Regarding term limits
Hello All, Rather than an unstructured discussion on term limits, perhaps a member of Council would like to propose a motion on this topic, and then I can place this on the agenda for discussion. I may need to get some advice from the General Council's office on how it interacts with the authority of the GNSO Council. E.g does the GNSO Council have authority over the procedure of the GNSO constituencies? As far as I can tell the GNSO Council has authority from ICANN bylaws, Article X, section 2 (ii) to: " GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO" And from Article X, section 3 (4): "The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by the Board, and further provided that, until any modifications are recommended by the GNSO Council and approved by the Board, the applicable procedures shall be as set forth in Section 6 of this Article. In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO; such forums shall be appropriately moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of the GNSO and to minimize non-substantive and abusive postings." With respect to terms of Council members this is covered by Article X, section 3 (2): "2. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws: (a) the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter; (b) the regular term of one representative selected by each Constituency shall begin in an even-numbered year and the regular term of the other representative selected by the Constituency shall begin in an odd-numbered year; and (c) the regular term of one of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other two of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in odd-numbered years. Each GNSO Council member shall hold office during his or her regular term and until a successor has been selected and qualified or until that member resigns or is removed in accordance with these Bylaws." With respect to the Constituencies, the ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE, states in section 5 (3): "Notwithstanding the adoption or effectiveness of the New Bylaws, each GNSO constituency described in paragraph 2 of this Section 5 shall continue operating as before and no constituency official, task force, or other activity shall be changed until further action of the constituency, provided that each GNSO constituency shall submit to the ICANN Secretary a new charter and statement of operating procedures, adopted according to the constituency's processes and consistent with the New Bylaws, no later than 15 July 2003. It would appear from the above that the constituencies are charged with developing their own charter and statement of operating procedures. Some constituencies do have term limits. So I guess the GNSO Council can either recommend to the Board that the Board change the ICANN bylaws, or the GNSO Council could recommend to each Constituency that they introduce term limits. I expect that the Board would not want to make such a change in isolation, but would consider it as part of the process for refining the GNSO as a whole taking into account the recent GNSO review. The Council could make a recommendations to the constituencies, but they may also decide to wait and see how the overall refinement of the GNSO goes before changing such a procedure. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
The GNSO review process is the best place to address any issues related to the constituencies, it would seem to me. However I am not clear what the Board term limits are. I'll look that up as a point of information, or perhaps the Council can address this in an organized manner in developing questions that Council might suggest to be examined' keeping in mind the concept that the constituencies are not under the direction or control of the Council, thus constituencies themselves will have to discuss their views on how to input and participate in responding the GNO Review, as well as the Council. Regards, Marilyn Cade. Regards, Marilyn Cade -----Original Message----- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:38:15 To:"Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Regarding term limits Hello All, Rather than an unstructured discussion on term limits, perhaps a member of Council would like to propose a motion on this topic, and then I can place this on the agenda for discussion. I may need to get some advice from the General Council's office on how it interacts with the authority of the GNSO Council. E.g does the GNSO Council have authority over the procedure of the GNSO constituencies? As far as I can tell the GNSO Council has authority from ICANN bylaws, Article X, section 2 (ii) to: " GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO" And from Article X, section 3 (4): "The GNSO Council is responsible for managing the policy development process of the GNSO. It shall adopt such procedures as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, provided that such procedures are approved by the Board, and further provided that, until any modifications are recommended by the GNSO Council and approved by the Board, the applicable procedures shall be as set forth in Section 6 of this Article. In addition, the GNSO Council is responsible for managing open forums, in the form of mailing lists or otherwise, for the participation of all who are willing to contribute to the work of the GNSO; such forums shall be appropriately moderated to ensure maximum focus on the business of the GNSO and to minimize non-substantive and abusive postings." With respect to terms of Council members this is covered by Article X, section 3 (2): "2. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws: (a) the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter; (b) the regular term of one representative selected by each Constituency shall begin in an even-numbered year and the regular term of the other representative selected by the Constituency shall begin in an odd-numbered year; and (c) the regular term of one of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in even-numbered years and the regular term of the other two of the three members selected by the Nominating Committee shall begin in odd-numbered years. Each GNSO Council member shall hold office during his or her regular term and until a successor has been selected and qualified or until that member resigns or is removed in accordance with these Bylaws." With respect to the Constituencies, the ARTICLE XX: TRANSITION ARTICLE, states in section 5 (3): "Notwithstanding the adoption or effectiveness of the New Bylaws, each GNSO constituency described in paragraph 2 of this Section 5 shall continue operating as before and no constituency official, task force, or other activity shall be changed until further action of the constituency, provided that each GNSO constituency shall submit to the ICANN Secretary a new charter and statement of operating procedures, adopted according to the constituency's processes and consistent with the New Bylaws, no later than 15 July 2003. It would appear from the above that the constituencies are charged with developing their own charter and statement of operating procedures. Some constituencies do have term limits. So I guess the GNSO Council can either recommend to the Board that the Board change the ICANN bylaws, or the GNSO Council could recommend to each Constituency that they introduce term limits. I expect that the Board would not want to make such a change in isolation, but would consider it as part of the process for refining the GNSO as a whole taking into account the recent GNSO review. The Council could make a recommendations to the constituencies, but they may also decide to wait and see how the overall refinement of the GNSO goes before changing such a procedure. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I disagree with this. I thought we had had an earlier discussion about the need to avoid taking piecemeal recommendations from one or other GNSO review? We need to consider changes holistically and within the context outlined at the last Council meeting. Philip PS Constituencies already have internal rules - that is bottom-up.
