[council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
Joe, thank you for your intervention but you have confused two
issues. (Or in my usual short-hand I failed to explain them, most
probably.)
My key concern is not the number of Board members voted by the
new SO (2 now not 3) . This is a concern but as you say can be more easily
balanced in aggregate by a nom com.
The concern is the reduction in constituency reps(council
members) on the new GNSO council from 2 to 3. The membership of many
constituencies has a typical profile in order of magnitude:
US
European
Asia Pacific
ROW
So in an election for reps there is likely to be a first
preference going to a US candidate and the rest of the world must fight over the
other place.
Take the BC as an example. Today we have three reps in three
broad time zones. Marilyn in the US, me in Europe and Grant in Asia Pacific.
This means we are in touch with the culture of these three significant economic
blocks. Our reps are in contact with the governments in their regions. It means
that when we need to contact our members by telephone, we have a member in the
right time zone. When we have a chance to go to regional meetings (as I did last
week in Paris) a BC rep can attend and discuss issues face to face with members
from the region. All this is diluted with 2 reps per constituency on the
Council. Diluting the ability of Council to represent the Constituency is bad
for Constituency outreach and representation. This is bad for the Council
and bad for ICANN.
Maintaining 3 reps per constituency as Council members is the
implementation we seek from the ERC.
Philip
|