Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform
I would like to express my support for Philip's comments.
I disagree with Ken's statement that "it is incumbent on us
that we allow the collective "fruits of our labor" to become a reality. "
The Blueprint can hardly be presented as such, since it chooses to
ignore the many voices raised in Bucharest in favour of maintaining
three GNSO elected board directors, and also in keeping three
representatives per constituency on the Council. The fruits of our
labour, as presented in NC responses to the ERC, were not deemed
adequate to the reformers' intent.
Considering the volume of involvement a Council representative is called
upon to pursue, (for example I participate in the Whois and UDRP task
forces, as well as the Budget Committee), the blanket of constituency
coverage barely manages to cover the neck and toes of the numerous
activities. Reducing the amount of council representatives per constituency,
would not appear to ease this load, but rather increase it...
Getting to Geographical diversity in the board, nomcom and council,
the concern may seem trivial to some, but those of us who have
followed the ICANN process since the days of IFWP, can vouch
for the fact that it was some time before geographical diversity was
written into the bylaws, and, even when that happened, the initial
ICANN Board was excepted from complying with this (although it
was clearly specified in the White Paper). The Blueprint includes
some statements referring to the need for geographical diversity,
but a reduced board and council will mean reduced diversity,
there can be little doubt about that.
Then, and speaking for myself, my suggestion as to the new
council composition would be the following:
Since each constituency is to send a "delegate" to the NomCom,
let that delegate sit on the Council as the third Constituency council
member, and forget about three NomCom appointees being seated
on the Council. I mean, other than at election time, what work will
the NomCom have to do ?
Finally, to address the calls to cooperation with the ERC for
implementation of the Blueprint, it might be fair to ask when has
the Names Council been uncooperative ? Seeking some respect
for our points of view does not, in my understanding, place us in
a non-cooperative mode.
----- Original Message -----