.  However, notwithstanding the potential new
staff hires under the 15 million dollar budget, Names Council reps will
continue to play a dominate role in the policy development process.

#5) The Evolution and Reform process was not a static document. The fact
that the time frames set forth in the PDP have shown to be unreasonable, it
is not unreasonable for other tenets of the Evolution and Reform process to
be revisited. Moroever, given ICANN's bottoms up consensus mandate set forth
in the by-laws, if the Names Council feels they are more productive with
three as opposed to two representatives why should ICANN staff or the Board
interfere with their request.

#6) Having monitored most Names Council calls over the past year and a half,
very rarely do constituencies have full representation. By allowing three
representatives, there is a greater chance to have a particular constituency
have their viewpoint represented.

I believe all of the aforementioned reasons set forth a substantial basis to
request a by-law amendment.

The lawyer in me hates to admit when I am wrong. However, as one of the
original proponents of the two representatives, I believe in retrospect that
I was wrong.

Thanks again for your input which I have always valued since first meeting
you in Washington DC in January 1999. Although it seems like yesterday, it
is amazing all the strange things that have happened over the years.  Again
I have a strong respect for the separations of powers and I will be quiet
again.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage





-----Original Message-----
From: Amadeu Abril i Abril [mailto:Amadeu@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:19 PM
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: John Jeffrey; 'council'
Subject: Re: [council] Reminder regarding terms of office


Mike,

Onthe merits you might be rigght... but don't you find at least strange
and ambarrssing that a Board member wirtes to the Council recommending
us which proposal we should send to the Board?

I understnd that it is difficult to resist such an attractive argument
("electorally speaking") but we should have clearer roles and stick a
bit to the suppsoed "separation of powers", don't you think? ;-)))

In any case, and as for the argument itself, you all know that I favour
smaller councils, not jsut this one, and that I think that the Board
had to stick with the reform proposal.. but after a couple of
extensions, re-opening the battle would seem useless. We might have
different personal preferences, but the practice show that we can more
or less with 3, as we could with 2. If some members as it ssems still
have very strong feelings in favour of 3, I don't think we should
reopen the internal debate.

Let's reiterate the request to the Board, and see hwat happens.

Amadeu

On 13/09/2004, at 13:42, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Bruce:
>
> Thanks for reminding council of this important milestone. As someone
> that
> previous had reservations about extending the number of
> representatives,
> despite the changes to the bylaws set forth by the Evolution and Reform
> Process, I believe that the past year has shown the clear benefit of
> the
> expanded representation. Moreover, given the newly formed ccNSO which
> recognizes three (3) representatives per geographic region, I would
> recommend the council to considering asking the ICANN Board and staff
> for a
> by-law amendment to permanently recognize the three representative
> structure, instead of continuing the one year exception.
>
> Considering that ICANN is about stability and predictability, I
> believe both
> of these tenets will be promoted by amending the by-laws to recognize
> three
> representatives instead of continuing the annual exemption to the
> current
> by-laws. This is just a thought and will defer to you and the rest of
> council on how best to proceed to represent the collective interests
> of your
> constituencies.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 1:44 AM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: John Jeffrey
> Subject: [council] Reminder regarding terms of office
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Just a reminder regarding terms of office.
>
> (1) My term as chair expires on 20 Nov 2004.
>
> From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml
>
> Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year,
> November 20, 2003 to November 20, 2004.
>
> So we will need to hold an election for GNSO chair.
>
>
> (2) The terms of many of the Council members (2 per constituency)
> expire
> at the end of ICANN's 2004 Annual General Meeting (set for 5 Dec 2004).
>
> From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml
>
>
> NorthA -  Marilyn Cade (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> NorthA  - Ken Stubbs (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> AsiaPac  - Philip Colebrook (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> LatinAC  - Tony Harris (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> NorthAm - Greg Ruth (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> AsiaPac- Jisuk Woo (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> LatinAC  - Carlos Afonso (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> NorthA  - Ross Rader (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> Europe  - Thomas Keller (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> LatinAC - Kiyoshi I. Tsuru A. (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> NorthA  - Lucy Nichols (term expires end of annual meeting 2004)
> Europe  - Amadeu Abril i Abril - Term: conclusion of the Annual Meeting
> 2004
>
> I recommend constituencies begin to plan elections for this year.
>
> Under the current bylaws, we will drop from 3 to 2 representatives per
> constituency.
>
> My understanding is that the GNSO Council desires to retain 3
> representatives, but we will need to get the Board to approve a change
> in the bylaws to support that request.
>
> I recommend constituencies proceed on the basis of electing one member
> of the Council under the current bylaws, and also elect a reserve to be
> available to take up the additional seat should the Board approve.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>