Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudio for your explanation, but I think that we need to improve the
current situation and recommend common best practices. I may understand that
few constituencies can face problem to have people volunteering (even if I
have real doubts about those facts), I think that those constituencies have
to work internally to improve the situation and not asking for lowering
standards.
I am not sure how the WT will handle that point, but I am clearly not in
favor of what you suggest.
@Olga @Michael I think that we need to make decision about this point and
not block the on going review of the rest of document because the tight
schedule  we have

Regards

Rafik

2010/4/2 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

>  Rafik,
>
>
>
> Just to further expand on my last reply to you:
>
>
>
> In light of the complexities of the issues that fall under ICANN’s remit,
> it may be necessary or of great value to a Group to have a volunteer serve
> on the executive committee or policy committee for several consecutive terms
> before they have enough experience and knowledge etc. to serve as Chair or
> in another similar leadership position. That is if the Group is fortunate
> enough to have such volunteers who are willing and able to dedicate the time
> and energy necessary to serve in these positions in the first instance.
>
>
>
> No matter how representative a group may be of its community, one cannot
> assume that there will be endless pool of willing volunteers to serve in
> these positions. On the contrary, what likely matters more is what community
> or interest is being represented by these Groups and how directly or
> indirectly ICANN’s policies impact them. Each group represents significantly
> varying interests that are impacted by ICANN’s policies is a markedly
> different way, so this directly impacts participation. Therefore rules
> restricting participation on committees can impact Groups very unequally,
> and this is separate and aside from the issue of representativeness.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I believe we need to thread very carefully here. We have agreed
> to establishing term limits for constituency officers, which implements the
> BGC recommendation we were tasked with addressing. If groups want to expand
> term limits to other areas of their operations based on their specifics,
> that is of course something they are always able to do through their
> charters. If it’s an issue our work team feels very strongly about, then I
> suggest we consider including it as a best practice.
>
>
>
> Hope this was helpful.
>
>
>
> claudio
>
>
>
> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 02, 2010 3:36 AM
> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting
>
>
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
> I am confused about your suggestion as the limit will be meaningless if it
> is not applied to executive committee.
>
> if there is fears about volunteering, that issue is more linked to
> representativeness level of Group.
>
>  "but I would not extend the term limit to policy and executive committees.
> This is consistent with the BGC recommendation which we are tasked with
> implementing, which states: “"There should be term limits for constituency
> officers, so as to help attract new members and provide everyone with the
> chance to participate in leadership positions."
>
>  and after the effort done for II.8 I am not in favor of deletion.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rafik
>