All, This is my personal opinion. I am not against this resolution. In fact the principle of having 3 representatives makes sense. However, if this resolution were to stand, I would have to oppose it because I do not believe that the requirement of having 2 representatives is inconsistent with the existing bylaws (as stated in the resolution below). Whether it is inconsistent or not is a point of debate in which reasonable minds may differ. In addition, arguments of efficiency are also debatable. Lets not give the Board a topic to debate and give them just the bottom line resolution. I want to support this concept. Therefore, I would recommend that we revise the motion. I will send around my recommendation later on today. Thanks -----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