I also agree with the direction of Ross' proposed motion. Uniform term limits across constituencies is not something that needs to wait for the broader GNSO reforms, which could take a number of different directions and a long time to institute. This is a great opportunity for the GNSO to act in the best interests of the wider ICANN community, while putting aside our own individual interests. Robin Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) wrote:

As a NomCom appointee whose term is up in December of this year, and who has not sought re-appointment and therefore will not be returning, I, too support the direction set out in Ross's proposed resolution, and I am comfortable including NonCom appointees in any policy recommendations made on term limits.

In light of Avri's question " Does any wording need to be added to include Nomcom in the scope.", I say yes, it does.

Best regards, Maureen

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:36 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution for Consideration

Hi,

Thanks for posting this. I agree with it.

Does any wording need to be added to include Nomcom in the scope.

note: As someone in a second term, whose first term was partial, I do read this as applying to me as well and am comfortable with that.

a.

On 9 nov 2006, at 08.21, Ross Rader wrote:

...

Per Bruce's earlier request, here is a proposed resolution for discussion at the next council meeting. This may not be the right resolution, but given the interest in this topic on this list, I believe there is support for a discussion. As a result, I didn't attempt to "wordsmith" and "whereas" this too much, but the salient points of this motion are that;

a) there should be term limits for councillors b) the term shall be limited to two consecutive terms c) special circumstances do exist where term limits are not appropriate and these circumstances should be accomodated by our processes d) the Council should act immediately implement this recommendation at the Constituency and board level.

I would also note that the the Registrar constituency already abides by these practices and that I am nearing a term limit myself, so I don't believe that I have any special conflicts coming into play by backing a motion of this sort.

//begin//

Proposed Resolution:

The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a council member to serve out their existing term. A council member can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally implemented by the Council and Board.

//end//

Regards,

Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.

As a relative outsider to the constituency structure with no horse in this race -- I am not a member of any constituency and am stepping down from my own term as ALAC liaison at the end of the Sao Paulo meeting -- I have to agree with Philip that we need a more complete discussion on the pros and cons of term limits. My fear is that some people may support term limits as a mechanism to oust individual councilors who may be too effective in advocating views that differ from their own. -- Bret

I'm glad we've begun this discussion on the merits of GNSO term limits in this situation because it seems we have an inherent tension on the constituency level wrt term limits. On the one hand, some constituencies want to "do the right thing" and impose term limits on their councilors to encourage new blood, give a variety of constituency members a voice, and avoid a situation where only a small number of constituents are empowered. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the longer a person is on the council, the more skilled and able that person is to set and steer the agenda for the entire GNSO, and a constituency would want their representatives to have this higher level of effectiveness on the council. So each constituency has to deal with this inherent tension. But, I don't see this discussion an opportunity to get rid of people who have been on the council for a long time, but rather, an opportunity to "level the playing field" between constituencies - since they are "playing by different rules". Most of the time in policy matters, I'm against term limits - that is what elections are for. But when you have a situation where there are differences between constituencies and some have limits and others do not, it disempowers those constituencies who are trying to encourage more diverse participation. That strikes me as fundamentally unfair and inequity is never good governance. So I think we should all be "playing by the same rules" - either all constituencies should have term limits, or none should. And considering the value in encouraging greater participation and a more robust variety of viewpoints, the choice should be for all constituencies to have term limits in this situation. I agree that there may be a lot of re-shuffling of the deck (to use Brett's great analogy), but at least the deck won't be stacked in favor of some constituencies over others. Thanks, Robin Ross Rader wrote:

Bret Fausett wrote:

...

As a relative outsider to the constituency structure with no horse in this race -- I am not a member of any constituency and am stepping down from my own term as ALAC liaison at the end of the Sao Paulo meeting -- I have to agree with Philip that we need a more complete discussion on the pros and cons of term limits. My fear is that some people may support term limits as a mechanism to oust individual councilors who may be too effective in advocating views that differ from their own.

