RE: [council] Term limits

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am getting confused with this discussion. We should be discussing how to
address the full LSE review document. That is on the Council agenda. Can we
focus first on that, please, and try to bring in some useful ideas? 

I fear that this unique energy of 'let's take over the constituencies
governance' is diverting important discussions that I would think concern
all of the GNSO members, not just the councilors. 

As to whether the Council should govern the constituencies, it will take
bylaw changes at the ICANN level; and constituency bylaw changes. And
changes in the scope of authority of Council. At present, Council does not
govern the constituencies; it doesn't set their fees; nor their management
structures; nor their web site content. It doesn't set qualifications for
councilors, however, but the constituencies chose through voting, who
represents them, thus establishing their own qualifications for their
councilors.  

I'm not volunteering to address any of the GNSO review recommendations
piecemeal. I am in full support of discussing the review recommendations and
trying to develop suggestions for how to get broader GNSO input on ideas and
options, as well as discussing how best to work with the Board going
forward. 

It surprises me to see the councilors diverting away from that larger and
important work item. Perhaps we can  focus in on how to address the full
GNSO review. For Council to take on managing the constituencies seems out of
scope to me. 

Marilyn Cade
BC Councilor


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Ruth
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:14 PM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Term limits

Ross,
     Let me amplify my point.  I am simply saying that it should be up
to each constituency alone to decide who may or may not represent it. 
I do not believe it is appropriate for anyone outside the ISPs to tell
us whom we can choose to represent us in the Council; that would be
tantamount to exerting control over our constituency.

Greg 

--- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Greg Ruth wrote:
> > Philip et al,
> >     Whether we are "leaping" or not, I agree we should have a
> > discussion.  And I believe it can start now, on this list.  My
> opinion
> > is that, except in the case of NomCom appointees (who represent no
> > constituency), the matter of term limits should be left for each
> > constituency to decide for itself.
> 
> My personal view is that the Council and the Board should decide how 
> this group is constituted in order that the basic foundations for our
> 
> processes and outcomes are stable and predictable. I don't think that
> 
> this is a constituency decision any more than it is a constituency 
> decision regarding how many reps from each constituency sit on the 
> Council, or the term of those seats, etc.
> 
>  From my perspective, the first question that we should be looking at
> is 
> whether or no term limits are desirable. The second question is whose
> 
> responsibility it is to implement them (or not). (i.e. if limits are 
> desirable, then is this a board, council or constituency decision?).
> 
> -ross
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com