Re: [council] Non-Council Member Participation in general in the Council

[Rosa.Delgado@sita.int]

Hello YJ,

I see there are lots of reactions concerning this issue so I will try to
respond why I believe this proposal is feasible:

You are right the many other implications that I are involved which I may
not be fully aware because I have not been long enough in the NC.

The main reasons behind this proposal are:

-  a constituency may have strong capacities that are required for a
specific committee which may be hold by a non-council representative
-  conflict of interests of the current council representative in certain
areas

So far, there are no rules prohibiting constituencies to designate
non-council members to serve on council
committees tehrefore the use of council members remains to be a practice.

regs/Rosa
________________________________________________________________________________________

From "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com> on 22 June 2001
To : <Rosa.Delgado@sita.int>, "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
Copy To : <council@dnso.org>
Subject : [council] Non-Council Member Participation in general in the
Council


Hello Rosa and Milton,

Supporting what we are discussing here, I want to remind what has happened
with respect to non-council representative in the NC meeting so far.

We have not allowed other non-council representative participation
in the NC meeting both teleconference and physical meeting so far.
Several exceptions, though. Invitation was sent to GA chair and sometimes
WG chair. And somehow we always have ICANN secretariat staff
participation, Louis Tuton because we don't have DNSO secretariat, yet.

Is my understanding correct? Since DNSO is an independent organization,
after DNSO secretariat is set up, ICANN secretariat will be in the NC
meeting
by Invitation only whenever we need update from ICANN.

If we are to accept this non-council representative in the NC Task Force,
why should we bother non-council representative in the NC meeting
especially under certain circumstances?

As it was pointed out this practice should be applied uniformly not only
to constituencies but also to other NC Task Forces, which are expected
to invite more specilaists from constituencies and general assembly.

The NC rules have been established by necessities since DNSO was
set up. Sometimes, practice is getting "rules", sometimes we create
"rules" by consensus.

However, even though we happen to be in the situation to set the rules,
every condition should be considered carefully whether this rule is
fair enough compared to the rules we have already practiced. If it is not
fair enough, and it is not consistent enough, we may have to start from
the scratch.

YJ

>
> Hello Milton,
>
> The reason I did not mentioned other consituencies it was because I
wanted
> to propose first to NC and the same could be replicated to the others as
> consequence. Thanks for this clarification and I fully agree with you.
>
> regs/Rosa
>
____________________________________________________________________________

____________
>
> >From "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu> on 21 June 2001
> To : <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <Rosa.Delgado@sita.int>
> Copy To : <council@dnso.org>, <Richard.tindal@neulevel.com>,
> <RCochetti@verisign.com>
> Subject : [council] Re: REPRESENTATIVES TO NC'S TASK FORCE
>
>
> Rosa:
>
> I would support this, but would insist that this capability
> be applied in a uniform and nondiscriminatory way to ALL
> constituencies.
>
> So, if by "our" you mean "DNSO constituencies" I support this.
> If by "our" you mean gTLD constituency" I oppose it. But I am
> sure you don't mean the latter.
>
> >>> <Rosa.Delgado@sita.int> 06/21/01 10:25AM >>>
>
> "that the Names Council recognises as practice our ability to select
> non-Council members to serve on Council task forces, committees and WGs"
>
>
>
>