[council] 3 Council members or 2?

[Ellen Shankman]

There is broad discussion also behind the scenes influenced by the
regional diversity -- so I disagree with the statement that in effect
says that because all vote alike doesn't matter if it's two or three.

Ellen B. Shankman, Adv.
Ellen Shankman & Associates
13 Weizmann Street
Rehovot 76280 Israel
tel: +972-54979026
fax: +972-89364241
e-mail:ellen at ellenshankman.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:05 AM
To: council at dnso.org; Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2?

While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency
issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC 
members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current 
plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per 
constituency. 

In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which
we have rarely been able to generate regular and
informed participation by all three GNSO Council members.
We look forward with relief to the prospect of only 
needing two members to devote so much time to 
GNSO Council activities. 

But we believe the argument applies equally well to the
other constituencies, because we note that in almost
all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC,
which is actually has the most diversified interests) all 
three representatives vote the same way. What, then,
is the point of having three representatives? 

If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC,
IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting
differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would
feel differently about this. But the record shows that 
invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way 
regardless of what region they are from on every significant 
issue. 

--MM