I am getting confused with this discussion. We should be discussing how to address the full LSE review document. That is on the Council agenda. Can we focus first on that, please, and try to bring in some useful ideas? I fear that this unique energy of 'let's take over the constituencies governance' is diverting important discussions that I would think concern all of the GNSO members, not just the councilors. As to whether the Council should govern the constituencies, it will take bylaw changes at the ICANN level; and constituency bylaw changes. And changes in the scope of authority of Council. At present, Council does not govern the constituencies; it doesn't set their fees; nor their management structures; nor their web site content. It doesn't set qualifications for councilors, however, but the constituencies chose through voting, who represents them, thus establishing their own qualifications for their councilors. I'm not volunteering to address any of the GNSO review recommendations piecemeal. I am in full support of discussing the review recommendations and trying to develop suggestions for how to get broader GNSO input on ideas and options, as well as discussing how best to work with the Board going forward. It surprises me to see the councilors diverting away from that larger and important work item. Perhaps we can focus in on how to address the full GNSO review. For Council to take on managing the constituencies seems out of scope to me. Marilyn Cade BC Councilor -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:14 PM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be; council@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Term limits Ross, Let me amplify my point. I am simply saying that it should be up to each constituency alone to decide who may or may not represent it. I do not believe it is appropriate for anyone outside the ISPs to tell us whom we can choose to represent us in the Council; that would be tantamount to exerting control over our constituency. Greg --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Greg Ruth wrote:
Philip et al, Whether we are "leaping" or not, I agree we should have a discussion. And I believe it can start now, on this list. My opinion is that, except in the case of NomCom appointees (who represent no constituency), the matter of term limits should be left for each constituency to decide for itself.
My personal view is that the Council and the Board should decide how this group is constituted in order that the basic foundations for our
processes and outcomes are stable and predictable. I don't think that
this is a constituency decision any more than it is a constituency decision regarding how many reps from each constituency sit on the Council, or the term of those seats, etc.
From my perspective, the first question that we should be looking at is whether or no term limits are desirable. The second question is whose
responsibility it is to implement them (or not). (i.e. if limits are desirable, then is this a board, council or constituency decision?).
-ross
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com