Comments in support of term limits.
Note: This is being written in a purely personal capacity as an academic. To the Board,I am strongly in favor of term limits in a general sense. I have never seen an institution, including the GNSO council, that did not benefit from the turn-over that term limits brings. One of the most important thing about term limits is that it forces constituencies to think about succession and forces them to work on bringing new members into the leadership. Without term limits, we just assume that the same good and competent people who have been there forever to lead will be there in the future. Further I suggest that term limits be applied to the individual, and not to an office or to a particular seat in the council. For example, I will be at my term limit as a Nomcom Appointee after the annual meeting of 2009. Term limits applied to the individual would mean that I cannot join a constituency (for a constituency member it would mean they could not jump to another constituency - we all wear many hats), or in the future, a Stakeholder group and claim that my clock starts all over again and get myself reappointed. As individuals it is a good thing that go do something else for a while before considering a return to the GNSO council - it can give us new perspective. And for the council, the viewpoints and methods brought in by someone new can invigorate the policy process and help to break old logjams. While I agree with the exception for regional or other balance, I think that this should be capped at 1 additional term. While it is reasonable that there can be exogenous circumstances that make it critical to keep someone on an extra term, the two years of that term should be enough to remedy that situation. This decision by the council has been on hold long enough and should be approved by the Board as part of the changes being approved for GNSO "improvements" and should be added to the by-laws as soon as possible. Avri Doria |