<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
Very valid point on representation and consultation.
This year we have one NC telecon each two weeks on average
(a double of what was planned initially)
-- not many can accomodate such a workload on our daily occupations.
And believe me when you are 2 and not 3 reps from one Constituency
it changes dramatically.
I be clear - I support many of those who favor 3 reps per Constituency.
Elisabeth
--
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:32:50 -0400
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>,
> "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>,
> "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com>,
> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> Cc: <council@dnso.org>
>
> Bruce, I think that it was possible in the original recommendation
> in the Blueprint to miss one of the key responsibilities of the
> elected reps: representation, and consultation. Having two reps only
> means that you have fewer people to consult within a constituency.
> Regardless of whether all can attend a meeting, there is much other
> work to be done in representation, beyond the NC attendance.
> The idea of 3 elected/3 voting isn't any different than 3 elected/2
> voting except for one thing. WE remove the incentive for the elected
> to show up and make their own comments. I am amazed at the abdication
> of the constituencies -- my own constituency has fairly high standards
> for their representatives and voting isn't the only "expectation". :-)
>
> Policy development and advice within the constituency and engaging
> in policy discussion with other constituency reps remains a priority.
>
> So, three reps who represent, and who vote remain a key concern with the BC.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:06 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Cohen'; Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and
> reform
>
>
> 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.
> > ==========
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|