[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:
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.