RE: [liaison6c] RE: [council] Draft Revisions to the ICANN Bylaws Relating to GNSO Restructure
> -----Original Message-----
>
> it is also
> important to remember that it is Council that
> will be deciding what policies to look at and
> formulating the charters of the working groups.
> The inability to speak on Council may well mean
> that the issues that are important to you do not
> get raised to the level where there is a WG to participate in.
Alan, please note that the NCSG charter NCUC proposed allows a 20% minority
within the SG to bind _all_ NCSG Council representatives to support the
creation of a WG on a topic that that minority supports. This is either a 20%
of the Policy Committee, which represents constituencies, or 20% of the
membership.
(does anyone actually read the charters we are debating?)
So minority viewpoints on policy can be represented quite well on the Council
without the distorted process of binding constituencies to a specific number of
Council seats.
Perhaps Denise's comments were made in ignorance of this feature of the
proposal, because it completely refutes her arguments. However, staff members
involved in this discussion sat in and listened as the NCUC meeting debated and
discussed it in Mexico City, so I know that Ken Bour at least is fully aware of
it.
Anyway, as I said before, I am happy to discuss and debate the issue with you,
Alan, and other legitimate stakeholders in the process. But this is our debate
and the Board's decision. The staff has no business intervening in the debate
the way it has; they are only involved to facilitate our discussions and not to
act as a substitute for the Board.