[council] Regarding terms of Council members

[Ross Rader]

I was first elected to represent my constituency with the GNSO Council 
in 2003 and re-elected for a second term in 2005. My final term with the 
council expires at the end of the AGM in 2007 at which point I will be 
ineligible to stand again under the registrar constituency bylaws. I was 
not a councillor on the prior DNSO Council.

Term limits, imho, are an important feature of democratic processes. I 
believe that the term related rules laid out by the registrar 
constituency (two two-year terms) are a decent and fair model for the 
GNSO to adopt as standard process for all council members.


Ute Decker wrote:
> 
> As most of you remember, I was elected at the end of 2005 for a two year
> term.  According to the IPC bylaws I could serve two terms.  
> 
> I am actutely aware of the complexity of the issues and the time needed
> to get sufficiently up to speed to play an active role, despite the
> excellent support from ICANN staff.  I certainly see the benefit of
> having councillors on board who have completeted their first term and
> see no downside in councillors serving multiple terms, provided they
> present the positions of their constituency based on appropriate
> consultation.       
> 
> Ute
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: 18 September 2006 10:17
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding terms of Council members
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> to follow the lead of our chair.
> 
> I was appointed to the GNSO Council in 2003 as a substitute for Philip
> Grabensee.
> I was elected for another term in 2004. This term ends in 2006.
> 
> Due to our constituency bylaws I'm able to serve two consecutive terms.
> Since there is no specification in the registrar constituency bylaws and
> the ICANN bylaws state that not full served terms are not to be counted
> as
> terms I would be eligible for another term.
> 
> In general I want to note that I do not really have any hard feelings
> either
> into the direction of restricting the number of terms nor into leaving
> it
> totally open. The two points I think that are very important under both
> options are
> 
> a. it is the same for all constituencies
> b. The modus and its outcome is transparent.
> 
> Best,
> 
> tom
> 
> 
> Am 18.09.2006 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
>>  
>> Hello Avri,
>>
>> When considering terms, there is also the question of whether you take
>> into account the previous DNSO structure.  The archives are available
>> at:
>>
>> http://www.dnso.org
>>
>>
>>> Note on my personal opinions on the the issue:
>>> I am not in general in favor of strict term limits, but i am 
>>> in favor of transparency that allows all to know how long 
>>> someone has been in place. 
>>
>> That is a good idea.
>>
>> For reference - I joined the DNSO Names Council in Jan 2002.
>>
>> I was elected chair of the DNSO Names Council on 29 August 2002.  
>>
>> Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes,
> Ken
>> Stubbs, and Cary Karp were all on the Council at that time.  E.g see
> the
>> minutes at:
>>
>> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020829.NCteleconf-minutes.html
>>
>> I have been a member and chair of the GNSO Council since it was formed
>> in 2003.
>>
>> So I guess I have been the chair for the past 4 years.
>>
>> Under the registrar constituency rules, I am serving my last term on
> the
>> Council as a representative of the registrars constituency.   My term
>> finishes at the AGM in 2007.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Gruss,
> 
> tom
> 
> (__)        
> (OO)_____  
> (oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>   w w w  w  
> 


Regards,

-- 

                        -ross rader
                         general manager,
                         domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet

Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog?
http://netidentity.weblog.info