There is a real danger here, that one by one we all come along with the parts of the GNSO Review we particularly like (for whatever reason) and draft a motion before Council. This requires a much wider debate, particularly at a time when some of the overarching recommendations could considerably change the way Council is both constructed and acts. Both the timing and the approach raises major issues. I'm not even sure this is workable with the geographic constraints that are currently in place. Forcing a vote on such a topic at this time is both unwise and unacceptable when the ramifications and on ALL Constituencies is very substantial. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: 09 November 2006 08:56 To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Regarding term limits - GNSO review I disagree with this. I thought we had had an earlier discussion about the need to avoid taking piecemeal recommendations from one or other GNSO review? We need to consider changes holistically and within the context outlined at the last Council meeting. Philip PS Constituencies already have internal rules - that is bottom-up.
Philip and fellow council members In response to your comments Philip, I specifically recall the gentleman from the London School of Economics indicating in one of the briefings I attended that Council Term Limits was one area where he felt that beneficial action could be taken immediately & independently of other suggested changes. I do firmly believe in the majority of the other LSE recommendations and I personally have taken my own first step in recognizing that there needs to be some "fresh blood" & different perspectives on the council and have decided not to seek re-election to the council (my term ends with the Sao Paulo meeting) The 7+ years I have spent on the council (as both a member and Council Chair for 2 terms) have been challenging, interesting, and most of the time, very rewarding & satisfying. I have seen over the last 12-18 months a disturbing trend (a heavy strain in the structure) which makes it very difficult for all of us to be as effective as we need to be as a deliberative & consultive body. I am personally very concerned about the next steps in this LSE process. In addition to fresh perspectives on the council, there needs to be outside participation in this transition as the current council is just "too comfortably in-place" and many members will be reluctant to make some of these much needed changes. Some may very well have gotten "too embedded" in these positions & will find just about any way to avoid having to give it up. The analogy I made in our LSE Q&A session was one of letting an alcoholic prescribe their own course of treatment. We need to acknowledge this reality, then we will end right back up in 12-18 months with the same problems & dis functionality. I suspect that many in the ICANN community see the need for injection of new perspectives, personalities & enthusiasm into this body. I I hope that my actions will start the ball rolling in a positive way. My very best wishes to you all, Ken Philip Sheppard wrote:
I disagree with this. I thought we had had an earlier discussion about the need to avoid taking piecemeal recommendations from one or other GNSO review? We need to consider changes holistically and within the context outlined at the last Council meeting. Philip
PS Constituencies already have internal rules - that is bottom-up.
Hi, If I read the LSE report correctly and understood the talk we got, this was one of the recommendations that could be taken independently. Additionally, I don't think there was an agreement to not take piecemeal steps, only an argument by some that we shouldn't. I am afraid that if we wait for the day that we do all or nothing, we will do nothing. But perhaps this is a misplaced fear. a. On 9 nov 2006, at 00.55, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I disagree with this. I thought we had had an earlier discussion about the need to avoid taking piecemeal recommendations from one or other GNSO review? We need to consider changes holistically and within the context outlined at the last Council meeting. Philip
PS Constituencies already have internal rules - that is bottom-up.
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Ken Stubbs -
marilynscade＠hotmail.com -
Philip Sheppard -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com