RE: [council] GNSO Council representatives]
My memory is that some of the constituencies believed it critical for representation purposes to have three "seats" regardless of the balance of votes. We thought a compromise was reached where there would be three reps/two votes and then an evaluation. The Transition article/bylaws seems to skip past that agreement...
ICANN is a challenging and diverse environment. For the BC, at least, we need to maintain geographic diversity, and representation back into the regions. For now and the foreseeable future, having at least three reps is essential. A good part of the work of the reps is communication.
We can accept a change in votes but we need to ensure that participation from all regions is supported. Limiting the participation in council to two is not helpful to addressing that concern. I wonder how other constituencies feel about this.
We will look forward to further discussion of this issue.
From: Louis Touton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: [Re: [council] GNSO Council representatives]
Philip, Please see below.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] GNSO Council representatives
> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:58:03 +0100
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <email@example.com>
> Organization: AIM
> To: "Louis Touton ICANN" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> CC: "Council \(list\)" <email@example.com>
> the ERC reports and the new by-laws state that there will be three
> representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council up until the ICANN
> annual meeting in 2003. Thereafter, subject to Board review,
> representation will downgrade to two representatives per constituency.
> 1. Can you confirm that the annual meeting is the meeting scheduled
> 27-31 October in Tunisia?
The 2003 Annual Meeting has not been formally designated, but at this
point a good assumption is that it will be the Carthage meeting.
Article VI, Section 13 requires that annual meetings be held in the
fourth calendar quarter, and the Carthage meeting meets that
> 2. In order to allow time for GNSO input, what timetable do you envisage
> for the Board review?
The Board has not yet considered the schedule for the first annual
review under Article IV, Section 4. It is likely that consideration of
the design and schedule of the review will begin soon.
> Philip Sheppard