ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] a question that comes from reading the LSE report:

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] a question that comes from reading the LSE report:
  • From: Norbert Klein <nhklein@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:02:39 +0700
  • Cc: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <C372FDEC-CC67-4562-BE0D-975386296D94@acm.org>
  • Openpgp: id=0016D0A9; url=http://pgp.mit.edu
  • References: <C372FDEC-CC67-4562-BE0D-975386296D94@acm.org>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060725)

Avri Doria wrote:
> Note on my personal opinions on the the issue:
> I am not in general in favor of strict term limits, but i am in favor
> of transparency that allows all to know how long someone has been in
> place. In terms of renewals I tend to prefer guidelines that. e.g. say
> - after 1 term  - renew unless there is a reason not to
> - after 2 terms - renew if there is a good reason to do so
> - after 3 terms - do not renew unless it is vitally important to do so
Thanks, Avri - I share your opinion. And I want to add: for somebody who
is not a lawyer, and not an ICT specialist, and who does not know the
different lines of ICANN policy and policy changes over the years, it is
almost impossible to be useful on the council if the period of service
is short.

I have been involved with ICANN since the Singapore Asia Regional
Meeting in mid 1998 - on the way towards the creation of ICANN, and
since 1999 in the Non-Commercial section (though I was also the ccTLD
creator for Cambodia and administered .kh for about 4 years - and still
there are a lot of things in ICANN and on the GNSO agenda which are not
transparent, though I try to read a lot.

So I agree with your suggestions not to be rigid - but still to be

Norbert Klein

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>