<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006
Hi,
I agree with your comments. As a nomcom appointee, I do tend to
think of myself as a volunteer in a relatively standard sense and
consider time spent on ICANN as pro-bono work as no one pays me for
the time spent on it and it bears no relation to any of my research
or contract funding. Yet having volunteered, I do not believe that
this binds me or my time any less. Yes, I volunteered, but having
done so, I have taken on the tasks and have an obligation to them,
even if they become onerous. Having voted for the work items ahead
of us, I feel it is incumbent on me, as much as someone who is funded
by their company, to put in the required time to get the work done.
I also think that we will need weekly calls with weekly action items
if we intend to meet reasonable time constraints.
Having said that, I think it is good if we open up some of the work
to more ICANN participants and constituency members. Perhaps, even
though we are working on the TLD issue as a committee of the whole,
we could create some sub committees, that work of specific issues
under this umbrella.
a.
On 15 dec 2005, at 08.45, Ross Rader wrote:
Ken - your point is well taken, my comments aren't intended to
detract from this.
I'd like to underscore the need for continued outreach on behalf of
each of the constituencies. Lately we've heard a fair number of
concerns regarding participatory burdens. In my opinion, we are
faced with a shortage of manpower - a shortage that can only be
solved by increasing the depth and breadth of the membership of the
constituency structure. If this issue isn't addressed, the GNSO
will fail in meeting its policy objectives.
Further, I'd also like to clarify my understanding of the term
"volunteer" as it relates to the vast majority of the members of
the GNSO. We all represent various interests in the ICANN tent. To
the extent that we represent our individual, personal interests,
then the use of the term "volunteer" is indeed appropriate.
However, for the rest of us, our participation is on behalf of
various commercial and non-commercial interests. We advocate for
their interests, and while our participation is optional, it is
usually not undertaken on a true volunteer basis. This is more of a
case of commercial and non-commercial benevolence - and appropriate
at that.
The only instance in which this benevolence becomes volunteerism is
at the point that the advocates are moved into positions within the
GNSO that their capability to advocate their own interests takes a
back-seat to their position - the chairs of the Council and tasks
forces, council members, et al. are all required to represent the
interests of aspects or all of the community and not of their sponsor.
This is a small point in the grand scheme of things, but I think
its important that we are very clear, at least amongst ourselves,
where our interests lie, what motivates us each, and above all
else, whom is ultimately contributing to paying the bills for the
activities we undertake.
Have a great holiday season everyone.
-ross
Ken Stubbs wrote:
if this be the case then we need to be judicious in selecting the
day for the "committee of the whole" for new GTLD's conference
calls. (Remembering that
this council is composed of "volunteers" with icann staff support.)
this could become a potential onerous burden on our members if we
are not careful here.
if that be the case, then we should consider opening up the GTLD
TF to non-council members from the various constituencies..
i would become very concerned if we cannot populate the new TF
calls with an adequate representation from all constituencies.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|