[council] Re: Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
One clarification and some reaction.
I think your numbers are understated. At least as I understood the Board
action, they were looking for a certain balance between constituency reps
and NomCom selections. Unless they were persuaded to changes that balance,
increasing the constituency reps to 18 would likely produce an increase in
the NomCom reps to 6, thus maintaining the same ratio. So I suspect that
the difference here is not 15 to 18, but rather 15 to 24.
Secondly, you assume again that 2 constituency reps means one US and one
ROW. I just don't understand that. Why does the US get an automatic
berth? I would think, like other aspects of geographic diversity (perhaps
meetings are one good illustration), the US would take its turn like all
On your other points, a constituency can always have alternates available
if NC members can't make a particular meeting; if someone is really
disruptive, kick them out; I'm not sure that 2 out of 5 (or 6) is
dramatically worse than 3 out of 5 (or 6); and I remain unpersuaded that NC
membership is a necessary prerequisite to effective outreach, for the
reasons in my last note.
Still, if you feel this point is a critical flaw in the Blueprint, you
should certainly feel free to raise it. FWIW, I have yet to hear what I
consider a compelling argument, but you don't have to persuade me.
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" <email@example.com>
<philip.sheppard cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
@aim.be> Subject: 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
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
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.