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

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olga,

Unfortunately, I am not going to attend today conf call, I would like to
comment the document which be reviewed, later.
just for clarification, my understanding is that we recommend term limit for
Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council Representatives
as suggested previously as compromise by Chuck. I still believe that for
such positions there will be enough candidates and volunteers,.

Regards

Rafik

2010/4/9 Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>

> Hi,
> thanks for the exchange of ideas in this list.
> I encourage those who expressed different views and concepts to think of
> possible texts to be included into our document.
> Remember please that we have a due date to finish at least Task 1, our goal
> is to review the rest of the document in our conference call tomorrow.
> Looking forward to talking to you soon.
> Best regards
> Olga
>
> 2010/4/8 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>
>  http://www.ipconstituency.org/officers.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 10:12 AM
>> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
>>
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> The bylaw---which I read in detail, did not answer my questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d be happy to direct them to the secretary –who is that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 08 April 2010 15:08
>> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria,
>>
>>
>> I refer you to the IPC bylaws:
>>
>>
>>
>> as I indicated yesterday the Officers either put out a call for volunteers
>> when new issues are posted for public comment or sometimes refer back to
>> teams or individuals that have expressed interest in ongoing policy issues,
>> such as new gTLDs, RAA, and GNSO Improvements.
>>
>>
>>
>> When submitting comments the IPC does not publish the names of
>> authors/contributors. Should you request additional details I refer you to
>> the IPC secretary.
>>
>>
>>
>> claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:49 PM
>> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> How many teams are there? Could you tell us their names?  How often is
>> membership refreshed?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m actually on that Committee of the Future ---there was one call and
>> nothing further was heard of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> This raises the question as to where the real Policy work does happen?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m afraid it seems to me that it occurs behind closed doors—in some magic
>> inner circle.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is correct that a day before a submission a paper will be circulated
>> ---but with no briefing or discussion/explanation of the options or reasons
>> for strategy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Recently and following my request –we are advised who drafted them –but
>> not the name of the Committees.  The process of allocation of work to a
>> Committee is also not disclosed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 21:34
>> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, there are teams that work on ongoing policy matters & issues. All
>> final outcomes/work products are shared for approval within the
>> constituency, usually without voting. For example, the IPC has a Committee
>> on the Future that is responsible for issues such as GNSO improvements, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:04 PM
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Both the NCUC and the IPC have them –I believe—based on the tables we
>> prepared. Perhaps Claudio can confirm as to the IPC. Its membership and
>> actions are not published --even within the Group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 20:47
>> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> We are spending a lot of time talking about 'policy committees'.  I
>> understand that within the broader GNSO context (PDP WGs, DTs, WTs).  In the
>> case of the RySG I don't believe we have ever formed a group called a policy
>> committee.  We often solicit volunteers to draft a first cut of a policy
>> statement for SG review and consideration but the whole SG then provides
>> input and expresses support or lack of support or provides minority
>> statements, all of which are recorded in any policy statements the RySG
>> submits.  Do other SGs or Constituencies actually have standing 'policy
>> committees'?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:28 PM
>> *To:* Harris, Anthony; Claudio Di Gangi; Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>> Thanks Tony –I don’t think anyone here fails to understand what a Policy
>> Committee is and isn’t.  Again –I don’t think repeating the volunteers point
>> improves it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anthony Harris [mailto:harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 17:56
>> *To:* Claudio Di Gangi; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Claudio,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this clear response, which I support in it's
>>
>> entirety. ICANN's impressive growth since the days
>>
>> of it's launching in 1999, has been possible *because*
>>
>> interest groups were allowed leeway to self-organize
>>
>> within a framework of constituencies in the manner
>>
>> tha worked best for them. Rigid and bureaucratic
>>
>> straightjackets have never been the norm in the
>>
>> ICANN environs, and I hesitate to conclude that
>>
>> this has changed today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two things caught my attention in the recent e-mail
>>
>> exchange flow:
>>
>>
>>
>> I noticed a certain skepticism about the question of
>>
>> difficulty in unearthing volunteers in constituencies,
>>
>> who would replace officers obliged to step down to
>>
>> comply with term limits. Well, be as it may, this is
>>
>> frequently a fact of life. Companies and entities may
>>
>> be willing to participate in a constituency as members,
>>
>> but not many would commit their representatives to
>>
>> engage as officers (sit on Council, Stakeholder Group
>>
>> Executive Committee, or Constituency Executive
>>
>> Committee). The reason? Simple - hours of workload,
>>
>> F2F meetings, teleconferences at unseemly hours for
>>
>> some, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> With regards to comments that emphasize the need for
>>
>> "proposed standard rules to Policy committees", perhaps
>>
>> we should venture a reminder that, within a Constituency,
>>
>> an Executive Committee is *not a Policy Committee*, but
>>
>> simply a steering group that coordinates the ongoing
>>
>> functions of the Constituency, and ensures the membership
>>
>> has all due opportunities to discuss ICANN issues, and
>>
>> provide consensus input to the Councillors, and as of now
>>
