DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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??

-----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

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

                    Sheppard"            To:     "Joe Sims"
                    <philip.sheppard     cc:     <council@dnso.org>
                    @aim.be>             Subject:     [council] Status
report on implementation of evolution and
                    Sent by:

                    07/16/02 10:59

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:
Asia Pacific

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

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.


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 >>>