Council, I fully endorse Mike Palage's suggestion to ask the Board now for a by-law change to recognise the efficacy of three reps per constituency on a permanent basis. Philip

Dear Council Colleagues, I concur with Mikes view as well. Besides this, having the matter settled will make the elections in the constituencies easier if the people actually know for how many real reps they have to vote. Best, tom Am 13.09.2004 schrieb Philip Sheppard:

Council, I fully endorse Mike Palage's suggestion to ask the Board now for a by-law change to recognise the efficacy of three reps per constituency on a permanent basis.

Philip

Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w

Amadeu: I think we have both seen much stranger things happen in ICANN than my latest suggestion. In KL you talked about how the Board says nothing while all the negotiations take place in the hallways. That bothers me as much as it does yourself. If you look at the minutes, I am one of the more vocal Board member beside Vint. In fact Vint has made several comments in the past about me always wanting to interject. That is one of the reasons I always try to sit in your old board seat to uphold your noble tradition. Although I may make infrequent posts to the Names Council list, I in fact engage in regular contact with Names Council reps and various members of the constituencies. It is this regular contact that allows be to keep track with the ins and out of the domain name industry. I figured a public post to the names council list was more inline with ICANN's open and transparent mandate, as opposed to a private post to Bruce or other Names Council reps. Despite being on the Board, I am still as you are aware active in both the Registrar and IP constituency. Plus I try to keep in regular contact with the business and ISP community. Much like yourself when I am done my turn on the Board, I am heading back to the good old GNSO. That is one of the reasons I try to listen in on all the council calls. My grandmother always use to say, be nice to the people going up the ladder because your going to have to see them on the way down the ladder :-) The purpose of the suggestion was that I saw it as futile for the GNSO to operate on perpetual one year extensions. As Thomas Keller said this makes it very difficult for constituencies to plan elections. With regard to the three vs. two argument. I like yourself was a strong advocate of a smaller names council to facilitate consensus building. That was in fact the formal reason give by the Evolution and Reform Committee, "Each was to select two voting members to the Council. We believed that this balance was important to create the maximum incentives for the creation of a consensus position." See http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02s ep02.htm Listed below are reasons why I believe a rather strong argument can be made that three representatives are better than two despite the original guidance from the evolution and reform process. #1) The smaller council representative was to allow for future constituencies. How many new constituencies have been recognized since ICANN 2.0 - ZERO. How many new constituencies have been recognized from ICANN 1.0 - ZERO. Therefore, the argument/fear of a super sized Names Council has never nor will never materialize. #2) The ALAC was suppose to provide a forum for greater individual participation within the ICANN structure. Although the ALAC has made some postive strides, it is still a far way off from the body as originally envisioned by the Evolution and Reform process. Therefore, the GNSO remains the only meaningful forum where an individual can attempt to make a positive impact on ICANN policy forumulation. Given that reality, I believe allowing for greater participation at the Names Council level is justified. #3) Despite the push for a smaller councils, the ccNSO in their by-laws elected for three representatives per region, NOT two. Why should the ccNSO be afforded greater diverse representation that the GNSO. One of the arguements first put forward by Philip Sheppard during the evolution and reform process was the need to increase geographic diversity. See the following thread between him and Joe Simms. I believe the arguments that Philip put forward have upheld over time. See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00384.html. #4) Despite promises of additional staff support when ICANN's budget was substantially increased to the 8.6 million dollar level under ICANN Evolution and Reform, there has not been the necessary staff support delivered to meet this need. However, notwithstanding the potential new staff hires under the 15 million dollar budget, Names Council reps will continue to play a dominate role in the policy development process. #5) The Evolution and Reform process was not a static document. The fact that the time frames set forth in the PDP have shown to be unreasonable, it is not unreasonable for other tenets of the Evolution and Reform process to be revisited. Moroever, given ICANN's bottoms up consensus mandate set forth in the by-laws, if the Names Council feels they are more productive with three as opposed to two representatives why should ICANN staff or the Board interfere with their request. #6) Having monitored most Names Council calls over the past year and a half, very rarely do constituencies have full representation. By allowing three representatives, there is a greater chance to have a particular constituency have their viewpoint represented. I believe all of the aforementioned reasons set forth a substantial basis to request a by-law amendment. The lawyer in me hates to admit when I am wrong. However, as one of the original proponents of the two representatives, I believe in retrospect that I was wrong. Thanks again for your input which I have always valued since first meeting you in Washington DC in January 1999. Although it seems like yesterday, it is amazing all the strange things that have happened over the years. Again I have a strong respect for the separations of powers and I will be quiet again. Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: Amadeu Abril i Abril [mailto:Amadeu@abril.info] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:19 PM To: michael@palage.com Cc: John Jeffrey; 'council' Subject: Re: [council] Reminder regarding terms of office Mike, Onthe merits you might be rigght... but don't you find at least strange and ambarrssing that a Board member wirtes to the Council recommending us which proposal we should send to the Board? I understnd that it is difficult to resist such an attractive argument ("electorally speaking") but we should have clearer roles and stick a bit to the suppsoed "separation of powers", don't you think? ;-))) In any case, and as for the argument itself, you all know that I favour smaller councils, not jsut this one, and that I think that the Board had to stick with the reform proposal.. but after a couple of extensions, re-opening the battle would seem useless. We might have different personal preferences, but the practice show that we can more or less with 3, as we could with 2. If some members as it ssems still have very strong feelings in favour of 3, I don't think we should reopen the internal debate. Let's reiterate the request to the Board, and see hwat happens. Amadeu On 13/09/2004, at 13:42, Michael D. Palage wrote:

