ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] Regarding terms of Council members

I was first elected to represent my constituency with the GNSO Council in 2003 and re-elected for a second term in 2005. My final term with the council expires at the end of the AGM in 2007 at which point I will be ineligible to stand again under the registrar constituency bylaws. I was not a councillor on the prior DNSO Council.
Term limits, imho, are an important feature of democratic processes. I believe that the term related rules laid out by the registrar constituency (two two-year terms) are a decent and fair model for the GNSO to adopt as standard process for all council members. 


Ute Decker wrote:


As most of you remember, I was elected at the end of 2005 for a two year
term. According to the IPC bylaws I could serve two terms. 
I am actutely aware of the complexity of the issues and the time needed
to get sufficiently up to speed to play an active role, despite the
excellent support from ICANN staff.  I certainly see the benefit of
having councillors on board who have completeted their first term and
see no downside in councillors serving multiple terms, provided they
present the positions of their constituency based on appropriate
consultation. 
Ute


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: 18 September 2006 10:17
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Regarding terms of Council members

Hello all,

to follow the lead of our chair.

I was appointed to the GNSO Council in 2003 as a substitute for Philip
Grabensee.
I was elected for another term in 2004. This term ends in 2006.

Due to our constituency bylaws I'm able to serve two consecutive terms.
Since there is no specification in the registrar constituency bylaws and
the ICANN bylaws state that not full served terms are not to be counted
as
terms I would be eligible for another term.

In general I want to note that I do not really have any hard feelings
either
into the direction of restricting the number of terms nor into leaving
it
totally open. The two points I think that are very important under both
options are

a. it is the same for all constituencies
b. The modus and its outcome is transparent.

Best,

tom


Am 18.09.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
Hello Avri, 

When considering terms, there is also the question of whether you take
into account the previous DNSO structure.  The archives are available
at:

http://www.dnso.org



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. 

That is a good idea.

For reference - I joined the DNSO Names Council in Jan 2002.
I was elected chair of the DNSO Names Council on 29 August 2002. 
Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes,

Ken

Stubbs, and Cary Karp were all on the Council at that time.  E.g see

the

minutes at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020829.NCteleconf-minutes.html

I have been a member and chair of the GNSO Council since it was formed
in 2003.

So I guess I have been the chair for the past 4 years.

Under the registrar constituency rules, I am serving my last term on

the

Council as a representative of the registrars constituency.   My term
finishes at the AGM in 2007.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin





Gruss,

tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of 
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w 


Regards,

--

                       -ross rader
                        general manager,
                        domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet

Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog?
http://netidentity.weblog.info
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>