Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

In this regard, I will observe that it was presumed that the U.S. would 
always have a seat as one of the three DNSO reps, and dire consequences 
were predicted by some when this did not turn out to be the case.  In 
fact, no DNSO rep has ever come fromthe U.S. and no dire consequences 
have resulted.

Harold

Joe Sims wrote:

> I am still not convinced this is a real issue.  There are many ways that 
> this issue can be dealt with, assuming it is really a problem.  For 
> example, if a constituency feels a need to have points of contact around 
> the globe for logistical purposes, it can appoint such; there is no 
> need for those people to be NC members.  Any concerns about one region 
> dominance could be avoided by a strict system of rotation; it is 
> not intuitively obvious why NA, for example, must always be the source 
> of a constituency NC member.   There will never be a case when all 
> regions (5 now, and perhaps 6 in the future) will be represented 
> simultaneously, so whether there are two or three represented at any one 
> time seems a small difference.  The tradeoff, of course, is the desire 
> to have a small enough body to be workable, and to have proper balance; 
> if the current balance were kept, and the constituency reps went to 3 
> each, the size of the NC would move from 15 (probably already bigger 
> than optimal) to 24, surely larger than optimal.  So this would not be a 
> change without cost.  Reasonable people may differ on the net effect of 
> this tradeoff, but I would opt for the smallest body possible consistent 
> with other values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963
> 
> ==============================
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains 
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the 
> attorney-client or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public 
> information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated 
> recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, 
> please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it 
> from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of 
> this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==============================
> 
> 
> 
> -----"Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com> wrote: -----
> 
> To: "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>, "Philip Sheppard" 
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> From: "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
> Date: 07/17/2002 10:12AM
> cc: <council@dnso.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and 
> reform
> 
> 
> I must say I had not thought of this 'problem' when suggesting a reduction
> in the number of seats on the Names Council per constituency.Perhaps there
> should be 3 or even 4 members elected/appointed as Names Council reps but
> only 2 at any one time could attend or vote..This needs some thought but
> might answer both problems??
> Jonathan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Joe Sims
> Sent: 16 July 2002 11:13
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and
> reform
> Thanks for the clarification. I was confused. We can discuss at some
> other time the points you raise, which I agree have merit, and how they
> balance against the benefits of a smaller council.
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
> 51 Louisiana Avenue NW
> Washington, D.C. 20001
> Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
> Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
> Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
> 
> 
> 
> "Philip
> Sheppard" To: "Joe Sims"
> <jsims@jonesday.com>
> <philip.sheppard cc: <council@dnso.org>
> @aim.be> Subject: [council] Status
> report on implementation of evolution and
> reform
> Sent by:
> owner-council@dn
> so.org
> 
> 
> 07/16/02 10:59
> AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ==========
> The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
> information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
> or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
> is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are
> not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
> replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
> dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
> recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ==========
> 
> 
> 
>