Bruce:

Thanks for reminding council of this important milestone. As someone that previous had reservations about extending the number of representatives, despite the changes to the bylaws set forth by the Evolution and Reform Process, I believe that the past year has shown the clear benefit of the expanded representation. Moreover, given the newly formed ccNSO which recognizes three (3) representatives per geographic region, I would recommend the council to considering asking the ICANN Board and staff for a by-law amendment to permanently recognize the three representative structure, instead of continuing the one year exception.

Considering that ICANN is about stability and predictability, I believe both of these tenets will be promoted by amending the by-laws to recognize three representatives instead of continuing the annual exemption to the current by-laws. This is just a thought and will defer to you and the rest of council on how best to proceed to represent the collective interests of your constituencies.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 1:44 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: John Jeffrey Subject: [council] Reminder regarding terms of office

Hello All,

Just a reminder regarding terms of office.

(1) My term as chair expires on 20 Nov 2004.

From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml

Decision 1: Bruce Tonkin is elected GNSO Council chair for one year, November 20, 2003 to November 20, 2004.

So we will need to hold an election for GNSO chair.

(2) The terms of many of the Council members (2 per constituency) expire at the end of ICANN's 2004 Annual General Meeting (set for 5 Dec 2004).

From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/council/members.shtml

NorthA - Marilyn Cade (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Ken Stubbs (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) AsiaPac - Philip Colebrook (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Tony Harris (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthAm - Greg Ruth (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) AsiaPac- Jisuk Woo (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Carlos Afonso (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Ross Rader (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) Europe - Thomas Keller (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) LatinAC - Kiyoshi I. Tsuru A. (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) NorthA - Lucy Nichols (term expires end of annual meeting 2004) Europe - Amadeu Abril i Abril - Term: conclusion of the Annual Meeting 2004

I recommend constituencies begin to plan elections for this year.

Under the current bylaws, we will drop from 3 to 2 representatives per constituency.

My understanding is that the GNSO Council desires to retain 3 representatives, but we will need to get the Board to approve a change in the bylaws to support that request.

I recommend constituencies proceed on the basis of electing one member of the Council under the current bylaws, and also elect a reserve to be available to take up the additional seat should the Board approve.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin