RE: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

Marilyn and Grant make persuasive arguments in favor of their position, particularly regarding the pressure to "find someone" from a third region. But this argument could be turned on its head. GNSO Constituencies, when they have only two reps, may want to make sure that regions outside NA and EU get to hold them once in a while. As Marilyn puts it:
"Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com> 07/13/03 09:34AM >>> The issue of how a representative votes is not the same issue as the diversity of perspective which has gone into the development of a position.
Exactly. This means that the diversity of perspectives can be taken into account regardless of whether there are two or three formal representatives. The constituency structures ought to provide representation to ALL the regions - at least, ours (NCUC's) does. And our new NCUC charter will impose "term limits" on GNSO Council reps. As Grant suggests, the unified position generally emerges after internal deliberations in the constituencies. ALL regions are represented in those deliberations, not just three. And that is better, no? Bottom line for me is, I don't think this is going to make a lot of difference either way. From a strictly NCUC point of view, we would rather put two people on the Council who really participate (and take responsibility for rounding up others for task forces, etc.) than have "three" representatives, one of whom is a phantom. Your mileage may vary. --MM p.s. Grant, I am shocked, shocked, to see you publicly disassociating yourself from the first-world, white anglo male caucus. What is the world coming to? (True, we honkeys could never agree on IPR protection, Whois, TLDs, at-large representation, and GNSO procedure. But our unified world-domination did extend to the selection of wine at Council dinners once in a while.)
participants (1)
-
Milton Mueller