ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-bylaw-revision]


<<< Chronological Index >>>        Thread Index >>>

Term limits

  • To: <gnso-bylaw-revision@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Term limits
  • From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:30:55 +0200

It is premature to move now on term limits for the GNSO council for the 
following reasons:
a) the GNSO is undergoing a fundamental re-structuring.
b) we are only starting to address issues about the election of representatives 
to Council
with the Houses. Questions include:
- are elections constituency based ?
- are elections stakeholder group based ?
- does the present system of geographical representation scale to the new 
number of GNSO
Councillors?
c) should there be different rules on term limits for the contract parties 
house and the
users house?
d) in the new structure should term limits be better established at the level 
of the Houses
or the Stakeholder groups ?
e) the vote of council for this was NOT unanimous and was forced through by 
those
constituencies (with weighted voting) who themselves already had 
constituency-based term
limits. Thus the request is out of order in the proposed bi-cameral system.
 
Tackling GNSO re-structuring in a piecemeal fashion and based on now obsolete
recommendations is no way to build trust and efficacy in the future.
 
Philip Sheppard
Business Constituency
 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>        Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy