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

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

I note on average out of three reps, probably no more than two attend any
particular meeting of the names council.  This improves at ICANN physical
meetings.

Thus having 2/3 people selected by the constituency, to fill two voting
positions on the committee at anytime is probably workable.  Effectively it
allows for alternates.

Regards,
Bruce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cohen [mailto:jcohen@shapirocohen.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:12 AM
> To: Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
> 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.
> ==========
> 
> 
> 
>