I agree with Ken. demi ====== Ken Stubbs wrote:

Mr Chairman...

because this message was received while the council was still in conference, i would hope that the vote can amended to reflect chungs e-mail.

if the council vote cannot be amended to reflect this then i would hope that chung's message be communicated along with the vote results

Thank you for your consideration

Ken Stubbs

----- Original Message ----- From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> To: "council" <council@dnso.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:39 AM Subject: TR: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

...

Message received during GNSO Council teleconference, 14 August, and only read after the teleconference. GNSO Secretariat

-----Message d'origine----- De : Chun Eung Hwi [mailto:ehchun@peacenet.or.kr] Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2003 14:31 À : gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org Objet : Re: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

To all,

I clearly support a resolution which make sure to have three representatives per constituency. If I could not be on the call, I will give my proxy to Milton Mueller.

Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:17:55 +0200, GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

...

[To: Council@dnso.org]

At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO Council list

mercredi 13 aoå ï¿½2003 16:57 å ï¿½ 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

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2216 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun@peacenet.or.kr ---------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Stubbs wrote:

Mr Chairman...

because this message was received while the council was still in conference, i would hope that the vote can amended to reflect chungs e-mail.

Ken, I am afraid that this option is not possible: the vote was cast by proxy. If the proxy giver failed to give concrete insructions, or the person holding the proxy failed to take this into account or whether the disparity lies in a "time factor" is something to be solved among them, and only among them. As Bruce has already noted, the only possible solution is to maintain both the integrity of the votre as it was cast and the integrity of the facts, appending Chun's statement to the vote. For the record, in the early days of the late Names Council I opposed (without success ,-)) accepting proxies in the Council proceedings, except the case they were necessary for a quorum requirement (if any), but not for votes as such. Amadeu, in his 45 minutes of Net access during this week (as allocated graciously by Wife ;-))