[council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
Joe et al,
I do believe that the quality and nature of constituency
representation on the new GNSO council is an implementation issue within the
context of the Board's resolution. Specifically the tests of bottom-up, and
diversity are not passed by the current proposal.
A compelling argument for change (from the
ERC) = a compelling argument for the status quo.
First lets clarify numbers in a GNSO of six
constituencies. The ERC current model is 6x2 + 3 = 15.
Our model is either 6x3 = 18 (preferred), or 6x3 + 3 = 21 (if
the ERC insist on nom com people too).
Why is a smaller council likely to be better ?
FOR: a smaller council of opposing interests it is hoped will
work together better. This assumes any past NC failure is a function of lack of
NC member co-operation. History tells us this is not the case. NC failure has
been slowness due to lack of professional staff support.
AGAINST: a smaller council is more subject to disruption by
one disruptive member.
AGAINST: a smaller council is more likely to have a meeting
with an entire constituency missing due to external pressures on
members.
So, are the untested advantages of small better than the
advantages of a marginally bigger NC (18 not 15)?
The disadvantages of 2 reps per constituency are in my view
compelling:
1.Diversity. 2 reps will tend to
polarise - one US, one rest of world.
2.Outreach. Lack of direct connection from
council member to region.
3.Representation. With 2 reps, most ICANN
regions will not be represented by constituency at council. Today most
are.
I fully support working towards implementation and am pleased
to be a part of the ERC policy development TF but I do consider the above
to be of outstanding importance.
Philip Sheppard
|