Re: [council] Term limits

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm glad we've begun this discussion on the merits of GNSO term limits 
in this situation because it seems we have an inherent tension on the 
constituency level wrt term limits. 

On the one hand, some constituencies want to "do the right thing" and 
impose term limits on their councilors to encourage new blood, give a 
variety of constituency members a voice, and avoid a situation where 
only a small number of constituents are empowered. 

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the longer a person is on 
the council, the more skilled and able that person is to set and steer 
the agenda for the entire GNSO, and a constituency would want their 
representatives to have this higher level of effectiveness on the 
council.   So each constituency has to deal with this inherent tension.
But, I don't see this discussion an opportunity to get rid of people who 
have been on the council for a long time, but rather, an opportunity to 
"level the playing field" between constituencies - since they are 
"playing by different rules".
Most of the time in policy matters, I'm against term limits - that is 
what elections are for.  But when you have a situation where there are 
differences between constituencies and some have limits and others do 
not, it disempowers those constituencies who are trying to encourage 
more diverse participation.  That strikes me as fundamentally unfair and 
inequity is never good governance. 

So I think we should all be "playing by the same rules" - either all 
constituencies should have term limits, or none should.  And considering 
the value in encouraging greater participation and a more robust variety 
of viewpoints, the choice should be for all constituencies to have term 
limits in this situation.
I agree that there may be a lot of re-shuffling of the deck (to use 
Brett's great analogy), but at least the deck won't be stacked in favor 
of some constituencies over others.
Thanks,
Robin





Ross Rader wrote:

> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > As a relative outsider to the constituency structure with no horse in 
> > this
> > race -- I am not a member of any constituency and am stepping down 
> > from my
> > own term as ALAC liaison at the end of the Sao Paulo meeting -- I 
> > have to
> > agree with Philip that we need a more complete discussion on the pros 
> > and
> > cons of term limits. My fear is that some people may support term 
> > limits as
> > a mechanism to oust individual councilors who may be too effective in
> > advocating views that differ from their own.
>
> You make a very valid point Bret. If this discussion is going to be 
> useful and productive (and right-headed) it needs to be rooted in a 
> concern for the good governance of this SO. I don't think that any of 
> us will question the need for good governance, but I expect that we 
> will disagree on what constitutes good governance and how to achieve 
> it. If we can have a discussion about the issues at this level, I 
> think we will find a productive outcome. If the discussion is rooted 
> in personalities or specific situations, we will not find an 
> appropriate outcome.
> -ross