You make a very valid point Bret. If this discussion is going to be useful and productive (and right-headed) it needs to be rooted in a concern for the good governance of this SO. I don't think that any of us will question the need for good governance, but I expect that we will disagree on what constitutes good governance and how to achieve it. If we can have a discussion about the issues at this level, I think we will find a productive outcome. If the discussion is rooted in personalities or specific situations, we will not find an appropriate outcome.

-ross

We, the voters of California, enacted terms limits in the 1990s, largely because some incumbents in state office had become exceedingly powerful in their control of processes and outcomes. The particular target of the California term limit initiative was Willie Brown, a powerful, progressive Democrat, who had consolidated power as the Speaker of the California House of Representatives. A ballot initiative, backed by his Republican opponents, creating term limits was placed directly before the voters, and it was approved. The unforeseen consequence is that we now have musical chairs in our state capital. In the most recent election, ended this past week, the former Attorney General became the Treasurer, the former Insurance Commissioner became the Lieutenant Governor, a number of state representatives became state senators, and a number of state senators switched over to become representatives. Anyone who thought that we were going to get new blood and new perspectives by the use of term limits was mistaken. In California, we're reshuffling the deck every two years, but we're still playing with the same cards. Another consequence of terms limits is that they empower staff over the elected representatives. When the elected representatives change, the people who provide continuity, history, and leadership become the people who have the most experience. With term limits, those people are staff. Neither in California nor in ICANN do we have term limits for employed staff (nor should we). In this way, term limits potentially could weaken the Council by placing too much responsibility for continuity and leadership in the hands of ICANN's Staff. Until we've looked at the entire GNSO structure, nothing in the current term limits proposal would prevent, for example, the ISP Constituency from electing the current BC Representatives as its Councilors, in exchange for the Business Constituency electing the current ISP Constituency's representatives as its Councilors. Even if you tried to prevent that too, the system still could be gamed by having proxies stand in place as "councilors" for others. If someone or some constituency is determined to keep certain individuals involved, you can't prevent that in the current structure of ICANN. In my view, the best way to get new blood and new perspectives is to recruit new individuals and companies with interests in ICANN's work. Over time, those people will assume the roles we need them to assume. We don't need the short term solution of term limits that, in time, may create more problems than it solves. Bret

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. Greg --- philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:

Fellow Council Members, before we leap to a resolution on term limits could we possibly have some discussion on their MERITS?

And maybe some discussion on WHY this issue can be separated from all others such as combined constituencies, the merits of nom com members, the nature of the PDP process, the role of liaisons, the role of the CCNSO wrt to overlap issues, the profile of the GNSO and its chair, the interaction with the Board?

I find this enthusiasm of certain Council members quite odd given Council's earlier reluctance to consider something actually useful for the outside world like re-writing the PDP. (If you recall Council said its too early and will staff do some fact finding?)

Philip

____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com

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

Marilyn Cade wrote:

It surprises me to see the councilors diverting away from that larger and important work item.

This is an age old practice in the halls of the GNSO. It shouldn't surprise you when you see it, but that is not what is happening here. As a councilor it is important to me, incumbent on me, to engage the my fellow councilors in dialog so that I might better understand their views on the various issues before council. Quite regularly, I might disagree with the views that are expressed in these discussions, but the important part is that the discussion has taken place and the collective understanding is increased. I am not proposing that we do not engage ourselves with the Board review of the GNSO.

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.

Nor am I proposing that Council assume management of the constituencies. I am surprised at how obtuse I've been with my characterization of the motion I put forward. It seems that I've confused a large number of my colleagues based on the discussion that has ensued! :) To be clear, the proposal has nothing to do with the governance of constituencies, their capabilities to levy fees, vet members, qualify, form and advocate positions. Nor does my proposal prevent specific members from participating in the work of the GNSO at Council or otherwise. The proposal has nothing to do with the outreach that Constituencies do, the manner they do it, or how they do it, via the web or otherwise. In fact, my proposal has nothing to do with Constituencies whatsoever. My proposal is very simple - that *Council* set *limits* on the number of consecutive terms that *Councilors* may serve. I'm sorry if I was less than clear when I described this earlier. -ross