Re: [council] Term limits

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn Cade wrote:

> It surprises me to see the councilors diverting away from that larger and
> important work item. 
This is an age old practice in the halls of the GNSO. It shouldn't 
surprise you when you see it, but that is not what is happening here. As 
a councilor it is important to me, incumbent on me, to engage the my 
fellow councilors in dialog so that I might better understand their 
views on the various issues before council. Quite regularly, I might 
disagree with the views that are expressed in these discussions, but the 
important part is that the discussion has taken place and the collective 
understanding is increased.
I am not proposing that we do not engage ourselves with the Board review 
of the GNSO.
> 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. 
Nor am I proposing that Council assume management of the constituencies. 
I am surprised at how obtuse I've been with my characterization of the 
motion I put forward. It seems that I've confused a large number of my 
colleagues based on the discussion that has ensued! :)
To be clear, the proposal has nothing to do with the governance of 
constituencies, their capabilities to levy fees, vet members, qualify, 
form and advocate positions. Nor does my proposal prevent specific 
members from participating in the work of the GNSO at Council or 
otherwise. The proposal has nothing to do with the outreach that 
Constituencies do, the manner they do it, or how they do it, via the web 
or otherwise. In fact, my proposal has nothing to do with Constituencies 
whatsoever.
My proposal is very simple - that *Council* set *limits* on the number 
of consecutive terms that *Councilors* may serve.
I'm sorry if I was less than clear when I described this earlier.

-ross