RE: [council] Proposed Resolution for Consideration

["Cubberley, Maureen \(CHT\)" <MCubberley@xxxxxxxxx>]

As a NomCom appointee whose term is up in December of this year, and who
has not sought re-appointment and therefore will not be returning, I,
too support the direction set out in Ross's proposed resolution, and I
am comfortable including NonCom appointees in any policy recommendations
made on term limits.

In light of Avri's question " Does any wording need to be added to
include Nomcom in the scope.", I say yes, it does.

Best regards,
Maureen


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:36 AM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution for Consideration

Hi,

Thanks for posting this.   I agree with it.

Does any wording need to be added to include Nomcom in the scope.


note: As someone in a second term, whose first term was partial, I do  
read this as applying to me as well and am comfortable with that.

a.



On 9 nov 2006, at 08.21, Ross Rader wrote:

> Per Bruce's earlier request, here is a proposed resolution for  
> discussion at the next council meeting. This may not be the right  
> resolution, but given the interest in this topic on this list, I  
> believe there is support for a discussion. As a result, I didn't  
> attempt to "wordsmith" and "whereas" this too much, but the salient  
> points of this motion are that;
>
> a) there should be term limits for councillors
> b) the term shall be limited to two consecutive terms
> c) special circumstances do exist where term limits are not  
> appropriate and these circumstances should be accomodated by our  
> processes
> d) the Council should act immediately implement this recommendation  
> at the Constituency and board level.
>
> I would also note that the the Registrar constituency already  
> abides by these practices and that I am nearing a term limit  
> myself, so I don't believe that I have any special conflicts coming  
> into play by backing a motion of this sort.
>
> //begin//
>
> Proposed Resolution:
>
> The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO  
> Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council  
> with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a  
> council member to serve out their existing term. A council member  
> can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of  
> duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the  
> GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent  
> term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in  
> connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity  
> requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative  
> representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance  
> exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate  
> willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall  
> constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances  
> do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to  
> the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and  
> also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily  
> adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally  
> implemented by the Council and Board.
>
> //end//
>
> Regards,
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
>