[To: council@dnso.org] Forwarded as requested. Dial in number and participant code have been sent to Michael Palage as well. Glen -----Message d'origine----- De : Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 07:23 À : Glen De Saint Gery; gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org Objet : RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE Glen, Could you please forward this email to the Names Council mailing list and provide me information on the dial-in listen only ports for tomorrow's Names Council meeting. Thanks in advance. Mike Hello Name Council Members: I will be trying to join your teleconference today via a listen port if it is available. As the Board may be required to take action upon this proposed resolution, I would ask that you consider my "personal" comments during your deliberation of this resolution. I agree that the resolution's restatement of ICANN's core values as set forth in ICANN's by-laws, however, I see no nexus for the proposition that three Names Council representatives are more consistent with ICANN's core values that two Names Council representatives. Additionally, I see no basis for the proposition that three Names Council representatives are more "effective" that two Names Council representatives, since the Names Council has never operated with two representatives. On what data are you basing this proposition. Would it not be prudent to allow the ICANN By-laws that were properly and thoroughly vetted to be implemented prior to requesting the Board to change them. Some additional data points for consideration. If the Names Council and respective constituencies are truly concerned about outreach and global participation I would encourage them to review the NCUC proposed new charter which provides for Regional Representatives. see, http://dnso.ipsl.fr/constituency/ncdnh/20030731.NCUC-charter.html. I submit to this council that adherence to ICANN's core values as set forth in your resolution should start and remained focused at the constituency level. ICANN as we all know is a bottoms-up organization, thus ICANN's core values should be most strongly supported at the constituency level. Moreover, based on my experience and review of the various constituency by-laws, the Names Council representatives are responsible to act as directed by the constituency thus further undermining the need for three representatives as opposed to two. Finally, I was in attendance during the ICANN regional meeting in Berlin (1999) when the individual domain name holders constituency sought accreditation by the Board. Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts over the years to have this constituency recognized there has been no additional constituencies recognized by ICANN since 1999. I believe that by shrinking the Names Council to two representatives per constituency as per the by-laws, this will enable potentially new constituencies to come into existence as envisioned by the by-laws. Although there currently exists a voting balance between users and providers, there may be the need for more balance between commercial versus non-commercial users. Specifically, there are three commercial user constituencies (Business, ISP, and IP) and only one non-commercial user constituency. Just some personal comments that I thought I would share. Best regards, Michael D. Palage
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:18 PM To: council Subject: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
[To: Council@dnso.org]
At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO Council list
mercredi 13 août 2003 16:57 À : gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; owner-council@dnso.org Objet : RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
Bruce,
I would like to present the following resolution to be discussed in the teleconference:
Proposed Council resolution on Constituency representation to meet ICANN requirements on geographical diversity and informed decision-making Proposed by, in alphabetical order, Antonio Harris Ellen Shankman, Philip Sheppard Ken Stubbs
Whereas, the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three representatives per Constituency on the GNSO Council".
Whereas, ICANN core value 2.4 is: - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making".
Whereas, ICANN core value 2.7 is: - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process."
Whereas, by-law article XX.5.8 states: "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."
The GNSO council resolves that:
Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core value 2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency. With three representatives per constituency, the majority of ICANN regions ARE represented. With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented.
. Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three representatives improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and to more effectively communicate with multiple regions. . There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two representatives rather than three. . And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its review timetable: 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004.
Regards
Tony Harris