>> the Stakeholder Group Executive Committee, on policy matters
>>
>> as they emerge in the GNSO.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony Harris
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> *From:* Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> *To:* 'Victoria McEvedy' <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx> ; Gomes, 
>> Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafik
>> Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> ; 
>> gnso-osc-csg<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 11:38 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the issue is not just limited to the number of willing volunteers
>> but also about the level of experience, knowledge, understanding and
>> expertise volunteers have of ICANN and the evolving & complex issues under
>> consideration. There is also the question of the potential impact of rules
>> restricting participation on the effectiveness and efficiency of a group’s
>> operations, and the issue of the right to self-determination in group’s
>> setting their own operating rules on these issues to reflect their unique
>> aspects, characteristics, communities, etc. – as long as consistent with the
>> ICANN bylaws and the common principles the group’s agree to as identified in
>> GNSO improvements.  In this regard, a one-size-fit-all rule on participation
>> may produce disparate impact since the groups represent completely different
>> interests and communities, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> So while I think it may be easy to just say impose term limits on all
>> aspects, the impact of such rules need to be considered against the
>> potential need or benefit of term limits.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s being said, we came to agreement on setting term limits consistent
>> with the BGC recommendations for the executive leadership, i.e. the elected
>> officers. In outside parlance, term limits are often limited to the
>> executive branch only in many cases. For example, see efforts to impose term
>> limits on the Congress in the United States.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> claudio
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:43 AM
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck –while people have talked about the shortage of volunteers generally
>> – this applies to all committees/and Groups generally.
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on objections raised on WT calls it seems there are views that
>> Policy Committees involve special concerns as to transparency and now to
>> term limits and I don’t believe there has been any real discussion on the
>> distinguishing features of the Policy Committees in relation to these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* 07 April 2010 00:34
>> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not true that reasons have not been given.  It would be more
>> accurate to say that you disagree with the reasons that have been given.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:42 AM
>> *To:* Gomes, Chuck; Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>> There has been repeated objection to the application of any proposed
>> standard rules to Policy committees ---but no reasons for this have been
>> articulated and I for one do not support their exclusion. They lie at the
>> heart of the work of the Groups.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Victoria McEvedy
>>
>> Principal
>>
>> McEvedys
>>
>> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>>
>> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>>
>>
>>
>> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>>
>> London
>>
>> W2 5PL
>>
>>
>>
>> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>>
>> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>>
>> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>>
>> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>>
>> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
>> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
>> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
>> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
>> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>>
>> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
>> is created by this email communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
>> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
>> *Sent:* 06 April 2010 14:33
>> *To:* Rafik Dammak; Claudio Di Gangi
>> *Cc:* Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meetingly
>>
>>
>>
>> It may be helpful to realize that the concept of Executive Committees is
>> now embedded in all the SG charters so there is a particularly significant
>> role for these committees. Also, the concept of Executive Committees was not
>> previously built in to the Constituency concept except indiviudally by some
>> constituencies so the BGC probably didn't directly focus on these committees
>> when recommending term limits.
>>
>>
>>
>> With that understanding, a reasonable compromise might be to apply term
>> limits to Constituency/SG officers, Executive Committees and Council
>> Representatives and recommend them as a best practice for other committees
>> and subgroups.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 4:56 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 in favor of more strong wording, best practice looks really optional
>> and I am afraid that there won't be willingness to apply it in groups.
>>
>> for policy committees, they should be temporary by their nature if my
>> understanding is correct.
>>
>> to apply term limit has to be applied for executive committees.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/4/6 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Rafik,
>>
>> thanks, i appreciate your response.
>>
>> would you recommend the best practice for term limits apply only to the
>> group's executive committee or to which group committees?
>>
>> under what basis is that distinction made?
>>
>> claudio
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:40 PM
>>
>> To: Claudio Di Gangi
>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Julie Hedlund; gnso-osc-csg
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 26 March 2010 Meeting
>>
>> 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<mailto: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<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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5004 (20100406) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5005 (20100406) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5005 (20100406) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5007 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5007 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5008 (20100407) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5010 (20100408) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature database 5010 (20100408) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>
>