Re: [council] Proposed dates for GNSO Council meetings Jan., Feb., March 2006

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes to both of what you're saying. We need to involve more individuals 
from the constituencies and GNSO community in our work.
To separate my comments from those of Ross, I'd like to clarify my use 
of the term "volunteer," as it applies to the At Large participants (and 
probably many of the the Non-Commercial and Nominating-Committee 
appointed participants as well.)  We are volunteers. This time 
commitment comes out of what we are doing, whether it's working in 
academics, local governments, consultancies or law firms. My law firm, 
for example, does not expect less production from me because I spend 
three weeks a year at ICANN meetings. For most of us, ICANN is a labor 
of love, but the GNSO policy work is in constant conflict with our day 
job and our families. (On a personal note, I recently declined a paying 
consulting assignment because I thought it might conflict with my 
obligations to represent At Large users of the Internet in the ICANN 
arena. I am not the only At Large participant who has declined such paid 
assignments.) Days and weeks with multiple GNSO meetings are difficult, 
especially since many participants also must interrupt sleep in order to 
participate.
This is all to say that we need a GNSO that allows those of us whose 
work is not sponsored by our employers to participate on an even playing 
field with those who are so sponsored. To that end, we should view the 
entire GNSO as "volunteers," even though we know, as Ross pointed out, 
that the time of many participants is actually "work" time.
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