RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
This is a perfectly rational position, but it involves tradeoffs, as I noted earlier. I doubt that any would argue that the larger a body gets, the less efficient it gets. So there is a cost to increased size, which is why I would not favor the alternate idea either. If there is a need for a whip system (which is what I take it you are saying -- meaning a system to take the pulse of members and count noses on issues), why could not that be implemented within the constituency itself, and not require multiple members on the NC? There could be a series of regional constituency focal points, who would serve as both the distributors of info from the NC members and the recipient and aggregators of feedback from the constituency. It may be that mailing lists could serve all or some of this function. Perhaps because I have not been there/done that, I just don't see why the number of NC members is that critical from this perspective.
As I said before, this must be a point on which reasonable people can differ, since we are demonstrating that (of course, I make the assumption that we all are reasonable), but I do think there is an obligation on those who would want to revisit the structure adopted in the Blueprint to provide a compelling argument for change. Any other standard would threaten to reopen many issues, and make it very difficult if not impossible to get to finality in the time frame available.
One other option (which I recognize may not look that attractive to those on the other side of this issue): let's get through the restructuring, even if it includes what some might think are imperfect features, because it is critical that ICANN get to a position of relative stability quickly. Once that happens, issues like this could be taken up and debated without having the outcome unduly affected by the need for finality that is today driven by the confluence of outside and inside issues facing ICANN. My personal view is that arguments like this would have a better chance if not being decided in the context of the extreme time pressure we have now. In other words, while we certainly do not want to make any critical errors in our restructuring effort, what is critically important now is actually getting it done in the timeframe available. The practical fact is that all time spent by anyone on rearguing Blueprint issues, even if there is a rational basis for doing so, is not being spent on implementing. Unless your view is that this is a crippling deficiency in the Blueprint, I would argue that the better use of very finite resources (we all have day jobs) is to focus on implementation.
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
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.
-----"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com> wrote: -----
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "Jonathan Cohen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Joe Sims" <email@example.com>, "Philip Sheppard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com>
Date: 07/17/2002 10:32PM
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
Bruce, I think that it was possible in the original recommendation in the Blueprint to miss one of the key responsibilities of the elected reps: representation, and consultation. Having two reps only means that you have fewer people to consult within a constituency. Regardless of whether all can attend a meeting, there is much other work to be done in representation, beyond the NC attendance. The idea of 3 elected/3 voting isn't any different than 3 elected/2 voting except for one thing. WE remove the incentive for the elected to show up and make their own comments. I am amazed at the abdication of the constituencies -- my own constituency has fairly high standards for their representatives and voting isn't the only "expectation". :-)
Policy development and advice within the constituency and engaging in policy discussion with other constituency reps remains a priority.
So, three reps who represent, and who vote remain a key concern with the BC.
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:06 PM
To: 'Jonathan Cohen'; Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and
I note on average out of three reps, probably no more than two attend any
particular meeting of the names council. This improves at ICANN physical
Thus having 2/3 people selected by the constituency, to fill two voting
positions on the committee at anytime is probably workable. Effectively it
allows for alternates.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cohen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:12 AM
> To: Joe Sims; Philip Sheppard
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [council] Status report on implementation of
> evolution and
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Joe Sims
> Sent: 16 July 2002 11:13
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.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: <email@example.com>
> @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
> 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.