[council] Proposed Resolution for Consideration

[Robin Gross]

I also agree with the direction of Ross' proposed motion.  Uniform term 
limits across constituencies is not something that needs to wait for the 
broader GNSO reforms, which could take a number of different directions 
and a long time to institute.  This is a great opportunity for the GNSO 
to act in the best interests of the wider ICANN community, while putting 
aside our own individual interests.

Robin



Cubberley, Maureen (CHT) wrote:

>As a NomCom appointee whose term is up in December of this year, and who
>has not sought re-appointment and therefore will not be returning, I,
>too support the direction set out in Ross's proposed resolution, and I
>am comfortable including NonCom appointees in any policy recommendations
>made on term limits.
>
>In light of Avri's question " Does any wording need to be added to
>include Nomcom in the scope.", I say yes, it does.
>
>Best regards,
>Maureen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:36 AM
>To: Ross Rader
>Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Resolution for Consideration
>
>Hi,
>
>Thanks for posting this.   I agree with it.
>
>Does any wording need to be added to include Nomcom in the scope.
>
>
>note: As someone in a second term, whose first term was partial, I do  
>read this as applying to me as well and am comfortable with that.
>
>a.
>
>
>
>On 9 nov 2006, at 08.21, Ross Rader wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Per Bruce's earlier request, here is a proposed resolution for  
>>discussion at the next council meeting. This may not be the right  
>>resolution, but given the interest in this topic on this list, I  
>>believe there is support for a discussion. As a result, I didn't  
>>attempt to "wordsmith" and "whereas" this too much, but the salient  
>>points of this motion are that;
>>
>>a) there should be term limits for councillors
>>b) the term shall be limited to two consecutive terms
>>c) special circumstances do exist where term limits are not  
>>appropriate and these circumstances should be accomodated by our  
>>processes
>>d) the Council should act immediately implement this recommendation  
>>at the Constituency and board level.
>>
>>I would also note that the the Registrar constituency already  
>>abides by these practices and that I am nearing a term limit  
>>myself, so I don't believe that I have any special conflicts coming  
>>into play by backing a motion of this sort.
>>
>>//begin//
>>
>>Proposed Resolution:
>>
>>The recommendations of the LSE regarding term limits for GNSO  
>>Council members should be adopted immediately by the GNSO Council  
>>with no grandfathering except in connection with the ability of a  
>>council member to serve out their existing term. A council member  
>>can serve no more than two consecutive terms (regardless of  
>>duration). Moreover, a former council member must remain off the  
>>GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent  
>>term. However, there shall be an exception to the two term limit in  
>>connection with special circumstances (I.e. Geographic diversity  
>>requirements) where a constituency is unable to find an alternative  
>>representative to serve. In applying this special circumstance  
>>exception, the existence of an otherwise qualified candidate  
>>willing to serve on the council within that constituency shall  
>>constitute a non-rebuttable indication that special circumstances  
>>do not exist. The GNSO Council will forward this recommendation to  
>>the ICANN Board of Directors for implementation in the bylaws and  
>>also recommend to the GNSO Constituencies that they voluntarily  
>>adopt these practices until such time that they have been formally  
>>implemented by the Council and Board.
>>
>>//end//
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ross Rader
>>Director, Retail Services
>>Tucows Inc.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>