RE: [council] Comments in relation with GNSO travel funding and policy

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I would tend to agree with this.  

Constituencies are, as I understand them within the new structure, the
basic way participants engaged in policy making are organized.  It is
being a constituency that gives an organized group of people with a
common interest a formal voice in policy making.  

The Stakeholder groups based on the other hand are based on an sector
organizational principle for allowing the constituencies from one of 4
sectors to manage the process and provide a mechanism to allow for the
formation of new constituencies without having to constantly change the
balance of representation/votes in the council.  Since SG are organized
along sector lines, it is quite possible for constituencies within a
sector to be unaligned and in disagreement with each other.

As long as we are working on a model of funding where the participants
within a group are forced to discriminate on how that money will be
spent, then that basic grouping has to be the constituency.  Otherwise a
strong constituency within a SG could refuse to allow a weaker
constituency to travel thus stifling their legitimate Board given voice.

Note: In saying this I repeat my minority opinion again that ICANN
should be providing travel on the Board level standards for all council
members.  But this is not the position taken by the DT or council, so it
remains a minority view.  In the spirit of announcing how we intend to
vote in advance, I will probably abstain since I strongly believe this
and am currently the only council member, by virtue of being chair,
being given what I consider the proper treatment all council members
should be given.  I think this will be even more the case when we move
to the SG model as then the council reps will be chosen to serve the
will of the SG  and not  interests of their constituency.

a.


On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:12 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> The BC profoundly objects to the proposed change of "constituencies"
> to "stakeholder groups" suggested by the RyC.
>  
> Any new constituency must be approved by the Board.
> It is therefore legitimate.
> It therefore deserves equitable treatment.
>  
> Philip
>